Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Big Think"
channel.
-
Because misinformation should not be allowed to fly by the radar unchecked or unchallenged...because some people really don’t know any better, and will be swayed by this sort of bullshit and propaganda. If enough people are suckered by a con like this, then you eventually get an angry mob...who can then effect policy or even worse, do real harm to others. So it’s better that people not remain silent, experts can provide real information to counter misinformation, so they should do what they can.
Flat Earth is in a real sweet spot within conspiracies, in that pretty close to anyone can be an expert on this topic...because we all live here, we all have experience with Earth, so we all have some knowledge or insight to impart on the subject. Most of Earth science is just basic physics and geometry, it’s really not hard to debunk Flat Earth, so it gets a lot more attention because of how easy it is to join the conversation, we all have some expertise on the subject, because we all have direct experience with it.
It’s also fun, I think we all generally love solving a good puzzle and this one doesn’t require much effort, but it’s still pretty satisfying, so it’s just in that sweet spot of simple but satisfying at the same time. So ya, it’s gonna get a lot of attention, it’s interesting.
If we’re worried at all, it’s because we see what misinformation is capable of and we see what it’s currently doing to people. Paranoia seems to be running rampant lately and bullshit like flat Earth isn’t helping. So we’ll argue, because bullshit should be dispelled...hopefully it will keep others from falling for it.
9
-
Firstly, no, Polaris has not always been the north star. 3000 years ago it was actually Thuban…that is what’s actually documented. So right off the bat, your knowledge of basic astronomy has got some holes in it.
The stars move…any amateur astronomer could tell you that…it’s a big part of what astronomers do, is record the position of stars each year, and track their shifts. They’ve been doing this for centuries, it’s long been confirmed, the stars are moving…including Polaris. The reason it takes so long from our perspective is for several reasons, the main reason being because of parallax effect. Distance has a profound effect on motion…it’s why planes in the sky moving at 500 mph, barely appear to crawl across the sky. And that’s just at 3 miles away, imagine what trillions upon trillions of miles would do. Here’s another way of looking at it, the Sun moves at what, about 500k mph? It’s diameter is about 950k miles, roughly? Okay, so in 1 hour, it moves about half of its diameter….wow…it’s really moving alright. Put that into perspective now. Stand straight, now move slowly forward over the course of an hour, until you’re half a foot further…feel like you’re goin very fast? Velocity is relative, a mile is significant only to the microscopic life living on this spec of dust we cal Earth. Now at that rate of travel, if the closest person was in say China, how long would it take to close that distance ya think? And that’s only IF they were standing still…
So you’re not quite putting your full attention on this I feel. But does that thought experiment help a bit? And we do actually record a noticeable shift in stars as we orbit around the Sun, it’s called stellar parallax and it’s a big part of the evidence that actually started the heliocentric model, and it’s used still today to measure the distances to stars.
Second, you’re close when it comes to celestial navigation, but it’s not 69 miles to horizon…it’s 69 miles to each major latitude line, yes, but geometrically you measure line of sight to horizon, which is only a few miles from the deck of a ship, 15 miles max. You don’t have to see 69 miles for this to work…you’re just measuring the angle from horizon, which can be any distance from you…it’s just your guide angle to the star, the point is that the surface curvature changes your angle relative to the star. Of course this would occur on a flat surface as well, with Polaris on centre, the difference is that on a flat surface, the drop of Polaris wouldn’t be a consistent 1 degree drop every equal distance of 69 miles. The fact that we do measure a consistent 1 degree drop every 69 miles, is actually more evidence that Earth is spherical. That’s what we’d expect to happen upon a consistently curving surface. Seriously…what made you think you have to see 69 miles? 🤷♂️ You’re just measuring the angle of the surface in relation to the star…that’s how this works. If Earth was flat, latitudes wouldn’t be consistent.
So again…you’re almost right, but you’ve got some information twisted.
Onto your Venus question, night actually begins on the side of Earth, not completely on the opposite side of Earth. So this still gives you quite a wide view of that portion of space, where the Sun has been blocked by surface, but the portion of space beside it, is still quite visible. And Venus isn’t always directly in front or behind the Sun, it orbits too, so much of that orbit is spent way outside of the Suns line of sight. So why wouldn’t we be able to see Venus for a few hours after the Sun becomes blocked? 🤷♂️ Now if we still saw Venus in the middle of the night, when we are directly facing away from the Sun, then that would be odd…but we don’t. We only see Venus a few hours after sunset, or a few hours before sunrise…as we’d expect we would, upon a spherical Earth, with its orbit between us and the Sun. This is actually more evidence that helped astronomers determine the orbital positions of planets. So another swing a miss really.
These really aren’t BIG problems…like you seem to think. Maybe 500 years ago they were, before we had all the data and evidence we do today, but these are pretty easy to answer today, it’s basic astronomy knowledge today. You just have some major holes in your information currently…that’s the real problem here.
You know it’s funny…you say everyone else is just listening blindly to what they’re taught, but I’d be willing to bet you got most (if not all) of this bad information, from a Flat Earth channel, that you blindly listened too and didn’t really question. To be fair though, these were good questions a long time ago…today though, they’re a bit trivial. Don’t be so quick to assume it’s everybody else who’s wrong…true intelligence I feel is typically marked by ones self awareness, of their own limitations.
You are being lied too though…but not by who you think.
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Okay, but the p900 isn’t a magic new piece of technology like you seem to think. Many telescopes are more powerful, and have existed a long time, as have many other cameras with zooming lenses…I’m almost starting to think Nikon started the Flat Earth conspiracy, so they could sell a camera, cause you guys seem to think the p900 is the only camera in existence…it’s rather odd. Do you really think the P900 was the first zoom camera or something? How do you think a zoom lens works? It’s basically just a regular telescope, the same invention we’ve had for hundreds of years now, but with an auto function that adjusts the lenses inside the lens case, to increase focal length, with a touch of a button. Old telescopes you had to do this manually, but you absolutely can zoom in with a regular telescope, while looking through it…and that’s how scientists have been making these observations for centuries now.
You must have a really low opinion of science, if you actually think they never once thought to use a telescopic lens for their observations of boats going over horizon. That’s exactly how they make these observations. Eventually, objects would reach a point where no amount of magnification could render something visible anymore…indicating it was being obscured by the surface.
Flat Earthers with their mighty p900’s aren’t bringing things back from horizon…they’re just demonstrating the vanishing point effect. Vanishing point is your eyes physical limit to render something visible due to its angular resolution…it can and does happen before horizon. A telescopic lens can magnify and resolve light much better than your eye can, extending the vanishing point…but scientists noticed there’s eventually a point where things begin to sink into horizon, and no amount of magnification will bring it back anymore. That’s when something has actually reached the horizon.
Flat Earthers haven’t been bringing things back from the horizon, they just think they have been…in reality they’ve just been confusing vanishing point for the horizon.
Plenty of examples online of tens, hundreds, to thousands of feet missing from the base of ships, buildings, mountains…no amount of magnification able to bring them back. That’s when you know something is actually beyond the horizon.
It’s fine to question things, but I feel this is just another example of human error, that got blown out of proportion. You guys got so excited with your conclusion, you didn’t bother to check for possible errors before submitting. This is why peer review was added to the scientific method in the first place…to catch human errors like this. You’re of course welcome to present a counter argument to refute this falsification, but I do feel that’s the actual reality of your current conclusion.
6
-
From what I’ve gathered, neither Neil or Dubay knew about any debate beforehand, Joe just penciled them in without asking first, and was probably too fuckin high to realize or understand why that’s not very professional, or good of him to do. Would you accept a debate you didn’t agree too beforehand? Probably not…so why should Neil? 🧐
2nd, Neil has made it pretty clear in many public interviews that he doesn’t do debates. Debating is a skill, and not every scientist is interested or well practiced in public debating. It’s a sad reality that you don’t have to be right to win a debate, you just have to be a better talker/bullshitter. This is a skill one can acquire, if it’s an interest they have. So he (like most scientists) doesn’t see it as very productive to engage layman, with no background or experience in science, in debates where endless speculation and bullshitting can win an audience over, better than actual data and research ever could. Takes years to grasp the data and information obtained through a lifetime of scientific research…it’s very difficult to shorten that for an audience of layman in a 1 hour debate, but a conman can sure lie and bullshit endlessly to captivate an audience into believing falsehoods. Most people have the attention span of a newt these days…what do you think is gonna grab their attention more? The huxter sensationalizing a grand conspiracy…or the scientist walking them through a bunch of boring numbers and data? If even just 10 out of a hundred people are swayed though, the huxter gains potential customers. See how this grift works yet?
For this reason, scientists actually have to be very careful with who they interact with. Conmen often try to bait scientists into debates, because they know it’s free advertising for their bullshit. They don’t have to convince everyone, the goal is just to get in front of as many people as possible, debating celebrity scientists is free marketing.
So Neil is smart not to get into a public debate, with a known conman, over a massive channel with millions of listeners….especially when he didn’t agree to any debate beforehand. He gains nothing, while the huxter who baited him gains a massive marketing opportunity. Not very smart.
In any case, Dubay has been called to debate by many fellow YouTubers over the years…and he’s accepted none of them so far. Not one debate so far, out of probably hundreds of calls…so if we use your logic, what’s he so afraid of? 🧐
In my opinion, 1-2 hour public debates don’t settle science, and we should never give the impression to the general public that they do. It just opens the flood gates for an endless stream of conmen and pseudo intellectuals, pushing bullshit on the under educated masses…giving them the free marketing platforms they’ve longed for since science was established.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Criticism is free speech too, free speech goes both ways. Just as people are free to question science, science is free to question the people attempting to falsify science. That’s how it works, the truest conclusion can hold up to all criticism. By whining about NDT criticizing flat Earth, you’re basically saying he is not free to do so...so you’re denying his freedom of speech. It goes both ways, so you’ll just have to accept that. Criticism is free speech...we have just as much reason to question flat Earth, so don’t pretend like we don’t.
Flat Earth has no working scientific model and is not used in any applied science today, from engineering, navigation, communication and infrastructure...the model that’s used is the Globe model and it works. If it was wrong, then it wouldn’t work...it’s that simple. Junk science doesn’t work, that’s kind of the nice thing about it...it reveals itself by how useless it is. So it shouldn’t be so easily ignored that Flat Earth is not a working scientific model. We have every reason to question FE and defend the model that actually does work. That’s all people like NDT are doing, exorcising their right to free speech.
6
-
6
-
@ralphricart3177 You people do not have a working model, so there’s really nothing to debate. 😅 Scientists and experts should never debate against potential con men, or crack pot ideologies that are objectively wrong. Because it just gives the wrong impression that these concepts have legitimacy, when they don’t, so we shouldn’t pretend they do. Also, It’s not Neil’s job to debate, that’s not what he does, he owes you people nothing, so why would he? It’s just a waste of his time and if the opponent is a con man, then he’s just giving him a wider audience to spread his bullshit. So Neil gains nothing, while the flattie gets all the attention they crave, plus free advertising on a major platform.
Whine all you want, they’re not going to debate an internet hoax that a few suckers fell for.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
It’s a good question, so I don’t mind answering. It’s just the limitations of photography really, a camera sets an exposure rate for an image (or a photographer does it manually), the trouble is that when you take a picture of the Earth from space, you have to lower exposure so that the image renders clear. If a camera or photographer didn’t adjust the exposure lower, then the final image would just be a white blur, which kinda makes it pointless, you want to have the clearest image possible. So they lower exposure to capture an image of Earth with all its features. Exposure basically just limits the amount of light coming into the shutter and onto the film. But the stars are not as bright as the Earth from space, so when exposure is lowered, anything not bright enough to make it onto the film won’t be seen. So, since the stars are not very bright, their light doesn’t make it onto the exposure. Hence why you won’t see them in most photos of Earth.
But you should look up the photos taken of Earth while on the night side of the planet. These photos require a higher exposure, so you’ll see lots of stars in those photos. Just look up the ISS videos taken during their night pass. You can find them on YouTube, the exposure is increased in these images, allowing a lot more light into the shutter.
Your eyes kind of work the same way, I’m sure you’ve noticed when you spend a good while in the dark, your eyes adjust to allow more light in, giving you a sort of weak night vision. Cameras work very similar to your eyes, they adjust for light.
Anyway, let me know if that helps. Do some further research on camera exposure and light settings to learn more.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well, Polaris actually does shift by a few arc seconds throughout a single year, but you'd have a hard time measuring that with a pipe, but I digress. Parallax is the reason why Polaris does not appear to shift from our axis, so you should learn more about it.
I'm curious though, what exactly is so scary about an infinite universe? I don't feel small or insignificant, I'm amazed every day by the power and beauty of it all, I'm happy to be here. To me, that makes God far more impressive, having created something so extremely vast and seemingly infinite, and the endless potential of what we can achieve in this never ending sandbox excites me. Do you really want God doing everything for you? Or wouldn't you prefer achieving things on your own? If I were a God, I'd respect my creations a lot more, if they stood on their own, conquering every challenge put before them despite how incredibly impossible the odds were against them.
But, that's all wishful thinking, it's not an argument. What we want should never factor into scientific inquiry, it's irrelevant. Science has never set out with any intention to destroy the concept of a God, nor could it, so ya'll need to relax. It's just a tool like any other, it has about as much agenda as a hammer does. It's just a method of thought used to deduce the inner workings of how physical reality operates, and we've been doing science, ever since we figured out how to make fires, or widdled spears for hunting, or made clothes from furs to stay warmer...it's part of who we are. Science doesn't really care what shape the Earth turns out to be, it just needs to accurate in its conclusions. To do that, we can't follow what we want to be true, we have to remain objective, or else we achieve nothing....it's really that simple.
Can't do anything with false information, so I'm sorry if you think the universe is smaller, but the evidence says otherwise, so tough titty.
5
-
Well what observation in particular are you referring too? Do you have a video of this penny at the end of the hall observation, so it could be analyzed closer? Could be anything from a less than level floor, an out of focus lens, or centre of camera was placed slightly below the floor and not level with it, etc, etc. Lots of variables to consider, so why would you expect any scientist to just believe you at your word, without being able to analyze the observation that convinced you? 🧐
As for your “zooming in on cities upside down” argument. I think you have an extremely poor understanding of how telescopes work and what they’re designed for and what they’re actually capable of. You’ve seen too many spy movies, a satellite in LEO can really only view straight down to surface, they’re seeing through far less atmosphere that way. Angle that camera to their horizon, and they’re now looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere…it won’t be able to see through it even if they were designed to magnify that far, which they’re not.
People seem to have this misunderstanding that every satellite is equipped with a powerful telescopic lens, that can zoom right into an ant on the surface if it wanted too. This is an extreme misconception. Telescopes in space like the Hubble or the James Web, aren’t zooming in on ants…they’re observing galaxies that are millions of light years across….it’s a big difference. And most satellites are not the Hubble, they’re pretty basic by comparison, they’re cameras have limits. In fact most extreme close ups of cities you see sometimes in media, aren’t taken from satellites, they’re taken from aircraft, flying just a few miles off surface.
In any case…even if NASA or any space agency could get you this picture you want…you’d just say it’s fake anyway, so why even bother? 🤷♂️ Pretty pointless bothering with a group of people who just say everything is fake, without any evidence for that conclusion. They have millions of photos of Earth from space…that’s not good enough for you? 🧐
5
-
5
-
5
-
1) The original Bedford Level experiment conducted by Samual Robotham was deemed inconclusive by peer review. It was a sloppy experiment, with no controls, that took only 1 data entry using only one marker, used the wrong mathematical formulas, and ignored important variables like height of observer and atmospheric refraction. It was a mess, he basically just designed an experiment to confirm his bias, looking only long enough to get the result he wanted, then called it a day. It actually stands today as a perfect example of confirmation bias in action, it’s why peer review is so important to the scientific method, because people do make errors, nobody is infallible. Upon all proper recreation of this experiment, it was actually found to verify Earth curvature, not falsify it. The most recent in-depth recreation I’m aware of today, is the Rainy Lake experiment, you should give it a look sometime.
2) The human eye has a limit to its angular resolution, it’s called the vanishing point in art fundamentals, but we see everything by light coming into the lens of our eye, and light has no known limit to how far it travels. As far as we’re aware currently, it has no limit, it travels indefinitely…that’s why a telescope can extend our vision, because it focuses the light that our crappy eyes could not resolve. Perspective doesn’t answer for why objects are seen to sink into horizon and become obscured bottom first. Vanishing point converges inward equally from all angles, it doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first…an obstruction does that though. The bigger problem your argument has though is eye level, it’s a fundamental rule of perspective, that vanishing point converges at your eye level, not above or below it…yet ships, building’s, mountains, etc, are seen to clearly drop below eye level. That would not happen if the surface was flat, and perspective alone was causing this vanishing effect. Look up the Turning Torso Tower observation sometime, it’s a great example of what I’m talking about.
3) How exactly does a lunar eclipse occur at all, on the flat Earth model? 🧐
4) That’s your speculation.
5) You can use the Mercator, if you know how to properly use it. It’s greatly distorted at both poles, because it’s a projection map of the globe, so you have to make geodesic corrections if you’re going to use that map for navigation. Truth is though, nobody in professional navigation uses that map, they use the WGS84 model, the most accurate survey of the globe model to date. Ask any actual pilot or sailor…non of them will say the Earth is flat, because they all navigate using the globe model…that’s a fact, not an opinion. These people were among the first to prove the Earth is in fact spherical, going back as far as Ptolemy some 2000 years ago. So you wanna really know what shape the Earth is for certain…then just learn to navigate. You’ll learn pretty quickly which model is used in navigation.
6) Okay, but why would that be so if Earth was flat? You see further as you go higher, because you’re now seeing over the curvature…it’s basically like looking over a hill. But if Earth was flat, how would climbing higher change anything? 🧐 You should be able to use a telescope across an ocean, at sea level, and see for hundreds of miles without climbing higher. Why do you have to climb higher, to see beyond 3-5 miles? 🧐 Think about that please…
7) From your tiny perspective, sure. An undisturbed body of water in free fall however, forms into a sphere, I’m sure you’ve seen a raindrop before, but they even bigger examples in space on the ISS. Level does not just mean flat, it’s one of those words in the English language with multiple definitions, depending on the context. In the context of sea level, it’s defined as a surface with all points at equal distance from centre of gravity, centre of Earth, at the same LEVEL from centre. This is also known as an equipotential surface within a field of force emanating from a centre. Water doesn’t seek anything, it’s inert, it’s just subject to whatever force is present…in this case gravity.
Kansas is flat in terms of typography…which measures from centre. Here’s how typography works; if I place a bunch of 2 inch pins, exactly 1 inch deep into the surface of a styrofoam ball, scattering them all around the ball, what’s the elevation of each pin, from surface, to the top of each pin? 1 inch…every pin is 1 inch elevation from surface. That’s what they’re saying about Kansas…they’re not saying it’s literally flat, they’re saying it’s typography data, is all measured to be equal distance from centre. Meaning it’s all roughly at the same elevation, like those pins. Still curving…but the typography has a steady, and equal elevation. Understand it a bit better now?
9) “Looks CGI” isn’t a very great argument. As a photographer, I’m sure you’re aware of 4k and 8k digital photography. These photos don’t look natural either, because they’re crisp and clearer than our eyes can produce…are they CGI, because they look unnatural to us? No, they’re photographs…just really high definition. The cameras on most modern satellites are also really high definition…so ya, they’re gonna look a little unnatural to us. In any case, prove that they’re not real…it’s a dumb argument I feel, because you can really only speculate and saying it “looks CGI” doesn’t mean it is, that’s not evidence…it’s just an empty claim, a speculation.
Look up a video by Scott Manley sometime titled “Satellite photos show the true shape of the Earth”. It demonstrates pretty clearly just how oblate the Earth is. It’s such a tiny deviation, that your eyes won’t be able to see it. But Earth is not a perfect sphere…it is slightly wider at the Equator, so it is oblate. Scientists care about accuracy…it may look perfectly spherical to you, but your eyes are not measuring tools. Watch that video, see just how oblate the Earth is. Also, Tyson made a very poor comparison, he even realized it later in the discussion as he redacted the comment, calling the Earth Oblate. The example he gave though was meant as a visual aide…not to be taken literally. Most of us got that right away…but it seems Flat Earthers are only capable of thinking in absolutes, it’s something I’ve noticed…they don’t seem to grasp nuances and subtly very well, taking everything literally.
10) Good luck editing out all that water and distortion, and bubbles, and water shimmering, etc, in post…filming a space walk under water. It would be a film editors nightmare. There would be far better ways to do it…all using green screen. It’s just not logical to conclude they would film under water, then edit it out in a post production…and that would have been simply impossible 40 years ago, before modern CGI. Even today, it’s just a stupid way of doing things…they simply would not film it that way. That argument just demonstrates the general lack of knowledge and experience Flat Earthers have with most things…in this case video editing. They just assume things, based from their limited understandings and knowledge.
11) It’s fine to ask questions, but if you ask stupid questions, don’t be surprised when you get roasted for it. This is human nature…you been here long? Sometimes it does feel like you’re arguing more out of spite, than to actually raise good questions. That’s the feeling many of us get…that Flat Earth is a movement of spite, just trying desperately to put some sand in the eyes of scientists. And if that is the case, then why should we be respectful? 🤷♂️ If you’re all just trolling, why shouldn’t we troll you back in return?
Anyway, I personally do prefer a more civil dialogue myself, but I understand that condemnation has its purpose sometimes. In all honesty though, Flat Earthers do ask great questions (sometimes)…but they tend to hold those questions up as their evidence, rather than make any attempt at answering them. Questions do not equal evidence…people seem to have forgotten that. It can be frustrating, because many of us are all for answering questions, but it feels wasted when the intent was not really to seek an answer. But in any case, I hope this information is at the very least interesting, take care.
5
-
Well, thanks to conservation of momentum and relative motion, it's really not that difficult. Ever tossed anything straight up while in a moving vehicle? What does it do? It goes straight up and then straight back down into your hand. But wait a second, lets say you're moving at 100 mph forward velocity, if all you did was toss the object straight up, how exactly did it keep pace with that forward velocity once it left your hand? Because momentum is conserved at all times, everything in motion stays in motion...this is basic physics of motion, the laws of motion. The science of orbital mechanics isn't much different, the rockets are traveling WITH the Earth, so it's already moving at those extreme velocities WITH Earth, moving relative to its velocity. So it's really not a problem, because rockets (and everything on Earth really) already have that velocity right from the start, what they need is just a little extra to get out of Earths gravity well, the rest is already in motion.
See the real problem, is people are generally pretty ignorant to a lot of physics and science, and so they reach a lot of false conclusions because of these current gaps in their knowledge. Flat Earth is just doing this to the extremes, these people are very scientifically illiterate. Doesn't mean they're stupid, far from it, they just lack a great deal of knowledge. You could have answered your questions of the moon landing, with just a little extra physics knowledge, then it wouldn't seem so impossible. Point is, just cause you don't know how something was achieved personally, doesn't make it impossible. People shouldn't be so quick to assume they have all the knowledge they need to solve a problem.
5
-
@geraldreusser8366 No it wouldn't, you toss a rock out of a moving vehicle within our atmosphere, it's now being stopped by the drag force, from the air that it's now smashing into. In vacuum, there is no air, nothing for the rocket to smash into and slow it down, so nothing to stop its forward velocity, so it will continue forward indefinitely until met with a resistance or unbalanced force of some kind. That's the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force. In your example, you've introduced an unbalanced force, in the form of drag force...a rocket does not have that problem, so it's a false equivalence.
Even that rock you toss out the window is going to remain traveling forward, it still conserves momentum, but it's reduced by the drag force effect caused by the air particles that are not moving relative to the cars velocity.
Again, every vehicle on Earth is moving WITH the Earth, and so is already matching every motion and great velocity the Earth is. That momentum is conserved...it's basic physics of motion. So a rocket does not need to work its way up to achieve the velocities of our Earths motions...it's already moving with the Earth, so it's already achieved those velocities. At that point, it's as easy as tossing a rock between you and another person, while inside a jet moving at 500 mph, it's effortless...it's basically the same physics. Can you toss a rock at 500 mph to keep up with the forward velocity of that passenger jet? No, of course not...but luckily you don't have too...because momentum is conserved. :/
There are literally thousands of different, easy to perform experiments, that verify the law of conservation of momentum and relative motion. You're ignorance to that science is not argument against any of it. So no, I'm sorry...but you're certainly not the one to falsify hundreds of years of established Newtonian physics, that we now apply in space travel and orbital mechanics, among many other fields of applied science. Because lets not mince words, what I've just explained to you is fundamental physics, that EVERY scientist and engineer around the world, understands and applies when dealing with the concept of motion in their work. It is far beyond an opinion, it is applied science.
5
-
Many of us have looked into this subject, pretty thoroughly, and we reached the opposite conclusion. All we found was conmen and narcissists, exploiting people’s lack of first hand knowledge and their growing loss of trust in the system they once relied on for this information. You can call our conclusions anything you want, but we experienced liars from the other side of the fence, we saw that things weren’t adding up in the FE claims, and we’re not just going to ignore that. Certainly not because someone uses buzz words like “cognitive dissonance” in an attempt to rattle us, and make us feel as though we didn’t think for ourselves. Maybe it’s you who should consider the very real possibility, that you’re falling for an online hoax. It’s not hard to lie online, misinformation is rampant, the internet is a conman’s paradise.
Doesn’t really matter how smart you are (or think you are), if you lack the pieces to a puzzle or have been given the wrong pieces, then you won’t have much of a chance in solving it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@patrickhickman8723 Now I’ll answer your question. Level has many different definitions, one such definition is “when all points along a surface are equal distance from a centre”. So for example, the surface of a bowling ball can be defined as level, because all points on its surface are equal distance from centre, they’re at the same LEVEL from centre. That’s how the word is being applied in “sea level”.
Again, your error is in your own ignorance and lack of knowledge. You seem to think level has only one definition…but I’m sure you know how the English language works. Single words can have many different definitions, depending on the context. For example the word “fly”. It can be a verb describing the act of flying, or it can be a noun, talking about the simple house fly. Level has MANY differences uses and definitions. It can mean flat tangent, or it can mean a position you hold with another person “at the same level of employment”, or it can mean what level you’re on in a building, or as an adjective it can be used to describe a surface at equal potential distance from a centre.
Go ahead and look up the many different definitions of level sometime, or just search the term “sea level” sometime.
Point is, level does not just mean flat. Learn how the context can affect the definition and use of a word, please.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
People can debate it all they want, he’s just saying he’s not interested in a debate he feels is objectively wrong. Why should he be forced to debate something he finds to be nonsensical? When you’re working directly with scientists who are putting satellites into orbit on a regular basis…pretty pointless to argue the basics of that science, that’s been settled for hundreds of years now. From his perspective, there’s really no point…they likely wouldn’t be convinced anyway, so it’s a wasted effort.
More to that point, it can actually do more to help spread misinformation, by entertaining it and providing an audience for it. Conmen target and bait big names like Tyson for a reason, he’d bring a larger audience. The sad truth is, you don’t have to be right to win a debate, you just have to be a better talker. Debating is a skill, a skill conmen have honed, so why give potential conmen what they want most…attention? It just sends the false impression that these kinds of topics actually have merit and legitimacy. So it’s smart not to take that bait, far better to just ignore them, then they eventually fizzle out on their own.
Flat Earth isn’t holding any real cards in the scientific community, so why give them any?
5
-
Debating is a skill, and typically those who enjoy debating will practice and engage in that skill. You can win a debate, even if you’re absolutely wrong, just by being a better talker, just by having more practice in debating. Tyson has stated several times now, that he doesn’t care to debate science, it doesn’t interest him, debating doesn’t interest him, so it’s not a skill he’s developed, so he’s really under no obligation to do so. Why people think he absolutely has to do debates against his will, is just odd to me. Do you think you should be forced to do things you’re not interested in? I bet not…so why should he?
On top of that, conmen and grifters often use debates as free advertising. It’s just giving them what they want, a platform to spread their misinformation, they don’t even have to win, just getting out in front of more people is all they need…so debates are just marketing to them, they gain everything, regardless of whether they’re right or not. Science should never engage with known or even potential conmen, just creates this false impression that their bullshit has legitimacy. Much smarter to just ignore them, let them fade away into obscurity on their own.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
There’s probably millions of full photos of Earth from space at this point, being ignorant about it doesn’t change that.
You must have a low opinion of science, if you really think they never once thought to factor perspective in their observations. You people are not geniuses catching simple things the rest of us just overlooked, you are suckers listening blindly to conmen feeding you half truths and bullshit, successfully tricking you to think such simple things were overlooked.
The average passenger jet fly’s at roughly 500 mph, yet people can get up and walk around the cabin just fine. Ever considered there’s maybe a lot of physics you don’t quite know about or understand currently?
I don’t know what kind of poor education you received, but at my school they didn’t just talk about science and expect you to believe it all without question, they demonstrated it with pretty clear and conclusive experiments, and encouraged us to ask questions about each one.
Little hard to light up an empty space with nothing in it. Light needs something to reflect off of, otherwise you’re just seeing direct light from the source. Light in the daytime reflects off of our atmosphere, scattering the light, making the atmosphere visible. In space there is no atmosphere, so nothing to reflect light, so nothing to illuminate.
5
-
Well, these days they can accurately measure the size of Venus, by bouncing micro and radio waves off of its surface, this also is how they measure its distance, as the speed of these transmissions is clocked and measured, so they just count the return time and then calculate the distance. Once Venus's position and distance is known, it's just a bit trigonometry to figure out the Suns position...we use the exact same mathematics to navigate with, it's proven mathematics. There's many more methods for measuring/calculating that distance as well. Another example, the Sun is constantly bursting with solar mass ejections, the speed of these charged particles is known. Once one is detected visually -- since light travels much faster -- they just count the time it takes to hit Earth...this time can then be used to calculate an accurate distance.
What's important to note, is that they've come up with several ways to measure the Suns distance now, and each one gives the same figures. It's that same figure that's important here, cause if they were getting a bunch of different figures, then that would be a sign that the methods were flawed, but since every method brings that same figure, it's a good sign the methods are sound and that the figure is accurate.
Tons of university level lectures on this very topic to be found right here on YouTube, so you can learn this stuff at any time my man. It's a great question, but why remain in ignorance to the answers? Currently, you're just making an argument from ignorance, which doesn't hold up at all to scrutiny.
5
-
5
-
I agree, truth does not fear scrutiny, so did you keep watching to see if it disappeared bottom first once at full zoom? Do you honestly think scientists made this observation with the naked eye and you people are the first to do it while zoomed in? Of course not, they used a telescopic lens to see as far as they could AND THEN made the observation of boats disappearing bottom first. You’re being conned my friend.
Did you do any research on perspective and the vanishing point? Did you know that horizon and vanishing point are not the same thing at all? When you bring a boat back into focus, you’re bringing it back from the vanishing point, which is just your eyes physical limit to render something visible at distances. Horizon on the other hand, is a physical obstruction of line of sight, caused by your surface curving away from you...if Earth was flat, there would be no horizon. Simple fact is...if you can bring a boat back from the vanishing point, then it hasn’t gone over the horizon yet. You should really leave the camera rolling and then watch as boats begin to disappear bottom first...just like how scientists and sailors first made these observations.
You and flat Earth seem to somehow think you’re free from the same standards of review...but you’re not. Truth is, you have just reached yet another rushed conclusion from a single observation that ignores variables. If you people would just calm the fuck down, breath, turn the all caps off and actually LISTEN to people when they try to explain what you’re missing, perhaps you wouldn’t fall for these internet scams so easily.
5
-
5
-
@flawlesscarlo Apologies if I paint you with an assumed brush, I'm afraid it's a bit unavoidable sometimes. I'm not you, I don't know everything about what you know and how you obtained that knowledge. You've certainly been assuming a lot yourself with many of the positions here, so it happens. Again, I try to avoid speculation and assumptions, I prefer to focus on the science and we've been veering off that point. I really don't care how smart a person is or thinks they are, all I really care about is the evidence.
No, when I said I tend to trust those who build everything, I wasn't really referring to government (that was your assumption), I was talking about scientists and experts. People who have hands on experience with the knowledge mankind has acquired over the centuries. The fact of the matter is that junk science simply doesn't work...I'm sure you'd agree, but everything around you works, it can't achieve that if these people are wrong in their conclusions. We can't do anything with knowledge that is untrue, a great example that is relevant to this discussion, is world navigation. Do you really think pilots and sailors could reach their destinations...if they were using a false model of the Earth? No, not very likely at all. These people directly depend on the maps and models to be accurate, in order for them to reach their destinations like clock work.
So I trust these people and many other experts who know first hand how things actually work. You're right not to put to much faith in government, which is why I feel it's perfectly fine to question what you're told. But the government has very little to do with the core sciences, like physics, chemistry, biology, geography, etc. They may help to fund a few projects in these fields, but the core sciences are managed by the scientific community themselves, with very little to no influence from government.
I am fine with admitting that it is my bias to put faith in these people, but that's why I prefer to do my own hands on research as well. I've spent a lot of my life studying physics directly, doing my own experiments, and reading on the subject. I'm not a accredited scientist, it's more just a hobby of mine, but I do have hands on experience with the sciences, and so far...everything I've tested agrees with modern consensus, these people are not lying to us...because they have no reason to lie. We can't use junk science for anything, nothing works, if this science isn't accurate. The scientific community knows this better than any, so they take some pretty hardcore steps to ensure the core sciences are accurate and free from government corruption and agendas.
Anyway, we're getting off topic, like I keep saying, I would much rather discuss the evidence. Is there any other questions or concerns you had with the Globe Earth model that just isn't jiving with you? I don't mind sharing more information concerning the science, I don't claim to know everything, but I am quite knowledgeable when it comes to Earth science.
4
-
@Riptions No, that’s a valid explanation for why the stars don’t parallax as we travel around the globe, they all shift together, at a consistent rate, 1 degree every 69 miles traveled north or south…geometry that fits only on a sphere. But they absolutely are observed to parallax every 6 months…which is exactly what we’d expect to observe, if Earth was orbiting the Sun. The entire model fits what we observe and measure, nothing contradicting any other part, and every part can be used to make accurate predictions with. That’s when you know the conclusions are accurate, when the knowledge works when applied. Nobody is navigating the Earth with a flat Earth model, they all use the globe…that’s a fact, not an opinion. So the model is proven every single day, with every single successful navigation…it’s applied science.
Your best argument is incredulity, plain and simple. It can’t be true to you, because you can’t fathom, or accept, a universe so vast. That’s not an argument, it’s just personal incredulity.
4
-
@Riptions You’ve agreed with Rowbotham’s assumption, that his observations only works on a flat plain. Appeal to authority. It was an impressive word salad, but it didn’t really account for the full geometry of the two celestial rotations, it ignored several variables and other key observations, such as the consistent rise and fall of stars by latitude. And it lied about the observations in the South, he basically claimed there was no second rotation, claiming every star circles the North star. That is an absolute lie…so he didn’t explain anything, he just made empty claims and lied. And I’d be willing to bet you don’t really understand what he was saying, if you did, you would have just explained it in your own words. You just blindly agreed to it, because you think it’s good enough, so you can continue to ignore a glaring problem Flat Earth has always faced. That’s the reality.
The real evidence proves the stars in the South rotate around the southern pole star Sigma Octantis, this is well documented and you can observe it yourself as well. Rowbotham straight up lied, claiming it didn’t exist…and you agreed to his claim without question. You need to seriously reflect on your bias here…it’s very clear you don’t care at all about what’s true, you’re happy to ignore any evidence that refutes what you want to believe, and you don’t mind appealing to any authority you deem as correct, so long as they confirm your bias. You may not notice it, but your bias and ignorance is on full blast for everyone else here reading your comments, it’s painfully obvious.
4
-
@Thatgurlkassixoxo There’s also plenty of examples of objects beyond the horizon, where no amount of zoom will ever bring them back. If you can zoom something back into view, you’re not bringing it back from horizon, you’re bringing it back from vanishing point, which is caused by perspective.
You must have a very low opinion of science, if you honestly think they never once thought to use a telescopic lens at the beach, when making this observation. No, that’s exactly how they make this observation…eventually, everything begins to sink into horizon, no amount of zoom will bring it back.
Another problem you have with your conclusion, is the problem of eye level and how it relates to perspective. Any artist who’s studied perspective fundamentals can tell you, that everything converges at eye level due to perspective, but if something is above eye level, then it won’t ever go below it. This is a problem for your conclusion, because there are many long distance observations, of tall objects sinking into horizon, going well below eye level. Perspective will not do that…a curvature would. I urge you to look up the Turning Torso Tower observation sometime, it’s a perfectly clear example of this.
So no, the first point has not been debunked…Flat Earthers just jumped to a conclusion, without considering they were in error. Perspective alone, can not cause the effect we observe in reality, a curvature can. This is why we have peer review in science, because people tend to think they’re infallible, then they’re unable to see or consider possible errors they may have made.
4
-
@matthewstorer8236 Aristotle is credited as among the first to realize the Earth’s shape was spherical, proving it through several observations from lunar eclipses to sunsets, and observations made at sea. Eratosthenes came some 100 years after Aristotle, so the science and evidence was established by his time.
You can prove Earth is spherical using Eratosthenes method, but only if you use more than 2 shadow measures…you require at least 3 to determine which model is for certain, and he only took 2 measurements, one in Syene, and one in Alexandria. Because you can plot the data for two measurements on both models, and it will work for both (in 2 dimensions that is, x and y, not so much in 3 dimensions, xyz). So he was merely measuring the Earth, not proving its spherical shape, other experiments had already determined that. But yes, again, his method can be used to verify and determine a shape for the Earth, that’s just not what he used it for.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@patrickhickman8723 Yes, plumb bobs point to centre. Gravity pulls to centre of Earth, that’s how gravity works. Plumb bobs align with gravity vectors, that’s how plumb bobs work, and also how all matter falls on Earth, towards surface, and towards centre of mass, centre of gravity. All gravity vectors point to centre, so plumb bobs point to centre in alignment with gravity, that’s how they work. Nothing you’ve said so far refutes that. You can’t honestly think your arguments here falsify anything.
We’re just pointing out your errors, it’s called peer review. You make erroneous claims on a public forum, you should expect to be corrected for them, nobody is above peer review. If you said anything that could actually falsify what we’re all saying to you, then you’d see a lot more agreement, but every argument you’re making so far does absolutely nothing to disprove or falsify the globe. They are just arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. That’s why we’re still here correcting you.
Just pause for a moment and think about this for a few seconds longer than you are currently. We can both agree that a plumb bob works by a weight that’s pulled towards surface, it uses the downward force that pulls all things to surface (we call it gravity), aligning perfectly to that forces vector, correct? On both the Flat Earth and the Globe Earth model, gravity pulls towards surface, your model just has one vector, ours has almost infinite, all pointing to centre, but still always pointing to surface as well. So if a plumb bob can work on both models with their versions of gravity, how exactly could a plumb bob ever be used to falsify the globe model? Your logic is just deeply flawed sir, on all points, hence why we’re still here.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@chloeblackwell4604 It takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference, that’s how big the Earth is. Since perspective convergence (vanishing point) meets at eye level, which is typically at horizon for this observation, and since horizon is roughly a 3 miles radius all around you from a 6 foot viewing height...the gradient slope by degrees would come nowhere near 1 degree, so it would appear basically flat, easily creating the same perspective effect as it would if Earth were flat. You’re claiming the optical effect of perspective convergence can’t occur on a curved surface, but that’s simply not true at all, you’re just asserting it can’t happen and then hoping nobody notices or corrects your assertion.
Fact is, if the curved surface is large enough and therefore gradual enough, this can and will happen very easily. Our eyes are not very good, vanishing point for us happens within just a few miles. The Earth is massive, I’m sure even you wouldn’t argue with that, so this is not a very good proof of anything really, I feel it’s just a poor grasp of scale.
But feel free to add some further context or rebuttal if you’d like, I may have just misunderstood your point, can happen and you weren’t exactly thorough in your explanation. I’m not here to troll you, I’m just an artist for a living, so perspective and spacial geometry are topics I have a lot experience and understanding with. Just felt this point was a bit outlandish.
I will say, in smaller scales, or if the tracks were much wider, then yes, you’d have a point. But considering how big the Earth is, this is perfectly possible.
4
-
4
-
@rickstark1917 Why would you be confused that NASA would be involved in climate research? They put satellites into orbit, many of them are weather satellites monitoring weather patterns, pressure, temperature, etc. NASA studies planets, Earth is a planet, so why wouldn’t they be involved in studying our planet? Your logic is baffling. They also develop weather balloons for the same purpose, to study weather and collect data. They’re a research and development industry...they’re not just limited to space research, they also study our own planet. Whatever they can help with, they will. It boggles me a little how you would find this odd or suspicious...they’re doing exactly what they’re supposed too, studying a planet, our planet.
“So if we can’t trust them on these major issues, then we can’t trust them on anything.”
That’s the main problem here as I see it, thinking in absolutes. Putting more value on the source of information, rather than the information itself. If you want to ne objective, you have to focus on the information, not the source. But I understand the logic, we all do this, for me it’s the opposite, I’ve falsified every claim made by Dubay, and have caught him lying so many times, so I no longer trust him. But, the difference is, I’ll still hear him out...he debunks himself, as he all he ever does is make empty claims, so doesn’t take much. On the opposite spectrum with NASA, I’ve found that anytime someone claims they’ve caught them lying or deceiving, it’s revealed with just a little bit of extra analysis, that the ones making the claims against them, are actually the ones lying, in an attempt to discredit them. If you’d like, I can demonstrate a few examples, I’ll even let you pick, so feel free to choose some examples where you feel they’ve been caught lying.
I never said yoga teacher was a lowely profession, only pointing out that it has nothing to do with Earth science. So if we’re gonna weigh credentials here, then we should be objective...Dubay has the least scientific background or credentials out of all of these individuals mentioned.
In my research, I’ve learned the real liar that can’t be trusted, is people like Dubay. I can also point out many examples, if you’re willing to put your hero to task, so just say the word and I’ll show you a different side of things.
4
-
@rickstark1917 Well, when you’re working directly with people who have been to space and are putting rockets, probes and satellites into space...fraid you wouldn’t have much care to chat with a few crazy layman, who are clearly displaying deep paranoid delusions. The other reason would be, that scientists should never get involved with potential con men or grifters. All it does is give the con man what they want, an audience, more exposure. It does more for the huxter, than it would ever do for the scientist. On top of that, science doesn’t really settle anything scientific, through public debate. It’s done through peer review and direct falsification. Layman should not be involved in this process, because there is much they don’t really understand about the process and linguistics of science. This creates a communication barrier, one that con men can easily exploit in public debate, where the layman audience, is all you have to convince.
So many good reasons to never engage with potential con men. Eric or Weiss want to be taken seriously, they will put in the work to earn the proper titles. They will contribute something to applied science, as that’s the simplest way to sniff out pseudoscience...is the science actually useful? Until Eric has either a working model, or has published some form of scientific research, that can actually be used in applied science, until then he’s merely a mouth piece and should not be taken seriously.
4
-
Science is different…you need knowledgeable experts, who actually have working knowledge and experience on the topic being discussed, or you risk errors. Layman do not get a say in matters of science. We don’t build nuclear reactors from a panel of gas attendants and grocery clerks, do we? We’re not doing random lotteries to pick the pilot for your next flight, are we? We don’t open town hall for public walk in surgeries, do we? 🧐 That’s for a good reason…because your average person has done nothing to acquire the skills and knowledge required, to do these jobs and make informed decisions on those topics.
This isn’t a democratic election, science deals with objective reality…and the reality is that a majority of the population is stupid and under educated, there’s no nice way to say it, it’s just how it is. We offset that, by not giving the general populace a say, in matters of science…you have to earn that right.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect system, far from it, but it’s far better than the alternative of having every numpty, conman, and inexperienced pseudo intellectual having their say…which far out number experienced experts.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes, experiments on the ISS do this often. Though things like surface tension, air pressure, electromagnetism, etc, are more powerful at those scales, so they have more to do with the attractions at those scales. Gravity relies on mass…and you need a lot of mass before it becomes the dominant force. Doesn’t mean you can’t isolate gravity in an experiment at smaller scales, the Cavendish experiment does that successfully, but it does render it impossible to isolate gravity in the demonstration you’re asking for. Asking for such a demonstration, just reveals a lack of understanding in gravity physics.
We can’t scale down gravity, and replicate a tiny Earth…it doesn’t work that way. At smaller scales, gravity is far to weak, so other forces that are far stronger at smaller scales, get in the way of isolating that variable…at least they would in the demonstration you’re asking be done.
4
-
4
-
What’s so ridiculous about it? At our most basic construction, we are just an arrangement of very dead matter. Protein chains and molecular structures of basic elements, like carbon, iron, phosphorus, etc. Basic elements, none of which are alive, but that do react with each other to cause chemical reactions...which is basically all we are, a series of chemical reactions, from inert matter.
So she’s not wrong, she’s just looking at things from the atomic level.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@patrickhickman8723 That’s your error, you think the rocket exhaust pushes off of the air and then the spacecraft. The rocket exhaust in reality pushes off the tank it’s shot from going one direction, and the space craft pushes off the rocket exhaust, going the other. They essentially push off of each other….action being the exploding gas going one way, reaction being the space craft going the other. The velocity it travels is in accordance to the second law of motion, the velocity of the spacecraft in the the opposite direction is equal to the amount of force being applied upon it by the rocket exhaust, causing its thrust.
It’s no different from the simple example often used to teach the third law of motion in physics 101 classes. Picture yourself on a skateboard, with a heavy medicine ball in your hand. Toss the medicine ball as hard as you can away from you, what happens? The ball goes one way, and you go the other, essentially pushing off of the inertia of the medicine ball. Do you think it was the air you pushed off of? Ok, then pick up the ball again and try instead to just push the ball into the air as hard as you can without releasing. You won’t get the same result. It’s the action of throwing it, the release, that causes the reaction of both you and the ball travelling in opposing directions.
That’s how a rocket works as well, the same basic physics. This law of motion makes travel through a vacuum possible. That’s why rockets are used in space.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes, yes, and yes…repeating all 3 of those is actually pretty simple today, if you actually bother to research how this knowledge was obtained. And that’s the thing that’s very different about science from the Bible, everything in science is repeatable…while the Bible just expects you to believe it’s all true, on pure faith. So shocker…I’m gonna trust the science I can repeat and verify myself, over beliefs I can’t verify. 😳 How is this difficult to understand? 🤷♂️ It’s funny to me, that someone couldn’t see why many are a bit hesitant to blindly agree to a book, preaching about magical beings and events, that have never been observed or repeated by anyone today.
Sorry, but you’re just making that same old tired argument from ignorance that the religious always make…then you wonder why we roll our eyes at you. We trust science because it’s repeatable and it brings results…can’t say the same for the Bible. We’re aware science is not perfect, that’s not some big secret that only you are privy too…but it does work, and you know that, you’re happy to use every single modern comfort it brings you.
You wanna know how we measured the Earth, you can look it up any time, there are several methods today, many don’t even require much effort. Same goes for determining the Suns distance, or determining how gravity attraction works, if you require some help finding the research, I don’t mind helping you out…but your ignorance on these topics is not an argument, you live in the information age…so there’s really no excuse anymore, knowledge is literally just a few keystrokes away at any given moment. The logic that boggles me personally, is anyone who thinks ignorance should be counted as valid.
Sure scientists can be bought…but that’s why we have peer review in the scientific method, because you can’t buy all of them. Junk science isn’t hard to spot…it doesn’t work. It’s kind of the nice thing about it…it reveals itself by how useless it is. Remind me again which model is used by EVERY pilot and sailor, to successfully navigate the Earth every day? 😳 The Earth is not flat, there’s no argument for that anymore, the evidence against it is staggering and ignorance is no excuse or argument for that.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Man...it's so rich when people say shit like this...at what point do you think scientists don't use their senses genius? Truth is, our physical senses are weak and limited and so we often have to use our greatest sense of all to overcome those limitations, our minds. We invent tools to help us extend our senses, and we get clever and use logic and simple deduction to help us reach conclusions so we can invent those tools. What you're asking people do is stay on the surface of things...and ignore evidence in favor of incredulity, which is just plain stupid.
"It looks flat therefore it is" is not how society reached the point it is today. Your computer doesn't send and receive WiFi signals from magic, it does it by manipulating microwave frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum...which is a spectrum of light our senses can not detect, and yet, it exists and we have discovered it, and through studying it further we've learned to harness it. We used our senses to help us do that, but it was also through methods of deduction and logic that require we think beyond our senses...because like it or not, we can't see much of the electromagnetic spectrum, but we do have brains that we can use to help us discover these things that lie beyond our senses...like the true shape of the Earth for example.
You're an idiot if you think your method of thinking is how we achieved everything around you. Stop thinking so one dimensionally, your comment is just ignorant. You don't know anything about science, so you assume it's nonsensical...and yet, that nonsense you speak so confidently of is currently used to create the technology that is around you. You should be more grateful and take the time to learn this stuff for yourself...you'd understand how Flat Earth cons you if you did.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Debating is a skill, it does require a level of sharp wit and good language/communication skills. It’s unfortunate, but a person can win a debate, even if they’re 100% wrong, just by being a better talker and not easily rattled under pressure, happens all the time. That’s not very productive in objective science though, the evidence must stand on its own, free from subjective opinions. Debates are not the best format to allow for that, they’re simply too competition based, too subjective. The desire to win, often out performs the desire to be correct. That’s part of the reality of debates. It’s fine in politics, because almost nothing is very black and white in politics, there’s pros and cons to every decision, so debates are a good way to help make decisions, weighs the pros and cons. Science is different, we can’t do anything with false information, junk science simply does not work, so science has to reduce subjective decision making processes, as much as possible.
Unfortunately as well, conmen do exist still today. They often use debates as a method to spread their grift, it’s free advertising for them. They don’t have to convince everybody, not even a majority, the goal is just to get in front of as many people as possible, hence why they typically target celebrity scientists, people with larger audiences. So science actually takes great care to avoid being bated by con artists. They’re wise to do so.
4
-
@Truthseeksyou You’re not really understanding the physics of relative motion, with your counter argument of putting a person on top of the moving train rather than inside it. You’re making a false equivalence fallacy and then before anyone can respond to point out your error, you’re just declaring victory rather than listening. I mean...if all you’re here to do is argue and troll people, then that’s pretty sad...why you’d waste your time like that is beyond me, but you do you I guess. But if you’re serious about your question, why not listen and see if you’re perhaps making an error? I understand many here are being pretty rude and impatient, but you’re really not being very civil either, so can you really blame them?
The trouble with your counter (and what some are trying to point out and help you with), is that the air outside the train is not moving relative to the train, it’s moving relative to the Earth, so of course there’s going to be a lot of drag force occurring there. This is a false equivalence, because it’s not representative of your question. Your original question was, how can a helicopter hover over a surface that’s moving at 1000 mph, then land back on the same spot after an hour? The answer is because of conservation of momentum and relative motion, everything is moving relative to Earth in that example, so it’s all maintaining the motions of the Earth.
Relative motion is easily demonstrated, by simply testing motion, within a controlled inertial system of motion, like the inside of a moving vehicle, not outside (though it can be tested outside as well, you’re just introducing more drag force, because the air is no longer moving relative to your vehicle). Think about this way, if we’re trying to test a system that’s claiming everything is moving together in a relative system of motion, wouldn’t the best test for that be another system of motion, where everything is moving together relative to that system? The moment you decide to put the experiment outside, you’ve now takin away/changed a variable you’re trying to test and account for, the air is no longer moving with your system of motion, it’s not moving relative to it, so this example is now not representative of the model you’re trying to test. This creates a false equivalence, because the air on Earth is moving with the Earth, so it’s more accurate to compare Earth to the inside of a vehicle, not the outside.
This is always a pretty frustrating topic to chat with flat Earthers about, because instead of listening and learning the lesson it teaches about the physics of motion, you create the same false equivalence, and completely miss the point...then you just declare victory before anyone has a chance to properly explain your error.
Many of us aren’t trying to be difficult, you have a great physics question here, but you’re trying really hard to find ways to ignore the answer. Relative motion and the laws of conservation of inertia and momentum, are how the helicopter is able to hover in place, move with the surface, and then land back in the same spot. This physics is known, understood and used by scientists and engineers around the world, it’s a fundamental law of physics and it’s an applied science. It’s the same exact physics that explains why you can toss a ball back and forth inside a plane travelling at 500 mph and the ball will keep up with plane and glide through the air with absolute ease, as if you were throwing it around in a park, never once flying to the rear like a bullet. Earth’s motions are more comparable to the inside of the vehicle, not the outside. I hope that helps.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@flawlesscarlo Wong already answered your question, do you need it explained again? A meteor burns up cause it's impacting the air in our atmosphere at several thousands mph, that creates drag force, that creates heat friction, which causes the meteor to burn up...there is pressure in our atmosphere, so convection and conduction can occur. Satellites will do the same when they go offline and fall back to Earth. Spacecraft have designed a very sturdy heat shielding so that they can re-enter the atmosphere, I don't pretend to know what that shielding is made of, I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I could look it up and learn about it at anytime...as could you, that's what's so great about the modern information age, knowledge is just a few key strokes away.
Wong is also right again, there is an irony to you calling other people "armchair professors" when you sit here making claims like you're somehow smarter then all the actual professors of the world. Flat Earth is ripe with this kind of overconfidence, always thinking your questions have no answers...instead of learning the answers to those questions and finding out that Flat Earth is several thousand years behind in science.
Either way, you were wrong, all I did was point out that error. No need to get so upset about it. Learn some basic physics, then you'll know these things as well and then Flat Earth wouldn't have such an easy time conning you.
3
-
@flawlesscarlo "The 17,500 mph Apollo spacecraft couldn't "catch" the 500,000 mph moon. Even 10 seconds means the moon is 1300+ miles further in space.. but what do I know." Man, I'm tellin ya, you REALLY could benefit from learning some basic physics, this is a relative motion question, which is covered in the science of motion. Try this sometime, next time you're in a plane (or any fast moving vehicle really), make a little paper airplane and throw it around. As you do, you'll notice that it glides around the inside of that vehicle with absolute ease, as if you were throwing it around while in a park or something. But now focus on this for a second, lets say you are in a plane, at 500 mph cruising speed...are you throwing that paper airplane at 500 mph so that it can keep up with the forward motion of that plane? No, of course not, no human alive can throw an object that fast. Thankfully, you don't have too, because motion is always conserved in moving objects. Your paper airplane is moving relative to the planes forward motion, so it conserves that momentum at all times, making it easy to glide that plane around inside the cabin. Toss it back and forth in a game of catch with a friend...and it's basically the same physics as traveling to the Moon. Relative motion and conservation of momentum are what make this possible....basic physics of motion.
A rocket going to the Moon is no different, it conserves the motions of the planet it left from...which is moving with the Sun at 500k mph. So the rocket is moving relative to Earths motions, meaning it's also moving relative to the Moon in that motion. First law of motion states, everything in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an apposing force or mass. It's conservation of momentum, it explains how "catching" the Moon is possible.
It's just basic physics man....nothing complicated. You wouldn't have these questions if you just paid attention in highschool physics. Flat Earth wouldn't be taking you down these rabbit holes of misinformation...if you just knew and understood the science that directly refutes their claims. This is basic physics that anyone can learn and anyone can verify for themselves with just a few simple experiments. When you know this physics, you understand how space travel is possible. This same physics is used in applied sciences like engineering here on Earth...so it's verified science my friend. Your ignorance is just making it easier to be taken on a ride by con men.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@davidsandall And yet all the actual data and evidence refutes those conclusions, so you won’t convince with empty claims like that, the people who have actually seen or collected that evidence. FE is a hoax, perpetuated by huxters and grifters, who exploit the average joes lack of knowledge and experience, stoking the fires of your paranoia.
FE is not used in ANY applied science...that’s for a very good reason. Get a better filter, or better yet, pull yourself away from your computer for awhile and actually TALK to a scientist or expert sometime. Visit a real lab, join them on observations, see the evidence for yourself...cause you are currently being conned by strangers online, who are just as clueless and inexperienced as you are, who have contributed nothing to applied science. And it’s just sad.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@williamborregard6384 Those are flight dynamic mathematical models…they are mathematical simplifications, not to be taken as literal statements or conclusions. All they’re doing is simplifying math equations, by removing variables that are not relevant to what those equations would be used for in engineering or general application. For example, they’re often used for the vehicles air resistance capabilities…neither Earth’s shape, nor its motion, are required in that math, so those variables are removed to make the equations simpler and thus quicker.
When you develop a mathematical model like these flight models, you have state VERY CLEARLY to the reader which variables are being omitted. And to help them understand that they’re not literal statements, they will often make it clear that these are ASSUMED variables. In the many if these, they often also assume a perfectly rigid frame moving at a perfectly constant velocity…which are both impossible variables. Funny how you guys ignore that part of these models….maybe because you’re just CHERRY PICKING Information? Removing words and phrases from their proper context, and then spinning them to fit your biased conclusions.
Just further showing off your scientific illiteracy. Good job. 👏
3
-
@williamborregard6384 The scam is pretty simple, targeting a specified group mindset. You listened blindly to people in YouTube videos or chat forums, push you bullshit science, that you didn’t question any of it, just nodded and agreed to every word…and you did it because it helped confirm a bias you have…your bias for the Bibles interpretation of reality.
It’s classic confirmation bias, works very well on the under educated, who do not actively participate in any field of science and research, or applied sciences like engineering, navigation, communication and infrastructure. Once they’ve filled the gaps in your knowledge with the bullshit science they’ve tailored made for you, the scam is complete and you’re now a sucker helping to peddle the same bullshit.
The crux to your pseudoscience, and how it’s so easy to spot…is the same problem all pseudoscience has, it doesn’t work. It’s really that simple. You can claim your science is superior all day long, but if it can’t actually be used for anything, then it’s bullshit. It’s no surprise to me that the very large majority within flat Earth are not engineers, physicists, navigation experts, astronomers, inventors, etc. You’re mostly average joes, who have contributed nothing to the world. That’s no coincidence to me, but it is a huge red flag.
3
-
3
-
Interest has been kind of dying down last couple of years, so they are harder to find for sure, but these debates used to occur pretty often and they still do to some extent. They still do on channels like the Non Sequitur Show or FTFE, but a lot of the good older debates are still archived on various channels. Some good ones are those from Conspiracy Catz, or Bob the Science Guy, who are often pretty patient and not nearly as rude or mean as some of the more hardcore debaters, like Reds Rhetoric or FTFE, or nastier echo chamber FE channels like NathanOakley’s debate channel. If you like hearing a grown man whine, shout and make childish insults for hours on end...look no further than the man baby N Oakley and his merry band of numpty fan boys. Good for a laugh, but that place is the very definition of a bias echo chamber.
Anyway, some suggestions for ya on where to look, if it does interest you.
3
-
3
-
@jonpate100 Galileo wasn’t a flat Earther, it was already well established the Earth was a sphere by then, he was one of the first to propose the Earth wasn’t at the centre of everything, he had evidence for the heliocentric model. And he wasn’t killed, he was put on trial and then put on 10 years house arrest, all for his research which proved the Sun was at the centre of our solar system, not the Earth. His work pretty much solidified the fact that Earth orbits the Sun and it is a globe. He was not killed for his research though, he got house arrest, and he wasn’t allowed to conduct any further research.
So I think you got your facts mixed up a bit.
Also, Frankie wasn’t calling you a Nazi, he was referring to a fellow named Eric Dubay, who is widely considered the top Flat Earth proponent on YouTube, a lot of the Flat Earth talking points of today, started with Dubay. He is a yoga teacher and a known Nazi sympathizer. So Frankie assumed you were getting your information from that individual…because a lot of Flat Earthers do, so it’s a pretty safe assumption. But he probably shouldn’t have assumed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Zero G just means weightless, it doesn’t mean gravity is not still affecting you. Weight is a consequence of you being squeezed against the surface due to gravity, it’s basically just the pressure your mass exerts on the surface, a consequence of your mass times acceleration of gravity. So when you’re falling in free fall, you do not have weight, what you always have is mass, but in free fall, you are weightless. But gravity is still putting you in motion, you are not free from gravity in zero G. I understand the confusion though, seems like a poor choice for that label, but it just applies when the affect of gravity is no longer felt, meaning you don’t feel any weight pressure caused by gravity. So zero affect of gravity, when it’s in balance with a counter force, like a centrifugal force in the case of an orbit.
Anyway, hope that helps.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No need to feel stupid, it’s a great question. It’s a photography question really and has to do with a cameras exposure settings. To get a good picture of the Earth where you can see all of its features crisp and clear, you have to lower the exposure time on the camera, otherwise it will just end up a big white blur in your photo, which is obviously not what you want. Exposure is essentially how much time you allow the film to be exposed to light, a lower exposure time, lets less light into the shutter. When you do this, you filter out a lot of light coming into the camera, which means anything that is too dim in comparison to the object you’re setting your exposure time for, will not make it onto the final image. The stars are much dimmer than the Earth from that close, so the lower exposure setting required to photograph it will pretty much render every star non visible.
So it’s an issue with the limits of photo technology really, but yes, optics in general really, cause ours eyes work pretty similarly, constantly adjusting to light intensity levels to allow more or less light in. Lowering that light exposure level, renders dimmer objects less visible in either case. Anyway, hope that helps answer your question.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alanbruno6155 Whoever said you stop rotating once you’re in space? You do know how an orbit works right? You are aware of the law of inertia and conservation of momentum, right? You’re still in motion in space, you don’t just slow down or stop once you’re there, because with nothing to stop you (like air resistance or friction), you’re just going to keep going at the same velocity, indefinitely...it’s part of the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion. Very simple physics to verify, agreed upon by everyone within science. You would keep going, you have to be, in order to remain in an orbit. Lose forward velocity, and the Earth’s gravity will bring you down.
Passed physics with A’s...doesn’t seem to quite understand the laws of motion, or its difference with air pressure. Very suspect...almost like you don’t really understand much physics.
Think of it this way. Pressure is created when molecules are pushed into each other...but what happens when every molecule is moving at the same exact velocity, in the same direction? Simple, they’re not pressing together, so they’re not creating any pressure. So if every molecule is moving at a constant rate, in the same direction together, at 66,000 mph, they’re not pressing into each other...so where’s the pressure? Why do you think we would feel anything? My guess is because you also misunderstood G force and how it works. G forces are a product of rapid or sudden CHANGES in motion. So again, if everything is moving consistently together...where’s the pressure?
See, you’re saying you passed physics with good grades...but yet, here you are, completely misunderstanding one of the simplest laws of physics. I think your teacher might have been a dud. Might need a redo.
3
-
@Hebrew816 Ok, I've searched it, found no photos verifying what you're claiming. Found a couple memes making the same claim you are, but no photos from that distance that can so far verify the claim. So from our perspective, it's an empty claim, with no supporting evidence. Tell me why anyone should just agree with an empty claim?
We're asking YOU to provide the images, because that's how the process of review works. YOU make the claim, it is then YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF to provide the evidence. Otherwise, don't even bother making a claim. We're not just going to believe empty claims blindly and without question, it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence for a claim. That's pretty standard practice.
I understand it's difficult to share links on YouTube these days, but you could still provide names to a specific site or video. Something we could use for a search.
3
-
@Hebrew816 So the math you're using is 8 inches per mile? So if we draw that on an XY grid, a straight slope with no curve at all. That's even more inaccurate than the 8 inches per mile SQUARED equation that Flat Earthers use. Which is a basic parabola equation, that does not represent line of sight, does not calculate what is hidden from line of sight, has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc.
8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math. Pretty basic rule of thumb in mathematics and science, use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion. So if that's the math you've been using this whole time, then that's your error. sooooo....ya, no wonder your math is not fitting with observation, tends to do that when you don't use the correct math for the job.
Here's the correct formula:
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
d= Distance from you to target
r= Earth radius
h= Height of observer
The rest is basic trig, so I hope you know what a cosine (cos) and an arc cosine (acos) are.
I will mention, even that equation is only purely geometric. No variable for refraction included here and that does matter as well, but it's a good start and FAR more accurate than a basic parabolic arc equation.
3
-
3
-
kunal amratlal You’re confusing suction with vacuum. The vacuum of space does not work like a vacuum cleaner, it does not generate a suction force, so that’s a misunderstanding Flat Earth has about space and that’s where a lot of the confusion on this topic stems from.
Space is just the absence of matter, that’s it, it’s not sucking on anything...it physically can’t do that. When a balloon that enters space bursts, it’s not because the space around it is pulling on it like a suction, it’s because the gas pressure inside is trying to get out. Without a gas pressure on the outside pushing on the exterior of a balloon, helping it maintain structural integrity, the pressure inside expands until the walls of the balloon can’t take it anymore, so it bursts.
I used a balloon as an example instead of a space suit because I have heard of no incident where a space suit popped in a vacuum...because space suits are lined with sturdy materials like kevlar...so if they rip, they’re more then likely just going to leak air, not burst. So not sure where you got that from, a space suit bursting. Feel free to share a source or link to where you learned that from.
Main point is, space is not sucking on anything...space is just emptiness, a place void of matter, so vacuum when used in this context just means emptiness or void. I hope that helps clear up some misunderstanding.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Earth’s rotation and its orbit are very gradual changes over long periods of time, so we would experience them as basically linear motions. The fastest rotational velocity we experience, with the fastest change over time is Earths rotation around its axis, and we do observe and measure a Coriolis drift, as we would expect if Earth was rotating. There’s several great experiments conducted for Coriolis drift, you can find a few of them pretty easily here on YouTube if you try. Plenty of information from professional marksmen discussing Coriolis drift as well, so what explanation does Flat Earth have for this drift?
You’re reaching a lot of conclusions on assumptions…and then calling it empirical science. You barely have enough for a hypothesis in many of these inquiries, yet you draw conclusions anyway. I think that’s why you’ll find a lot of pushback here. Do you believe Flat Earth is somehow above the burden of proof? Because I sure don’t. I’m sure you’ve seen some experiments and observations that have convinced you of your current position, but you’re not doing a very great job of relaying that information to help prove your conclusions.
Also, you can determine a lot about the surface geometry of an object, by how that surface can effect your orientation to your surroundings, such as the sky. So it’s vital information you shouldn’t cast aside and ignore so easily. The Sun is observed 24 hours a day on Earth, it’s always visible somewhere but yet it’s also observed to set, sinking under the horizon. This is not something we’d expect to see everyday, if the Sun circled above a flat plane. Another observation is the second hemisphere sky, there exists a second sky, with different stars, and a second rotation around a different pole star (Sigma Octantis). Again, not a geometry we’d expect to observe on a flat Earth, it is however exactly what we’d expect to observe on a globe.
You shouldn’t ignore these observations so easily, it’s not difficult to understand how a surface structure can change your angle and orientation to your surroundings. The fact you do ignore basic geometric fundamentals, implies a strong bias, confirmation bias through intentional ignorance.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 It takes 69 miles for Earth to arc 1 degree, it rotates that distance in roughly 7.5 minutes. 1 degree, every 7 and a half minutes…and you think a drift would be immediate? But there us a drift, it’s well documented and understood. Coriolis drift for snipers at 1000 yards is roughly about 8-9 inches firing North or South, look it up, it’s pretty common practice in long range firing to account for Coriolis drift. It is a consistent drift…and it’s different from barrel drift, which is also factored. And planes do actually account for Coriolis, but it’s a lot easier to adjust for…because unlike a bullet, planes have engines, wing rutters, pilots…it can adjust mid flight pretty easily, thanks to these things.
Coriolis drift occurs because of your forward motion over a surface moving at various velocities. The Equator moves faster than the poles, so since motion is conserved, as you move through the latitudes, you’re either moving slightly faster or slower than the surface beneath you…that’s how Coriolis drift occurs. So a helicopter hovering in place doesn’t really have to worry, because it’s not in any forward motion, so it just conserves Earth’s motion…but besides that, just like the plane in flight, a helicopter has a pilot, engines, rutters, mechanical moving parts that can easily adjust in real time, and counter Coriolis. So you’re not really thinking this through very well.
The burden of proof isn’t surpassed just because you conduct experiments. Your experiments could be in error, so they must undergo peer review, the experiments must be repeatable, if the results can’t be repeated upon multiple attempts, then the experiment is likely in error. From what I’ve seen so far (and I’ve been following Flat Earth for roughly 6 years now), the experiments presented so far are deeply flawed at worst, or extremely inconclusive at best. I’ve reviewed many…and it’s just reaffirmed the importance of peer review for me.
The biggest problem for your position is the lack of a working scientific model. And Flat Earth came first…how much more time does it need? The globe model is applied science today, from navigation, engineering and infrastructure, it’s the model we use. Navigation being the biggest problem for you…millions of pilots and sailors are verifying the Earth is spherical, every single day, with every successful voyage, that applies the globe model for navigation. If you think they’re lying…well, I’d urge you to learn how to navigate, and then I’d urge you to put it to the test for yourself. It’s not hard to learn, and you’ll learn pretty quickly how important it is in navigation, to know for certain the shape and scale of the surface you’re navigating.
Perspective does not fit what we observe with the Sun and stars. You have to ignore several fundamental rules of perspective, to slot that answer in as your conclusion for why sunsets occur. Some fundamentals you’d have to ignore; the apparent size of the Sun would change drastically, that’s how vanishing point occurs, a convergence until it’s so small in apparent angular size that you can not render it visible any longer. Its apparent rate of travel through the sky would also shift, speeding up as it got closer and slowing down as it got further. It’s not observed to do either, you can prove that by simply tracking it throughout a full day, with a solar filter lens. Many have done this, it does not change size, nor does it change its rate of travel, it’s a steady 15 degrees per hour, all day, every day. Another fundamental you have to ignore is eye level, it’s well understood in art fundamentals (I’m actually an artist for a living so this is something I’d consider myself an expert on), that everything converges at eye level in perspective, that’s where the vanishing point occurs. But if something is above your eye level, then it can not go below it, and vice versa for anything below eye level, it can not go above it. This is a problem for your conclusion, because the Sun is clearly observed to dip into and under horizon…so it goes well below eye level. It would not do that if it was circling above a flat plane. So your explanation is a biased, ad hoc, hypothesis at best…one that’s easily falsified with just a few simple observations, and a little knowledge of basic perspective fundamentals. Hence why peer review is so vital to science, to catch human errors such as confirmation bias. That’s the big problem with Flat Earth as I see it, you’re forcing conclusions without proper peer review…you’re just assuming your conclusions are without error, and you’re not allowing any review, you just jump straight to conclusion. That’s bad science…typical of pseudoscience. I believe it’s a perfect example of the danger of confirmation bias.
The globe model however, answers for a sunset with absolute ease, and it fits with every detail and measurement. I’d urge you to visit the Jos Leys channel, he’s a mathematician who’s made many models of the Suns positions and angles around the world, using real world data, it’s pretty damning evidence for Flat Earth. Just one of many users putting the flat Earth claims and arguments to task, rather than just agreeing to the conclusions blindly and without question.
It’s actually better in science to focus on falsification, because if you only focus on proving something, then you’re more at risk to fall into confirmation bias. It’s much better science practice to form hypothesis, then do everything you can to falsify it…the hypothesis that holds up to all review and attempts at falsification, is the likeliest conclusion. Many in science feel it’s the best way to remain objective, and I agree.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Okay, like I said, I see the logic you’re inferring…your conclusion though is basically “the Military absolutely does manipulate gps to fool people into thinking the Earth is spherical”. That’s the speculation, your conclusion is a speculation. Military keeping secrets, does not equal Flat Earth…that’s a leap in logic fallacy, it’s also a black and white fallacy (thinking in absolutes, in this case, governments lie, therefore they lie absolutely). You’re jumping to a conclusion…just because you don’t trust them. Your bias there is formed from a deep distrust in authority, I get it, I have the same bias, most people do…but it’s not hard to learn how to navigate, and not difficult to test it either. You don’t require gps, sailors have navigated the Earth for centuries without it…so if you feel so strongly about this, then go ahead and try navigating across any ocean, without the globe model to help you do it. Go ahead…there’s a limit to what the military can hide from you…YOU can test navigation whenever you want. The stars drop a consistent 1 degree, every 69 miles…that’s not something that would occur on a flat Earth. It is however exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe. Go ahead and test it.
Yes, math simplification is a whole field of work in mathematics. Simpler equations mean more people can solve them easier and then more people can work with them easier, which increases productivity. Very few people are absolute math geniuses…and even those geniuses don’t want to be struggling every single time they want to do something. So mathematicians are constantly looking for simpler forms to derive an equation. There’s many different ways to derive a working equation, some variables are redundant, or they straight up don’t matter for what they’re being used for…so those variables can be omitted. When you do that, you have to state very clearly what variables are being omitted or assumed, so the reader knows. They’re not making a literal statement…they’re just simplifying the model. Sometimes, they’re even purely hypothetical, there’s various kinds of mathematical models. In this case, they’re for simulation purposes…not for actual real world application. What we have here, is a classic case of layman cherry picking…Flat Earthers focused on a set of words they liked, and then ignored the context of where they got them from.
If you don’t believe me, here’s a thought…each one of those documents has an author. Why haven’t any of you guys tracked one down to ask them directly? 🤷♂️ If you care so much about the truth, as Flat Earthers often claim, then wouldn’t that be the obvious first step to remaining objective? Yes, it would be.
Everyone has bias, the only way you combat yours, is by first accepting that fact, and then identifying and admitting yours. It’s not easy, but scientists do actively practice this…where as most layman, do not. Science learned a long time ago, that mankind has a real problem with confirmation bias…those who think they don’t have any biases, are the most likely to fall into the traps of confirmation bias. That’s why peer review was added to the scientific method, it helps to weed out errors due to bias.
You’re religious (from what I can tell), so you look at the world through that lens, whether you realize it or not, that’s a bias you have. Another is your distrust in authority. These biases lead your conclusions…more than you realize. The Bible makes reference to Flat Earth (or so some believe), so I bet the moment you came to believe the Earth was flat, your faith was restored like never before…am I right? Now tell me honestly if you think you really have much desire to lose that faith again…I’ll be willing to bet you don’t. That desire is a powerful drive…which makes it a bias. Couple that with a growing distrust in government authorities, you now got a clear villain to defeat as well…so guess what that is? Another powerful drive, another bias. You have bias…don’t pretend you don’t.
Just cause you were convinced of something once, doesn’t mean you still have an open mind. I’ve been sharing information with Flat Earthers for years now…you guys sure shut those minds tight pretty quickly, the moment counter evidence, or explanation is shared.
Never said you could see the oblateness of the Earth, I said you could see Saturns. Please don’t misread my words.
There is deviation…marksmen do account for Coriolis drift, as do pilots, you can look it up at anytime. There wouldn’t be deviation for a hovering helicopter, because it’s not moving forward within the reference frame of Earth. Coriolis drift occurs when something moves forward through the relative reference frame of Earth. But again, even if there was a drift from just hovering, a helicopter can easily account for this.
Think you better look that up again, there’s three frames of reference in special relativity. I think you’re misunderstanding Einsteins equivalency principal, but that’s just my assumption for now, still not on entirely on the same page with how you feel Coriolis contradicts relativity. You’re being quite vague on that point, so please elaborate further or I just risk assuming your position on that too much.
In my experience, pseudoscience loves to butcher physics, they think they can hide bullshit in science jargon. Doesn’t work on some I’m afraid, so feel free to explain further if you’d like.
Links are temperamental, sometimes they work other times they’re blocked. So I wouldn’t share, I can search key words and names though.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 You have a pretty warped understanding of relativity…tell my how your personal misunderstanding of physics counts as an argument exactly? 🧐 The equivalence principle wasn’t stating that “relativity calls for no motion”, it just makes it difficult to detect motion, while in a system of motion, because inertial systems of motion behave as if stationary, so you can’t tell the difference, your senses can not feel it. That’s all it’s saying…it’s not stating that there is no motion, it’s saying that relativity makes it very difficult to tell the difference between motion and non motion. But that’s only if the motion is constant, and not going through any rapid change. Any rapid change in forward motion will create noticeable effects…like Coriolis…relativity doesn’t negate Coriolis, it directly causes it. But those effects become harder to detect (and even become basically moot), the more gradual they are…like our orbit around the Sun, which for all intents and purposes is basically perceived by us as a straight forward motion, because the angular change is far too gradual, so won’t cause any noticeable effects. Same with the orbit around galactic centre, they’re basically null. The only angular velocity fast enough to create noticeable effects, is Earth’s rotation…and we do measure and observe a drift, which verifies Earth is in motion.
You’re just misunderstanding relativity…it’s a desperate attempt to grasp at straws.
The gyrocompass uses a mechanical gyros natural precession, setting its rate of precession to match Earth’s rate of rotation, and then aligns it with Earths axis of rotation, thus using its rotation to function and point to true North. You can find the engineering specs, it explains it in great detail. What does Aether or Magnetism have to do with anything? 🤷♂️ If Earth wasn’t rotating, then these devices would actually be a lot easier to make…you’d basically just use a regular gyro, and add pendulous vanes to keep it from precessing out of alignment with North. So you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about…just doing all that you can to ram a square peg into a round hole.
This is what Flat Earth does, can’t figure out how something works, so the excuses start flying; “ oh it must be Aether, or magnetism, or heavenly energies or something”…nope, it’s pretty simple, the gyrocompass is designed to precess at the same 15 degrees per hour that the Earth rotates. If Earth was stationary…then they wouldn’t need to do that, a much simpler gyro would be all that you’d need. Has nothing to do with magnetism or Aether…the Aether has to do with light, when has it ever been hypothesized to have any effect on a mechanical gyroscope? 🤷♂️ It doesn’t…you’re just deflecting, making excuses, so you don’t have to consider you could be wrong.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Oh boy, round and round we go…it’s like you just intentionally don’t listen. 🤦♂️ We’ve been over this, Pilots do account for Coriolis and it’s not difficult for them to do, because unlike a bullet in flight with no mechanical moving parts to change its trajectory, planes have engines, wings and rutters, pilots…moving parts it can use to help it adjust its trajectory mid flight. Doesn’t take much to adjust for Coriolis, it’s a very slow drift, it would be as simple as it is for you driving down a highway, barely conscious of all the tiny adjustments you constantly make to stay on the road. Helicopters are no different, they’re just as capable…and Balloons drift quite a bit actually, so your argument there is just scraping the bottom of the barrel. So just more arguments from ignorance from you. Look up a user named Wolfie6020, he’s a pilot from Australia who does a whole video on Coriolis and how planes and pilots account for it. He’s got lots of information on this topic actually, from a pilots perspective. So stop trying to bullshit me with these ignorant arguments, because I know exactly how you’re wrong.
While your looking him up, look up some marksmen explaining Coriolis drift…you’ll find tons if information. It’s very much a thing they have to factor. Barrel drift is what you’re referring too, and it is always in one direction, because all gun barrels have the same spiral…that drift is too the right. Coriolis drift changes direction depending on what direction you’re firing…so it’s not barrel drift causing that…and it’s no coincidence that the Earth’s rate of rotation works in the drift calculations. You can find military documents with Coriolis drift charts, they’re not hard to find if you bothered to look.
Earth’s magnetic field is dipolar, and runs through both poles…not the equator, one being positively charged, the other negative. Compasses aren’t pointing East and West…they align with Earth’s poles, so it’s pretty simple to detect. Like come on…you can’t just reach conclusions from made up science man…and why would you even bother arguing with something you clearly just made up? You really think that helps you appear non biased here? 🤦♂️
Gyros precess over time, that’s a basic fact about mechanical gyroscopes. You can look this up at any time. The gyros used in horizon indicators use pendulous vanes to overcome gyro precession and Earth curvature…you can also look that up at any time.
The gyrocompass is designed to make use of Earth’s rotation as part of its function…that is a fact, not an opinion. You can look that up and find demonstrations whenever you’re ready to wake up.
You’re intentionally misunderstanding and butchering relativity physics, to confirm your bias. It’s not an argument.
Stop wasting your time. You’re not falsifying anything with empty claims and arguments from ignorance. Everything I’ve pointed out, you can search and verify, the evidence is all there when you’re ready to stop pretending.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 The moving parts get it where it’s going, yes, but they also make it so that overcoming a small Coriolis drift is easily doable. So your argument is just an empty claim, that’s why it’s pointless…you’re just stating that Coriolis doesn’t exist, without doing anything to prove that claim. That’s why this conversation is a bit pointless…round and round we go, you’ll just keep throwing empty claim after empty claim at me.
Evidence is what matters, so instead of expecting me to agree to empty claims and misunderstood physics, can you present me with any experiments that help verify your conclusion? There are experiments that verify Coriolis, you can look them up anytime and repeat them. The Veritasium and Smarter Everyday channels got together not to long ago, and conducted a great experiment in both hemispheres to test it, search the experiment sometime. If you think it’s wrong, then try repeating it….I’m not arguing with you on this anymore. Either share evidence in support of your conclusions, or don’t bother responding please.
Your claim against Wolfie is just another empty claim. You couldn’t dispute his evidence, so it must be fabricated. 🙄 Again, empty claims mean nothing…provide evidence, or don’t bother.
I did a quick 10 minutes of research on magnetic compasses, watching video footage from both poles, North and South, and I learned they’re basically useless past a certain latitude close to each pole…and it’s pretty far, like 70 degrees North and South parallel. Standard magnetic compasses become more and more unreliable, the closer to the poles you get. So it doesn’t work the way you’re just assuming they do…and you could learn this pretty easily with just a little research. They don’t just flip at magnetic North or South when you cross the centre…doesn’t work that way. They’ve already become unusable long before you ever reach magnetic North or South. So most explorers and researchers there use GPS compasses, not magnetic compasses, for that reason.
To give you an example of how poorly they operate in these regions, there’s a video (you can find pretty easily, it’s among the top results from searching ‘magnetic compass at the poles’) from a commercial pilot operating in the far North, who demonstrated two separate compasses on their nav equipment, pointed in two completely different directions, one was pointing West, the other was pointing Northeast…so they just don’t work in these regions, so you’re not going to see them flip past a point, they simply just don’t work at all. So you’re making erroneous assumptions.
Again…all mechanical gyros precess over time. So even if Earth wasn’t rotating, they would still drift. Learn some basic physics of gyros please. Precession is a thing they deal with.
Ring laser gyros have been used to detect Earth rotation, for decades now. It’s verified science. Look up the large area ring interferometer detecting Earth rotation…you’ll find lots of people repeating the experiment. Even Flat Earthers have repeated this experiment, and detected the drift, look up Bob Knodel’ ring laser experiment sometime. So your empty claims don’t mean anything to me.
A gyrocompass requires electric motors to keep the gyros spinning…that’s the motors only function. So your argument is just stupid. You’re not quite understanding this…Aether (doesn’t exist, but if it did…) effects light, these are mechanical gyros used in the gyrocompass…they don’t use light, so Aether (if it did exist ) would have no effect. Your just making excuses, so you can pretend you have an argument here. But saying Aether effects these devices, fundamentally misunderstands how they work in the first place. And again…it’s just another empty claim that you’re slotting in, so you can avoid the reality that you’re wrong here. Why do you think empty claims should sway anyone? They don’t…so please stop making them.
And you’re straight up lying, the gyrocompass does not use magnets…in fact they use metal alloys that aren’t magnetic, in the construction of these devices, to reduce any magnetic influence. The whole point of these gyros is to point towards true North…not magnetic North. To do that, they remove all influence of magnetism. So you’re just straight up lying now.
You know for a guy who probably considers himself an arbiter of truth…you sure lie a lot. And why? Why bother? Do you think people are stupid? That they’ll just agree with you eventually if you lie often enough and bury them in empty claim after empty claim repeatedly? Like who are you trying to convince here…us, or yourself? 🧐
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 The proposed Allias effect has many explanations, even some to conclude it has been solved…none of them having to do with Aether. When an eclipse occurs, it blocks light and thus solar energy, this has an immediate effect on barometric air pressure at surface. Researchers noticed that only the pendulums that didn’t have proper controls for air pressure, were found to have a slight deviation in precession during eclipses, while the pendulums with better controls had no changes. Because it’s actually pretty rare…and that’s why it’s difficult to study, some researchers claim to have recreated the effect, while most don’t measure any deviations. Barometric pressure differences seem to be a leading hypothesis, though more tests need to be done.
That’s one proposed hypothesis for the occurrence, another is that the Moons gravity is in a period of perfect balance with the Earth during an eclipse, but I personally don’t think this would be the case seeing as it doesn’t effect every pendulum or gravimeter. In short, best not to jump to conclusions solely to support your bias…we certainly don’t toss out centuries of (working) science, because of a single anomaly yet to be fully understood…doesn’t work that way.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then, because I’ve seen many gyro experiments as well, both demonstrating gyroscopic precession and Foucault gyroscope experiments demonstrating Earth rotation. So you’re either blind…or not really trying.
No, mathematicians often look to simplify mathematical models…it’s actually an entire field of mathematics. These flight dynamics models are for simulations…so they only require a few variables, for the simulations these models are used for. They’re not to be taken literally…..that’s why they use wording like ASSUMED VARIABLES, that’s why these simplifications are only found in the summary sections and not the conclusions.
Read them a little closer sometime, take the most used one for example; NASA document 1207, derivations for linear flight dynamics. The document also clearly states these variables “a rigid vehicle of constant mass”, says those exact words right before it says “a flat non rotating Earth”. If you’d look at these words without your biased goggles on, you’d know that a vehicle with moving parts can’t be perfectly rigid, and with crew members and fuel that depletes over time it can’t maintain a constant mass. So these are impossible variables in reality, so they are very clearly being assumed, they are not real variables…..why doesn’t Flat Earth zero in on those words? Because it doesn’t fit your bias, so they can be ignored. Stuff like this reveals that you are in fact following confirmation bias in your conclusions…because this is a clear case of cherry picking.
These are math simulation models…so they simplify math equations, to remove variables that don’t effect the simulation they’re used for. They’re not stating facts of reality…that’s not what these models are for. If any of you were actually mathematicians, you’d know this…you’d recognize what these documents really are. But you’re not mathematicians…none of you are. I’ve never met a single flat Earther that was actually an expert in a field relevant to the discussion…gee I wonder why…
Coriolis is an example of an effect we would notice in a relative frame of motion, it’s a clue that hints at a rotation. This doesn’t break any relativity physics…you’re just reaching for arguments that aren’t there, by intentionally misunderstanding the physics.
Don’t twist my words. We can’t readily see curve with our naked eye on the horizontal (x axis) until a certain elevation, but seeing it in the distance in front of us (z axis), absolutely we can, and we have. We see it on the z axis, by how much objects drop below our eye level, and how much they become obscured by horizon. Look up the Turning Torso tower observations sometime…just one of many many many examples.
Nope, some surveyors are plane surveyors, others are geodetic…this is a real job title, and their job is to measure Earth curvature specifically. Your denial doesn’t change this.
Refraction is a real thing, easily proven, you observe it all the time in any body of water, from a small glass to a lake, refraction can and does shift the positions of physical objects, distorting what you see. For a very clear demonstration of atmospheric refraction, look up the Rainy Lake atmospheric refraction observation sometime. It’s a time lapse over several hours in a day, across a frozen lake with markers down the length of it for about 10 km. As refraction index increases throughout the day, the distant markers are clearly seen rising up by several feet. So I don’t really care about your ignorant conclusions, I’ve seen the evidence that directly refutes them. Atmospheric refraction is a thing, it can and does cause distant objects to rise up, so it can not be ignored.
“All those sky observations have explanations…”
Then explain them, cause “could” is not an explanation, it’s not even a hypothesis. The globe model meanwhile, accounts for every single observation, they fit the model perfectly, down to a mathematical certainty. So again, I’m sorry…but I’m not about to toss out a working model of reality, on a “could”.
You’ve steadily deflected our explanations and evidence with unflinching ignorance…your stubborn devotion to your biases is impressive, sure, but it doesn’t do much. You’re only fooling yourself.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@T-REX72 It’s happened many times in history, nazism, kkk, religious cults, etc. More recently, organizations like Antifa or Proud Boys. Like minded idiots, with a shared delusion, causing harm or damage to others, so over confident in that delusion...never realizing how stupid they really are, until it’s too late and the damage is done. Even happens for brief moments, like when riots break out over a sports team losing a game, or in politics like the most recent storming of the capital. Idiots...who were riled up by lies, propaganda and misinformation, getting together in larger numbers, and causing harm. Happens all the time. So I was speaking generally.
I’ve talked to hundreds of Flat Earthers over the last 4 years...these people aren’t just misinformed, they’re angry and scared...not a good combination. How long before that mob grows and organizes? It can happen...so best not to underestimate it I feel. At the very least they could effect policy, they are legal voters. Creationists were just a joke once too....now they’re lobbying to rewrite text books and change curriculums...even though they have generally no actual knowledge or experience in biology. Misinformed idiots, collecting together like cancerous tumours of people, doing real damage to human advancement.
If it gets much worse for FE, it should be addressed. All I’m saying is that for now, best to keep an eye on it, rather than ignore it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You need to chill dude, you’re just lacking a bit of physics knowledge here. There’s nothing magical going on, and I think I can help with some simple thought experiments. Let’s start with your misunderstandings of centrifugal force, let’s get into some simpler centrifugal force physics…then maybe we’ll talk about gravity.
First of all, scale is important, so let’s not forget to scale the physics as we scale down the model. Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours. So when you wet your ball and rotate it, don’t forget to do things in scale, rotate it at 1 complete rotation every 24 hours….oh boy is that ever fast! No…but seriously, it’s really not, I hope you’d agree.
Centrifugal force is caused by the rate of angular velocity change per second…1000 mph is a LINEAR VELOCITY and doesn’t mean much in centrifugal forces. With angular velocity, we use rotational units to help us understand and gauge it better, like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Basic rule of thumb, the more RPM’s, the higher the centrifugal force. This rule stays consistent with any scale, whether it be a ball in your hand or the Earth.
Earth rotates at 0.000694 RPM’s, for comparison a Gravitron ride at your local fair rotates at a rate of roughly 24 RPM’s. That’s a HUGE difference, I hope you’d agree. Hence why we’re not flung off our Earth…at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, centrifugal force would only negate about 0.3% of gravity at our fastest rotation, the Equator. Fun fact, did you know things actually weigh slightly less at the Equator, for that reason?
You can understand the difference between linear velocity and angular velocity with this simple thought experiment. Picture yourself in a really fast car, going at 200 mph, around a perfect circle track that is only 1000 meters in circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact it would be very difficult to stay on the track. Now let’s do it again, same car, same 200 mph linear velocity, except now the perfect circle track is 1000 miles in circumference. Would you expect to feel the same amount of centrifugal force? Nope, not even close, in fact the track would now be curving so gradually, it would almost feel like you were driving down a straight road.
So the centrifugal force changed in both examples…but the linear velocity (the mph) was the same in both. So what does this tell us about linear velocity and centrifugal forces? That linear velocities, like miles per hour, mean very little to the output of centrifugal force. So if the linear velocity was the same, but centrifugal force was drastically different, then what REALLY affected the centrifugal force? Well, in the first example, the car would be completing several complete laps every minute. In the second, the car would only complete ONE lap, every 5 hours. So the major difference, and what really affected the centrifugal force, was the revolution rate…not the cars linear velocity.
So if rate of rotation is what increases centrifugal force, NOT a linear velocity like 1000 mph, then what does that mean for an Earth rotating at the rate of ONE complete rotation every 24 hours? Pretty simple…basically very very little centrifugal force, not nearly enough to trump gravity.
Anyway, hope that helps with understanding centrifugal force a bit better. Depending on your response, I’ll see about getting into gravity physics a bit.
3
-
@rodneyetheridge3676 Oh boy…I see I’m dealing with a true “entelectual” here. Gravity relies on the mass of the object, so it’s a nonsensical scaled down model to ask for, because you’ll never be able to build anything big enough to overpower the Earth’s gravity, and anything smaller than Earth will not be able to overcome Earth’s gravity. So anything you pour on the much smaller ball, is always going to fall to the much more powerful source of gravity, the Earth…so it affects the results. We can’t just shut off Earth’s gravity, so Earth’s gravity would always interfere with any scaled down experiment, like the one you’ve proposed. So it’s a terrible suggestion for an experiment. Doesn’t mean we can’t test gravity, we just have to be more clever. The Cavendish experiment was that experiment, and it’s been repeated many times over the centuries. Look it up sometime.
But you’re right…I “loos”, from the moment I thought to waste my time trying to help here. 😅 Have a good one.
3
-
3
-
@laynekurtchris4122 Ya…so I’d be willing to bet your research probably amounts to some kook on YouTube, with zero credentials or experience in science, who dug out a single report out of the thousands, that was in favour of what YOU want to believe, and you call that unbiased research. Good job, you sure did your research alright. 👏
I could bring up the science that verifies you have no idea what you’re talking about, but at this point, I need only look outside to draw my conclusions. I’ve been experiencing fires in my area, every summer season now, for the past 10 years or so, and they just keep getting increasingly worse, every single year. We never used to be so smoked out here, but now we expect it every year. I’ve lived here for almost 40 years. Temperatures shattered records this year, to where fish and other sea creatures were cooking on the coasts…that’s not normal. And it’s not just here, it’s everywhere. The world is on fire pal, you might be fine with ignoring that, but I’m sure not going too.
You can stay in your fantasy world if you want, but unless you got some solid evidence for your claim, you’re certainly not gonna get far pushing empty bullshit on me. “Objective truth that climate change doesn’t exist” what kind of bullshit is that? Tell that to the towns around the world that are burnt to the ground. Maybe peel your face away from your screen and look outside, experience it for a change, and pay attention.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Science should never debate anything that has no credibility anymore. We’re putting satellites in orbit, space stations, astronauts. All world communication, navigation, engineering and infrastructure, pretty much every applied science operates on the foundation of the Globe model...so there is no debate here anymore. Offering to debate it, just fools the public into thinking there is still an argument to be made here...and there isn’t, there is no debate, so it should not be debated by scientists. The only side that has anything to gain is flat Earth, because they’d get a platform to spread their message to a wider audience....it’s marketing 101, get yourself in front of as many people as possible, you don’t have to be right, you just need to get people aware your product or idea exists.
So they’re smart not to get suckered into a debate. These people are con men....it’s exactly what they want.
3
-
@judahmorn4035 It’s a figure of speech (also a logical fallacy), it means you think in absolutes, rather than consider all the nuance in things. It means you assume a lot, the example here being you assume that because I agree with scientific consensus on the shape of the planet, it must mean I agree with every other consensus as well, such as big bang. Science doesn’t claim to know everything, it doesn’t think in absolutes, it operates in percentages of certainty. Big Bang isn’t a certainty, it just has the most evidence currently supporting it...that’s all. But there is nothing in science more certain than the shape of the planet...it’s an applied science at this point, which means it’s accurate. Very simple to verify for yourself, just learn to navigate...or observe one sunset, then ask yourself how that’s possible if the Earth is flat?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@truth_tells501 I’m sure she gave them every chance to explain, but people within FE are so convinced they’re right, I’ve noticed it tends to consume their entire identity. At that point they just will not accept that someone disagrees and they certainly won’t listen to any counter arguments anymore. You either agree, or you’re brainwashed, that’s the choices FE gives people…even family. Then being right becomes more important, than their own flesh and blood…it’s sad.
You’re demonstrating that here in these comments I’ve noticed, doing a lot of talking at people, and not a whole lot of listening or discussing. You’re assuming because people disagree, it must be because they haven’t looked into it yet…instead of considering that people may actually have reasons for why they disagree. Whether you like it or not, there is a very real possibility that you’ve fallen for a cleverly crafted online con…so that should at least be considered.
I get that you’re passionate about this, but listening does go both ways. Ignorance is pretty prevalent in both sides of any argument, but I really don’t see much of any listening at all from FE, and I’m sure Angie didn’t either. I can certainly understand standing up to bullish behaviour, you should stand strong in an argument, but have some perspective as well…pay attention a little, or it’s just pointless, then it just gets toxic.
I don’t know Angie, but I do know Flat Earthers…and I agree, it just gets toxic trying to have a conversation. Because there is no conversation, just a recruitment session. That’s the impression I get…so maybe ease up a bit, try listening a bit more, maybe then others will do the same for you. I can only hope Angie’s parents and brother decide family is more important than some conspiracy.
3
-
3
-
@patrickhickman8723 Funny you should bring that up, they actually have done this…so they can get planes up into much higher altitudes than they could with regular jet propulsion engines. They’re actually called Rocket Planes, look them up sometime. Planes can only fly so high, for the reasons you already know. Rockets are used to take them higher, because rockets don’t require air for thrust, or propulsion.
No, rocket propulsion is not the same as aircraft propulsion…that’s what we’re trying to help you realize.
It’s just incredible to me how stupid the world is getting. I was just explaining basic high school physics to you, and basic rocket science. Are you now gonna tell me rockets aren’t real? What is wrong with people today. 🤦♂️ Whether you like it or not, rocket propulsion is very much possible in a vacuum. Aircraft require the air and air pressure to generate thrust and lift, rockets and other spacecraft do not. So your argument is just ignorant to basic physics. Call us stupid all you like, but you’re just embarrassing yourself.
3
-
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 When we’re putting satellites into orbit, taking pictures of the Earth 24/7, confirming its shape, then talking to a Nazi Yoga teacher with zero experience in science, is pretty pointless. Yes, old information always has the potential to change as new information is acquired, yes, nothing in science is ever concluded 100%, but conmen absolutely do exploit that technicality to wedge their bullshit into the collective mindset. So scientists should never risk being baited by conmen. Whether you like it or not, that’s just smart…because unfortunately, you CAN win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a better bullshitter. Conmen are pretty good at bullshitting and working a crowd.
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 “…your argument is that there has to be a force that makes things fall and rise.”
Yes, but it’s a bit more than that, you’re ignoring the rest. Gravity starts the motion of matter, and then density displacement occurs. It starts a chain reaction that causes buoyancy. Without the starting motion, then nothing has any reason to displace, everything just occupies the current space they’re in. No motion, then no displacement, pretty simple. Gravity, puts everything into motion downward, more dense matter will occupy lowest position first, which pushes less dense matter out of its way, forcing it upward…causing density displacement, causing buoyancy. So where’s the hole exactly? 🤷♂️
The hole is in your conclusion. There’s no force present at all in your conclusion, no force to cause any motion of any matter, so nothing will move, nothing will displace. Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of matter and volumes, it doesn’t cause any motion. First law of motion is pretty clear, a force is required for all motion. If there’s no force causing any motion…then why would anything displace? It wouldn’t…proven time and again with density columns put in free fall.
This is well understood in physics…which is why gravity is included as a variable in buoyancy equations. Remove that variable, and engineers designing ballast tanks for ships and submarine are gonna find it pretty impossible to do their jobs.
That’s all you people really do…you break working physics.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 Didn’t say there’s no arguing against it, your arguments are just terrible is all. And you’re not fooling anyone, the only reason you deny gravity, is because it’s not very convenient for what you want to believe. If you had real rebuttals, then you’d find this conversation to be going better, but you’re biased…that’s why you believe what you believe, not because you have a point or actual evidence. You want Earth to be flat, because it means science has been lying, which means you get to believe they lied about everything, which means your Bible is no longer contested. That’s the reality here, one big trail of confirmation bias. You’re not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself.
First law of motion states that nothing puts itself into motion without a force present…a force is required for all motion. Falling is a motion, a phenomenon of nature. Science is just a method we use to deduce more about how these phenomena work. We noticed it directly correlates with buoyancy…in fact buoyancy doesn’t occur without the downward motion we noticed. It directly correlates to the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). So we deduced that downward motion (g), acts on the volume of the object (V), inside the density of the fluid (p), to cause buoyancy force (Fb). It’s no coincidence at all, that 9.8m/s^2 can accurately give us the buoyancy force of an object in a fluid…that’s not just a coincidence.
You’re arguing against applied science here…actual engineers use that formula, as well as many many others that use gravity in their framework, to build a LOT of things.
And you seem to think we should throw that all out, because you say “some things go up, some go down, that’s just how it is”. 🤦♂️ Again…can I use that for anything? Can an engineer use that to build a ballast tank for a ship? Can a dock crew use that to determine how much weight a ship can hold before it capsizes?
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 Every conclusion in science, that helps describe HOW a phenomenon works, is a theory…that’s what a scientific theory is. Not to be confused with a scientific law, which just describes WHAT is happening, but makes no attempt to explain why or how, that’s the difference between the two. It’s also very different from a regular theory, because a regular theory is just a best guess based off prior knowledge. In science, hypothesis takes the place of a regular theory in the layman usage, while a scientific theory is a conclusive conclusion compiled of facts and verified hypothesis.
So please learn the language of science. Electromagnetism is also a theory, but you’re currently using technology, that uses that knowledge, to send and receive your wifi data. Nothing goes beyond theory in science, it’s the pinnacle of all research. So there’s a reason nobody bats an eye when people say “it’s just a theory”, all that does is tells us immediately that you’re scientifically illiterate. At that point, you pretty much forfeit yourself from most discussions of science.
Currently, we understand that mass attracts mass, by bending space, causing motion to occur along that curved space, towards both masses…causing an attraction between masses. Mass attraction proven first with the Cavendish experiment, then the bending of space (general relativity) confirmed in experiments like the Eddington experiment of 1919, observations of red shift in stars, time dilation experiments in upper atmosphere, predicting the accurate orbit of Mercury, or more recently the detection of gravitational waves, etc. How it bends space and time, that’s what science doesn’t fully understand yet. Science is a process, it doesn’t automatically know everything right out of the gate, there’s always more to learn…what sucks is that people like yourself exploit that every chance they get, for their “god of the gaps” arguments.
Modern science currently doesn’t know for sure how mass bends space. What it does know, gravity is a thing, and it does bend space and attract mass, it’s why everything observed in space is spherical, why orbits occur, explains our atmosphere, heck it even explains how the Sun burns, through nuclear fusion (basically molecules of hydrogen being fused together by the intense gravity of Stars, causing it to shed electrons, producing energy, something we’ve recreated in fusion reactors by the way).
You don’t seem to get it, when gravity was realized, the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes…and they’re still falling.
It’s fine if people want to disagree…but you better have something better than “some things go up, some go down, that’s just how it is”. Great…if only science could be as lazy and ignorant. Sure would be easier.
3
-
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 “…you believe in the big bang.”
Never said I did, so now who’s assuming? 😛 But yes, I’m inclined to agree with the current conclusion, because I’ve looked at the evidence, and it’s quite compelling. The 4 pillars of the Big Bang, look them up, actually look at the evidence…then you can comment on whether it’s “lunacy” or not. Not before. Personally I have no problem with the concept of a creator God, but until I see evidence for that, I’m not going to just blindly believe it. If a better model of cosmology comes along, with even more evidence supporting it, then maybe I’ll change my mind…not before, that’s how it works.
“You think you’re spinning, floating, and rotating, but can’t feel it.”
I know our planet is, again, because I’ve seen the evidence, and it’s all legit. Most of it is easily repeatable too, without need for expensive equipment. Doesn’t take much to find a long stairwell, a rope, and a weight, so you can recreate the Foucault pendulum experiment…I’ve seen high schools do that experiment for christ sake. I also understand relative motion, I understand that thanks to the physics of conservation of momentum, I wouldn’t expect to feel any of Earth’s motions. It’s a misunderstanding of basic motion physics, that leads people to think we should feel Earth’s motions. Not my problem if you don’t understand basic Physics. I don’t feel I’m moving in a 500 moh passenger jet either…I wonder why? hmmmm 🧐
“…gravity is strong enough to hold is together, but not strong enough to hold us to the ground.”
Hmmm…last I checked I wasn’t floating off into space…sooooooo, seems to hold us down just fine.
“…and things don’t all fall at the rate of 9.8m/s^2…”
In a vacuum…ya, they do…test it yourself sometime, doesn’t require much to make a vacuum.
“…engineers don’t factor curvature…”
Empty claim and false. I can bring up MANY construction projects, that had to factor curvature. I’ll give you one for now, search the Caltech LIGO stations. On the Caltech website, in the ‘about’ section, under ‘facts’, you’ll find them explain how construction of the two channels had to remain perfectly tangent, but because of Earth’s curvature, each 4km long channel was dealing with about a meter of drop from starting station. So precision concrete pouring was required to counteract the curvature and keep both channels tangent. Just one of many examples I can share. Soooo…you don’t know shit. There’s a reason why it’s irrelevant to most construction, both gravity and Earth’s size factor into why. Not our problem if you can’t understand why.
“…I’m just bringing the facts.”
No, you’re making up bullshit and pretending they’re facts, AND expecting me to believe them without question…anything to convince yourself you’re smarter than millions of actual experts. That’s a fact…if you can’t handle that, then that’s your problem.
“…you can’t bend water.”
Water conforms to any force applied to it…like the surface tension that forms droplets into perfect spheres, or the pressure force that forms a bubble into a sphere. Water bends just fine within a field of force, such as geavity. Your denial of that fact is not an argument…it’s just plain ol’ denial.
“…can’t put a high pressure system next to a low pressure system.”
Hmm, wonder how the Ocean doesn’t burst out into the atmosphere…seeing as the pressure difference is pretty big. Maybe because gravity is keeping it contained? Hmmm…🧐 Thankfully, our atmosphere doesn’t go from 14 psi at surface, right to 0…it’s a gradient. Again, just more misunderstandings of basic physics from you. Even butchering thermodynamics physics doesn’t help you here…actually, it’s more the flat model with a dome, that breaks laws of thermodynamics. Because our Sun is a constant source of energy…so if the energy has no place to go, wouldn’t we expect our little enclosed bubble to heat up exponentially? And new gas is created at surface every day, if it has nowhere to go, wouldn’t the pressure also increase? Yup, I’d say so. Good thing we live in an open universe, where our atmosphere is free to shed energy from the Sun as much as thermodynamics laws dictate. 😁 And with the help of gravity, most of our atmosphere is contained just fine, within that field of force, no dome required.
“…you can’t measure any curvature.”
False, we can and we have, just ask any geodetic surveyor…it’s literally in their job title. Also, again…plot a navigation without the measured knowledge of Earth’s shape, then you just go ahead and let us know how well you do.
“…can’t get a photo cos no one gets past the dome.”
The dome you have SO MUCH evidence for? 😄 Asks for evidence of gravity…yet doesn’t seem to think the same standards apply when it comes to this dome you believe is up there? Hmmmm 🧐
Wow, the Bible really fucks with peoples heads…you’re a reflection of that. You need to pull your face out of that Bible and go visit a science lab….go visit several actually, like damn dude.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Your eyes are designed to interpret incoming light, that's how you see, from light that is coming to you, that your eye takes in and then interprets in the brain. If an object is big enough and bright enough...then there is no limit to how far away you can see it, cause as far as we know, there is no limit to how far light can travel. You can't compare a narrow hallway to the limits of your vision...because you do realize you often see much further then any hallway in existence, right? The horizon at 6 foot viewing height is about 5 miles away at any given time...how many hallways do you know of that are 5 miles long? Clouds often reside even further then that, and planes do as well. And the higher you go up the further you can see...people in planes can see for hundreds of miles in all directions...so where is the true limit of your vision? From what we understand, there is none, the truth is your eye interprets incoming light and light can travel infinitely far...so if light has no limit on the distance it can travel, and if your eye interprets incoming light in order for you to see, then logic would conclude that we can see objects from any distance away...even 93 million miles away, provided the object being viewed is large enough and bright enough.
Well, the Sun certainly ticks both of those boxes...especially the brightness....it's quite literally the brightest thing in our sky.
I feel your argument here is nothing but personal incredulity. You can't fathom the distance, so it seems impossible to you. Well, I'm sorry, but incredulity is not an argument...it is however a logical fallacy.
3
-
2
-
@flawlesscarlo You're assuming that temperature is all you require to melt something...and it's not. Pressure is the other variable required, this causes what is known as a convection heat transfer, which is what we experience here on Earth. There is a lot of molecules of air at our surface, which creates enough pressure, to maintain a convection heat...which is what helps to melt metal here on the surface. Space is a different environment entirely, so the physics doesn't exactly work the same. There is no pressure in space...it's a zero pressure environment, so the solar radiation from the Sun, which is the temperature reading they are getting, is mostly reflected off the surface of those spacecraft, there is no molecules of air around it to keep that heat around, no pressure for convection heat transfer to occur, thus no melting.
Your trouble is you think you know everything there is to know and you assume every environment operates the same as the one you're used too. This creates an overconfidence, that overconfidence is why you jump to conclusions and reach many false conclusions without realizing it, based on a lack of knowledge on the subject you're arguing. Learn some physics, I suggest you start with the difference between convection heat and solar radiation.
2
-
2
-
@flawlesscarlo Conservation of momentum is actually a lot easier outside of our atmosphere then inside, there's no air in space, so no drag force, so conservation of momentum is absolute. That's why all the planetary orbits and rotations never slow down...nothing in space to slow that momentum, so they orbit indefinitely. A spacecraft going to the Moon, is really not a problem, like you seem to think it is. Again, basic physics knowledge will help you here. What's gullible, is listening blindly to non experts...tell you the Earth is flat, when they have just as much working knowledge and experience as you do. That's gullible.
Don Petit was talking about the fact that they no longer have the old lunar modules anymore. They are stripped down, damaged, decommissioned and most of all obsolete. Why would we go back in the same tech from 60 years ago? Do we still drive model T cars around today? No...we don't, we drive new technology, that's exactly what they're going to do when they return to the Moon next, use a newer more efficient model of spacecraft. The trouble is, this is going to take a LOT of R and D. Each new system we invent/engineer, will need to be rigorously tested before being approved for launch, can't send up manned missions until it's deemed safe. The biggest trouble they were facing, was that our newer systems (the modern microchips used in modern systems), are more prone to damage in strong magnetic and radioactive fields. So this created an engineering challenge a few years ago, one that they've more recently overcome, with solid state systems...like the solid state drives that have now replaced the old magnetic strip hard drives in your computer. Similar advancements like this, have brought us closer to including this new tech, in more modern lunar module designs.
Man...if you just had more knowledge on the subjects you argue against, you wouldn't reach so many paranoid conclusions. They're going back to the Moon, new missions are scheduled for the mid to late 2020's. So they are close to having a new lunar module developed for these new missions. Be patient.
2
-
@flawlesscarlo Ok, so what is the main difference between cars, phones, gaming consoles and the lunar modules? The first 3 are mass produced for the purpose of sale....meanwhile nobody is buying a lunar module, it's not a consumer product in high demand, so they really don't make very many of them. So you're making a false comparison, they're not the same thing at all.
They no doubt still have the designs for those old lunar modules, but there has been a BIG gap between when they first used/engineered them and today. So that's a huge gap where nothing was being improved or tweaked in those designs, and since those old systems were all analog they're grossly out dated, they really had no choice but to start over when the picked up production again, which is going to come with new engineering hurtles. The lunar project was scrapped, so the old modules were decommissioned. They had no reason to go back to the Moon before, so they didn't put funds towards those missions...which meant no further R and D was done for the modules. Today, they have plans to go back, to establish a staging base for missions in deeper space, so today they have reason to go back.
But, let me tell ya, the thing I hate about this kind of conversation, is that all you or I can really do here is speculate. I'm not an engineer, I don't work for NASA and neither do you, so it doesn't matter how logical either of our conclusions may be on this, all we both can really do here is speculate...and I prefer avoiding speculations where we lean on our bias more then the facts. Which is why I prefer to focus on the science I can verify. Physics I can verify, at anytime I can test the laws of physical reality for myself. I can verify Earth science...I live here, I can put the Earth beneath my feet to the test at any time. So that's where I put my focus personally...I don't really care to speculate endlessly about NASA, nothing I can really verify for certain there, and neither can you really, so it's pointless to get so wound up in it.
Listen man, that being said, there are logical answers to your questions. I get your gripes, believe me I do, I'm not here to mock you, because it's perfectly fine to disagree and also perfectly fine to question what you're told. I'm just here to share some counter information I feel you may have overlooked, up to you really if you choose to consider any of it, can't force you to do anything. At the very least I hope you find the information I've shared interesting. Have a good one.
2
-
@flawlesscarlo I agree, people should question things more....so why aren't you doing that for Flat Earth? Why don't you spin that lens around sometime and question the many claims being made from Flat Earth, or these "faked space" pushers? I'm just sayin, these people aren't experts of any field...they hold no position or job title that has any relevance to the topic they are arguing against, so do you ever stop to think that MAYBE they're reaching a lot of false conclusions due to a lack of knowledge and experience, that MAYBE these people don't really know what they're talking about? Haven't we given you enough "reasonable doubt" to question flat Earth a little more thoroughly? Truth is, you have a bias, and that bias is a deep distrust in all systems of authority, so doesn't really matter what we show you, that bias keeps you from really listening to anything we'd have to say in counter.
You trust Flat Earth more, because they are regular people just like you, so you're more prone to just nod and agree to these people, so you're not much different...when it comes to nodding and agreeing, that really depends on your bias, and we all have them. My bias is the opposite, I tend to trust the people who BUILD everything. I trust experts who actually have experience and knowledge and know what they're talking about...because they've dedicated their lives to knowing what they're talking about. See, we're both bias, but I'm still gonna say the experts are a smarter horse to back...then non experts, who couldn't rebuild any of our current technology if their life depended on it...I think most people would agree. But, I do prefer to not lean on my bias, that's why I prefer sticking to the science that I can personally verify....then I don't require appealing to authorities or experts, I can reach my own conclusions with my own acquired knowledge.
Have you been listening though? You're so focused on ONE aspect, that you ignored a lot of what I said and then some. You seem to think NASA hasn't been doing anything else in the last 50 years...like getting to the Moon is there only purpose or something, but that's not true at all. Over the last 60 years, they've put thousands of satellites into orbit, each one of those launches required to put those up into orbit, is half a billion dollars right there...just for the launch, that's not including the pay load, which depending on the satellite, is millions of more dollars spent. They've built the ISS, sent probes out past our solar system, put rovers on Mars, more then once. Beyond that, the testing they do on the ISS and other facilities around the world, has led to innovations and inventions that YOU use every single day and don't even realize it. They are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing, helping to innovate and engineer new technology for societies benefit. They are exploring space, so we can gather information on that environment, so we can someday learn how to travel in this environment with efficiency...that is going to take time.
They are a research and development company...that is what NASA does. Whether you like it or not, It is important for any nation to fund the sciences...or it will fall behind in technology, it's that simple. In my opinion, we're not giving enough money to the sciences...had they better funded NASA, there likely would be a base on the Moon already, and missions to Mars happening...public space travel would have been much closer on the horizon.
YOU stay so focused on what you think NASA is doing, painting a paranoid picture of an evil industry....and give no thought to any other possibilities, and no thought to anything else they've actually done. They have over a thousand buildings around the world, with hundreds of thousands of employees. Think about that for a moment, 20 billion a year may seem like a lot to you and me, but for a company of that size, with so many assets to pay for, I'm surprised they can even keep the lights on with that piddly amount, especially when a single rocket launch used to cost half a billion. Just do me a favor sometime and compare their annual budget, to the US military sometime...if you wanna talk about a system that's grossly over funded, that could probably take a pay cut, it's the US military.
I know why you don't trust NASA, cause you've seen the "faked space" docs on YouTube that have convinced you they've been lying this whole time. You wanna talk about questioning things....take a moment to really break down those videos and question them sometime, don't just nod and agree with them, you might learn who the real liars are if you do. I've done that, and I've caught those docs lying so many times, I don't take them seriously anymore....they're lying to you, to sell you on this paranoid fantasy, so you'll buy t-shirts, books, docs, con tickets....these fuckers are the real liars in my opinion.
And that's exactly how they do it, they know that you don't really care to know things for certain...most people just require "reasonable doubt", so ya, all they have to do is cut those docs together, make a bunch of empty speculative claims about what's happening, and then they create enough "reasonable doubt", which gets you and others fired up enough to keep the lie going but never really analyzing it closer. I'm telling you, you're being conned by these people....they know all you need is "reasonable doubt" and it's not hard to create that, just lie and lie often, it's pretty simple.
I could go through any one of those "faked space" docs, and point out every lie they make, I used to do it a lot, so feel free to share one with me and I'd be happy to break it down for you. It's just empty claim after empty claim, lie after lie, do it enough...and you have generated enough "reasonable doubt" to get your followers convinced on your lies.
2
-
2
-
@davidsandall Yes, but truth is not always simple to discern, in science least of all. The harsh reality of information gathering in science, is that we will never have all the information, there’s simply too much to learn. For this reason, science doesn’t have the luxury to operate in absolute certainty’s (like most layman tend too think in), it can only operate in percentages of certainty. Because new information always has the potential to change old information, that’s just the reality. So truth is, locking down what’s really true, proving things, is not really the goal in science. Falsifying every other possibility is the goal of science, leaving only the most likely conclusion left standing, until it too can be falsified.
I understand this a foreign concept to most layman, which is why they’ll never really understand science. Debates are useful to challenge what we think we know, leading us to further insights, but public debates are not how science concludes science. It’s how simpletons think it’s done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@juantwothree11 Who’s “they”? Care to back that speculation up with any evidence? Or does every error you make just magically go away simply by saying “they”? Must be real nice to be a paranoid nut job, get to blame your incompetence on somebody else.
Also...I don’t think you know what ad hominem means, cause nothing I said was an ad hominem. Ad hominem only applies if I were to say your argument is wrong simply because of your class, race, gender, or status in life. If I were to use any of that as a counter argument, then I’d be committing ad hominem...simply pointing out how you’re wrong, is not ad hominem, criticism is not ad hominem...otherwise how would we ever be able to correct anyone’s errors? You’re an idiot yes, doesn’t make you wrong by default...your argument does. Furthermore, insulting you is also not an ad hominem, I can insult you all I want, so long as I’m not bringing up your character or status in life as my core argument. So learn your fallacies please.
You know, we wouldn’t need to correct you on definitions...if you’d just use words and fallacies properly. :/
2
-
2
-
1. Yes, we all know what a vanishing point is (at least anyone who has studied perspective for any reason), but here's the thing about vanishing point...it doesn't pick and choose what to make disappear first. Vanishing point converges from all angles equally and at the same rate of instance. What Flat Earth fails at here, is they assume these observations of a boat going over a horizon were made with the naked eye...and no, they weren't. That is demonstrating vanishing point, when cause then a boat just disappears from view, it has reached your eyes physical limit to render that light. But people of old who first made these observations were likely using retractable telescopes, which were very common for ship captains and fishermen of the time, so they were looking at these boats and ships at full zoom AND THEN they observed them going over curvature, disappearing bottom first. Tell me, do you think zooming in anymore will bring this boats bottom half back into view? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw&t=20s No...it won't, zoom in as much as you like, it has gone over curvature. Flat Earth doesn't look at these examples...they only pay attention to the examples that support their bias. Frankly you people are not very objective...and you rarely think to leave the camera rolling once you're at full zoom. Here's what you'll see every time if you leave the camera rolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi23xZmS03Q
2. Yes, we can verify that today very easily...this experiment has been repeated many times now. Eratosthenes was a highly educated man and was a brilliant mathematician...he likely did not fuck around, he would have made damn sure that angle was at 90 degrees in Cyene. Though it doesn't even matter now if he didn't...cause like I said, this experiment is repeatable and has been recreated and even done better. I hear a lot of Flat Earths also make the claim that this same experiment works on a Flat Earth with a local Sun...but then did any of these people think to TEST that claim? Cause we have...and when you do test the shadow angles from many different locations (I mean more then 2 locations), they do not point to a local...heck, they rarely point to a local sun even with just 2 locations tested. Here's a couple of examples of this test being recreated today, the results are pretty damning for the Flat Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=440s - Great experiment, using several different locations all over the Globe during the same time at the Equinox. If you're pressed for time, just watch the final 2 minutes of the video where he shares the results and compares the data gathered on a Flat Earth and then on a Globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg - Here is the Equinox tested again, only this time the data is plotted in 3D space...and it shows even more accurately, that the Shadow angles DO NOT line up and point toward a local Sun.
3. How'd they make sure to do this at the exact same time of year? Simple, they tested it during the Summer Solstice...which they knew occurred at the same time every single year. They knew this for several reasons...they were the fucking Greeks...these people started the calenders we now use today, they were genius mathematicians. They also had Sundials that tracked their day and told them when Noon was...but here's the big one, they knew it was the Summer Solstice on that day, because Cyene falls under the Solar Path of the Sun during this time of year. It was the only town in that area that fell directly on the Solar Path during Summer Solstice. This does something very interesting, at Noon the Sun falls directly above, making the shadow angles for that area appear to disappear...that's how directly light from the Sun is hitting this town at Noon on that day...and it happened like clock work, every single year, at the same time. Eratosthenes knew this, and he knew when the Summer Solstice would arrive again and then all he had to do was measure the shadow angle in Alexandria at Noon...and he knew that Noon would be the same time in Cyene, because they lie on close to the same Longitude, which means they share the same hours and the same Noon. Using sundials, he was able to know when Noon was, and so all he had to do then was measure the Shadow angles at Noon. Not simple for anyone else of the time to figure out...but Eratosthenes was not just anybody, he was one of the geniuses of his time. Then once he had the shadow angles, and confirmed they were different, all he needed was the accurate distance from Alexandria to Cyene. Once he knew that, it's just a simple bit of Trigonometry and he could figure out the Circumference of the Earth with accuracy...and he was crazy close.
So maybe learn these things in greater detail before you go running your mouth off about them. You claim you're not a Flat Earther...but you're using the same stupid logic and reasoning that they do...holding the gaps in your knowledge up as some sort of proof for something. You could have just searched for these answers...you do live in the information age today.
2
-
@zaidkassab I understand your convergence argument, but understand this...things do not drop due to this convergence. If the Earth were Flat, then the relative height would remain exactly where it is, in perspective, if something is at eye level, it does not drop below eye level...and the thing is, things in reality don't just get hidden by curve, they also drop beyond curve. This isn't how perspective works, but curvature yes. Convergence also can not explain why thousands of feet go missing at the base of mountains. It can maybe explain away why boats lose some of their bottoms, but not mountains, with thousands of feet missing at their base.
Here's a great video that demonstrates this pretty clearly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU If you're pressed for time, just start it at the 6 minute mark and watch from there where he compares a flat Earth with a Globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williamborregard6384 I’ve travelled South too, on several occasions, New Zealand and Australia and so I know you’re lying. Each time I was there, I could not see the Big Dipper (among many other stars and constellations), but I could see a new constellation that’s prevalent down there, known as the Southern Cross. As an amateur astronomer as well, I spent some time with an astronomy group down South on one of my travels, where we confirmed another geometric impossibility on Flat Earth, the South rotation of stars around their pole star Sigma Octantis. Soooo…gonna be pretty hard to lie to me about this.
The stars are not the same in the South, it’s a completely different sky, so you are lying. The question is why? Why would you knowingly lie to yourself? I can understand why you’d lie to us, to win an argument, but yourself? That’s pretty nonsensical.
Anyway, this is basic astronomy knowledge, known and confirmed by millions of people around the world on the daily….so good luck arguing against a known fact of reality. 😅
2
-
@williamborregard6384 When a constellation flips…it still retains its form. We’re not talking about flipped constellations, we’re talking about completely different stars and constellations. Your argument is just a red herring and an extremely ignorant one at that. Sorry, but you’re not going to be able to lie and twist Information, to someone who’s actually spent a good deal of time studying the subject and making their own observations.
Sure, let’s discuss the geometry of celestial navigation. Earth does rotate, around an axis. That axis is always pointed in the same direction, with Polaris near center for the North, and Sigma Octantis for the South, the celestial poles. Two hemispheres, each with there own rotation, around their own pole star…impossible geometry on a flat Earth, but exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe. You can deny it all you want, but the rest of us can’t be that ignorant.
So closer to the polar axis each star is, the less the stars will shift in relation to Earths rotation…Polaris basically not moving at all, making it a perfect reference point for making measures to horizon. Stars drop to horizon consistently by latitude, this is what we’d expect on a spherical surface, as the surface curves consistently. At 60th latitude, it’s 60 degrees to horizon, 50th it’s 50 degrees, 40th at 40 degrees and so on…a consistent drop, that’s what we measure in reality, that’s how sailors know their latitude. If Earth were flat, we would not expect the stars to drop consistently by latitude, which are all equal distance from each other, we would instead expect their rate of drop to horizon to lessen with each latitude point and stars at polar axis would never touch horizon, at least not at our scale. Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the Equator…this is an impossible geometry on a flat surface with a domed sky, polaris at center. Doing the math confirms this. It’s basic geometry…you have to be completely ignorant to basic geometry to think perspective is adequate enough to explain why the stars drop. The geometry does not fit that explanation, it’s that simple. Perspective is a part of geometry, it has geometric rules…rules that Flat Earth completely ignores in their argument, which is why we’re here pointing out your ignorance.
Flat Earth is an online con, taking advantage of the under educated and inexperienced. Learning to navigate is actually a perfect proof of Earth’s spherical surface, so I do urge people to learn it, that’s exactly what people should do…then maybe you’d all stop being suckered by con artists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williamborregard6384 Weight is created by gravity as well dumb dumb 🤦♂️…in fact weight can be considered another word for gravity, it’s physics 101, look it up sometime. Formula for weight is even simpler; W=mg. There’s that little ‘g’ again. The equation translates like this; Mass, times the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2), equals weight. You don’t have weight without gravity, that’s a fact, not an opinion. What the ocean always has is mass, which is all affected equally by gravity. You should be embarrassed for making such an argument…it just further displays how little you actually know.
You talk a big game about science, but you sure don’t know much. Everything I’ve explained to you so far is used by actual engineers and experts, in applied sciences. You know when you can tell your science is accurate? When it’s actually used in applied science, and it works. On the flip side, you know when you’re dealing with pseudoscience, when it simply does not work. That’s kind of the nice thing about junk science…it reveals itself by being absolutely useless.
Derive me new equations then for your density and buoyancy argument. If your scientific understanding is superior, then it should be easy to derive functional equations that can actually be used fir applied sciences, like engineering. So go ahead genius.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williamborregard6384 Here’s what you said word for word: “I did travel to South America. All the way to Patagonia. Same constellations.” It’s the start of your 3rd comment. So you didn’t just claim they flipped…you claimed you saw the exact same constellations from the North Hemisphere. Later you expressed that they “flipped” due to perspective, but we’re not talking about flipped constellations, we’re talking about completely different constellations. If you flip the Southern Cross constellation…is it gonna look any different? No, it’s still gonna look like a cross. 😂 Flip any of the constellations, they’re still gonna be recognizable, as that constellation. This isn’t difficult stuff my dude. 😅
The fact is, you absolutely can not see the same circumpolar constellation in each hemisphere. You can not see the Big Dipper in the South, and you can not see the Southern Cross in the North. And each constellation is observed to rotate around their own pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South. That is a fact, not an opinion. This is impossible geometry on a flat Earth, while on a globe it’s exactly what we’d expect to see…it’s that simple.
It’s evidence that matters, whether you acknowledge it or not, it’s basic geometry. The only reason you want to deflect and ignore it, is because you know damn well we caught you in an ignorant lie, and you know damn well the southern star observations are a HUGE problem for your belief of a flat Earth. We’re not going to ignore that.
2
-
@williamborregard6384 Actually, assumptions, presupposing and guessing are a major part of science…what do you think a hypothesis is? It’s basically an educated guess, based from prior knowledge and research, that you then test. Hypothesis is key step of the scientific method. You can’t do science without some guesswork, it’s a part of the scientific method. Flat Earth is an assumed premise as well…one that you’re happy to accept, despite the mountains of scientific research and evidence and applied science that says it’s not. So why should your presupposed model of reality be free from analysis and peer review? Answer is simple…it’s not….so here we are, questioning it, whether you like it or not.
You started this conversation off in the sky, in your very first comment here, when you poked at the Eratosthenes experiment. Then you claimed to have travelled South, and seen THE SAME constellations. Which of course isn’t true, which is why we’re all calling you out. You’re just trying to deflect, because you know full well your ignorance and lying has been caught.
2
-
2
-
Our eyes work by resolving light that enters into the eye. There’s no known limit to how far light can travel, so by extension there’s no known limit to how far we can see. It all depends on the size and luminosity of the object being observed, if it’s large enough and bright enough, then we will see it for a very long distance, even trillions of miles, like in the case of stars and galaxies.
We can only see Chicago from that distance, when refractive index allows for it. Atmospheric refraction is very real, it’s the cause of mirages, and it does also extend how far we can see over a curvature. Light bends, this is verified science, you can prove refraction at any lake or swimming pool…heck you can put a pencil in a clear glass cup and prove refraction.
Learn some basic physics please…stop being so gullible.
2
-
Well, if it's an arrogant dick waving competition you want...that's likely all you'll attract with a call out like that. Why not share ideas in a civil manner and just ask questions and share information nicely? Are you just in this debate to stroke your ego, are you feelings hurt that badly that you have to flex on people to feel superior, or would you rather keep that mind open (as Flat Earth likes to claim it does) and maybe learn something and in turn maybe actually get your ideas through to someone you're engaging with? You're not achieving anything by closing your mind off and assuming you know everything...I get that you've done your research into this topic and you know some shit now, but there is always a chance that you either overlooked something or misunderstood something, or that the sources you were pulling from were lying to you, so you have to consider that at all times. That goes for anybody.
But anyway, I'll ask you a question if it'll be responded back with some civility, otherwise I don't really see the point.
Here's a good question though, how is there two celestial rotations, one for the Northern hemisphere and one for the Southern hemisphere? By extension, why do we see different stars from hemisphere to hemisphere? Both of these observations are verified as fact and I have verified it for myself on several occasions now. There are two rotations and different stars depending on the hemisphere. This does not really seem to make much sense on any Flat Earth map or model I've seen so far, but they make perfect sense on a Globe, with 2 equal hemispheres...it's exactly what we'd expect to see. So that's my question for you, feel free to answer anytime.
2
-
@Bongofury361 Well, at least it's short...these Eric Dubay vids are usually pretty long, and nobody has the time for that. So thanks for finding a short one.
He makes several claims here, but I'll focus on his first lie he makes...cause Eric Dubay lies a lot and I think it's important to point these out, cause some people hold him like some sort of god almost. At about 3 minutes he claims that you can't see the Southern Cross simultaneously, from all other points in the South at the same time, so from South America, Africa and Australia simultaneously. He's correct that we can't see the Southern Cross from all 3 positions at once, but he fails to mention that we wouldn't expect to be able too on a Globe either...but what we do see is that TWO of these locations can see the same Southern Cross at the same time. That matches with a Globe, but does not work on a Flat Earth very well. You shouldn't be able to see ANY simultaneous Southern Cross spottings from two points on a Flat Earth, they are just too far apart, but it does work on a Globe. The only reason you can't see it from all 3 locations on Earth however, is because it's daylight on at least one of those points at any given time...and you can't see the stars through the daylight. But it is there...if you could see the stars through the daylight sun, you would be able to spot the southern cross from all 3 locations, and star constellation trackers confirm this. Even though you can't see it, it is there. So all 3 locations could see it...but the thing is, the fact that even TWO points in reality can see it, is evidence enough that we are not Flat.
To test this, just join an astronomy forum sometime, make sure it's a global forum, not just a local forum. They will likely post photos of their night sky with time stamps, so that you can correlate the hours and see if Two locations in the South could in fact see the Southern Cross at the same time. You can even find people in both locations to help you test this, so give it a try sometime.
The last part of that video...is a HUGE stretch of logic. His explanation for why there is a southern rotation that is just like the the Northern location, I quote "So it looks like a second pole, but it's just a massive perspective warp due to scale of the actual sky"...what a complete bit of bullshit. I'm sorry, but HOW can anyone agree with that explanation and then tell the rest of US that we're crazy for believing in a Globe? This makes zero sense and is just word salad...not much more. So he claims that perspective warps the southern sky...into a perfect circle...wow. That is some crazy shit. No, in reality this is what the sky would do on a Flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=53s
His explanation gives no experiments to help prove his conclusion...just talks a bunch of bullshit with a bunch of ad hoc explanations and it's incredible to me that anyone would believe that. If you apply Occam's Razor here, the round Earth makes far more sense and doesn't require a HUGE leap of logic to explain what's happening, it is exactly what we'd expect to see if the Earth were a Globe.
So nope, this does not answer for the Southern pole observations. His warping perspective explanation...is absolute crazy talk and people gotta own up to that...cause it's true and I think they know it too. Eric Dubay is a lying nut job...not much more.
The only thing he brings up that is a valid question, is the movement of the stars with all the different movements. So I'll address that next in another comment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Conmen use debates to sell their grifts and help advertise their bullshit, so scientists actually do have a policy, to take great care and consideration on who they debate. Because it could be just a trap, by clever conmen, who excel at putting others on the spot, regardless of how true or false their position is, to help sell their bullshit. Fact is, you can win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a better talker. So science, which deals with objective truths of reality, should never engage with potential conmen or grifters, peddling misinformation for a buck or even just for attention. Trouble is, they’re not always easy to spot, but we can at least start with credentials. Eric Dubay is yoga teacher, with zero schooling or experience in any field of science. So he has not earned any right to speak with actual accredited scientists, in a debate of science.
Though Eric Dubay is asked constantly by other YouTubers to debate, and he always turns them down or simply ignores them. So why does Eric get to turn down debates against his actual peers, while Tyson is criticized for ignoring a known conman?
2
-
@iRecordOS Drag is caused by a body of mass, moving through a fluid, that’s not moving with it at the same relative velocity, its inertia then becomes a resistance. A hovering helicopter isn’t moving through the atmosphere, it’s moving with the atmosphere, they’re moving together, so no drag. The bug is moving through the atmosphere, the atmosphere which is moving relative to the Earth, not the bug, so it’s smashing into those molecules of air, rather than moving with it. This creates drag. So one has drag, the other does not…your error is in focusing too much on the detail of them both being outside, and then assuming they’re the same, simply because they’re outside. But one is essentially stationary in the relative frame of motion that is Earth, the other (the bug) is in motion within that relative frame of motion.
There is nuance here, the atmosphere doesn’t move perfectly with the Earth, it does slosh around a bit…what do you think causes the winds? At least a little anyway, the winds are a complex system, they’re caused by many things, but Earth rotation does have some effect.
Don’t need a phd to counter flat Earth, just a basic understanding of geometry and physics is enough. I have no post secondary education, I’ve just always had an interest in science. In the information age, anyone can learn pretty much anything, whenever they want, no schools required…the trouble is there’s also a growing problem of misinformation, currently poisoning the well of information today, so it’s also becoming easier to slip into bullshit. Flat Earth has questions, but questions are not evidence, it’s important to note the difference. The globe has more than evidence at this point, it’s applied science, the entire industry of transportation uses a globe model for navigation…that’s not just a coincidence, that system is built from real world measurements. That’s when you know your science is correct, when you can apply it, and it works…pseudoscience is the opposite, it doesn’t work and has zero real world applications, that’s how you spot junk science, it’s actually pretty easy if you think of it that way. The global system of navigation is applied hundreds of thousands of times a day…that’s more than enough successful applications, to verify the model as accurate. Flat Earth has no working model…just questions, they pass off as evidence. These questions have answers today, they’re not new questions…they’re just new to you, if you’ve never really taken an interest in science until recently.
Conmen are currently perpetuating misinformation online, exploiting the gaps in peoples general lack of knowledge and experience, to scramble their minds. They do it by “just asking questions”, which seeds doubt. Doesn’t work on everyone, but doesn’t have too, just a few…propaganda works in much the same way. You think you have good intentions…you’re just helping them do it. The real problem here is that questions are truly great, I certainly wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from asking them, it’s how we learn…but conmen tend to use it as a weapon, instead of for learning. They’re currently teaching people to never seek the answers for questions, just pile them up as evidence against whatever you dislike instead, and then deny that they have possible answers, because then that illusion crumbles. Sadly, it is an effective way to silence what you don’t like or can’t admit, and a very effective method to convince people of bullshit…but it’s not honest, it robs you of real answers I feel.
Anyway, I hope I’ve provided enough information that might help. At the very least, I hope it was interesting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, that is one of the poorer observations from the Globe side, but this is usually an observation made from people who are new to the debate and don't quite understand the Flat Earth positions just yet, or given them much thought. It does seem logical at first, but yes, we can't make that assumption based from the other planets because who's to say we are a planet as well? So this is a counter position I actually do agree with and not a point I bring up at all anymore, because they are right on that one.
But we didn't just look at the other planets and assume we were one of them now did we...that was actually one of the last things we figured out. But this observation also does not mean we're NOT a planet like the others either, you can't assume either position really. So I think it's a good realization to have, good to stop making that argument for sure, but not a good one to dwell on, best to focus on how we figured out the geometry of our planet AND THEN learn how we figured out the rest, if stuff like this is obviously getting those gears turning.
We figured out the geometry of our planet first, through simple observations anybody can repeat, so you have to start there. Figuring out that we were a planet, that took thousands of years, over several observations and experiments, with advancements in technology helping along the way...before that, the planets were just wandering stars and WE were at the center. But there is good evidence that got us to the realization that we were a planet as well, it wasn't easy, but anybody today can learn this science and repeat it. So that's the best place to start. For me, sunsets, eclipses, star trails...none of this works on a flat Earth, but they all make perfect sense on a Globe...they're exactly what we'd expect to observe from the surface of a Globe, working within the cosmology we have deduced...and now recorded directly with photos and space exploration. Some people may be happy ignoring these simple observations...but I can't.
2
-
@Meta369 No, exactly what I’m doing is thinking…and you don’t like when people think for themselves and question you. Only a real fool would blindly believe your bullshit without questioning it, so grow up, I’m not one of your blind followers. I’ve been to the South, many times, the stars are very different…they are not mirrored. You’re not saying anything that proves your position…it’s all just empty jargon. It may work on the gullible idiots of Flat Earth that you successfully con, but anyone with some sense and actual real world experience is able to spot a pseudo intellectual and his word salads when they see one. :/
Your rambling is jargon to deflect from a very simple geometry, that fits every observation and measure, from the two celestial poles, to the midnight Sun in both hemispheres, to the 1 degree drop of Polaris to horizon every 60 nautical miles travelling South (which is what determines a latitude), etc. Geometry that’s only possible on a consistently curving surface, a sphere, with two equal hemispheres.
So jog on you nitwit, you’re not fooling anyone here.
2
-
@Meta369 A meridian is basically a line of longitude, a circumference line (non physical) that runs through both geographic poles. They’re imaginary lines that form a circumference, so they could technically start and end anywhere, but they cross at the poles so most would probably start and end them at either pole. Flat Earth doesn’t have a South pole, or a circumference that can be traced through both poles…so you don’t really have meridians either, not in the traditional sense.
So again you’re making another dumb argument that does more to verify a globe than anything. Every pilot and sailor in the world uses the same geographic coordinate system, with two equal hemisphere, and meridian lines running through two poles. That’s a fact, not an opinion. If you honestly think they can successfully navigate the Earth, with pinpoint precision, without knowing for certain the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating, then you seriously need a slap upside the head.
Get a better hobby you numpty.
2
-
@Meta369 Can you understand basic trig? Do angles within a triangle ever reach 0 degrees? No…so how exactly does Polaris reach zero degrees at the Equator? Why and how does it drop a consistent 1 degree every 60 nautical miles travelled South from the North pole Zenith? I’m sure you understand that if Earth were flat, perspective would cause this angle to drop less and less each equal distance travelled…not a consistent 1 degree every 60 nautical miles. A consistent curvature however would cause that, absolutely…and Polaris would eventually reach 0 degrees on a sphere.
This is actually one of the first clues that helped us first realize Earth was spherical…oops. Just because they only use 180 degrees for each half of a meridian, does not imply the Earth is flat. 180+180 is 360 degrees…meridians intersect at each pole, lines of latitude are equal distance for TWO hemispheres, becoming shorter and shorter in circumference the closer to BOTH poles that you get.
It is a fact, that every pilot and sailor is aware of…the geographic coordinate system they all use is designed for a sphere. If it was wrong, then they’d be getting lost everyday…because you simply cannot fudge geometry. The model is verified as accurate every single day, with every successful voyage…your endless attempts at mental gymnastics don’t change that, sorry.
And again…you have to be completely brain dead to believe “a mirrored sky” makes more sense of the two celestial rotations, than just being on the surface of a globe, which accounts for this observation with absolute ease. You’re not entirely stupid…even you have to realize this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hebrew816 You mean the documentary that was later outed as having been created by a con artist group of actors and self help speakers? That Convex Earth video? The same group that before that video claimed they had made contact with an interdimensional alien...named Bilu? Hate to break it to ya, but those were not scientists...and you need to get a better bullshit filter. Don't believe everything you see or read online. If I'm to do my own further research on your claim, then do me a favor and research that documentary sometime...you might be shocked what you learn about it.
No, I've never seen the Statue of Liberty from a boat, I've never been to New York.
Point is, you're making a lot of claims, without any evidence backing them. Do you think people should just agree to claims made without evidence? In this case, share your math, your exact location, your viewing height, photos, the refraction index for that day, etc. THAT is how you convince people, with supporting evidence. You're not doing anything by making empty claims followed by "do your own research". I'm sure you don't believe me about the documentary above being a scam....why do you think that is? Cause so far, I've provided no links in support of that claim. So....guess how I feel about your statue of liberty claim? About the same. For the record I did try, but the links keep getting removed by YouTube's filter, guess they don't allow any outside links anymore, only YouTube links.
2
-
2
-
@Hebrew816 I don't remember calling you a liar. That would be me not believing things at face value, but questioning the validity of claims made before I agree or disagree to them...kinda like what you're doing, but from the opposite perspective. Nothing unreasonable about asking for the details, to review those claims closer, to make sure they're accurate and not in error. That used to be pretty common sense and it's a standard in scientific inquiry. You're currently denying science...because I'm not sure if you've heard, but the scientific consensus is that Earth is a globe. It also makes up the model we currently use in pretty much every field of applied science, from navigation, to communication, engineering and infrastructure. So you got a lot of nerve saying that I'm denying science...I'm simply challenging your conclusions...working through the process of falsification. That's how you do proper science. Flat Earth is not consensus, so I'm not denying science, I'm reviewing claims made against established science. That's all.
But it seems you're moving on from your statue of liberty point, just gonna deflect now and dump gish gallop on me, eh...alrighty then, let's go through these.
A compass aligns with the duel polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The North has a negative polarity, the South has a positive...that doesn't just flip, it remains the same whether your in the North hemisphere or the South. So your assumption that it would flip, is your error.
The axis remains in the same orientation, pointing towards Polaris. It's position around the Sun changes, but that axis is always pointed in the direction of Polaris. And because Polaris is so far away, it doesn't appear to move, due to Parallax effect. It actually does shift a few arc seconds from month to month, but you sure won't be able to measure that slight deviation with your naked eye.
A better question is, why don't you see Polaris in the Southern Hemisphere? If it occupies the same sky for everywhere on Earth...shouldn't you be able to see it from anywhere? It's not just that though, a completely new set of stars become visible in the South when you go there, and they have their own pole star, Sigma Octantis, with their own perfect circle rotation of stars around that polar axis. Why is that? That's not what we'd expect to see on a flat Earth, it is however exactly what we'd expect to see on a Globe. So why does Flat Earth ignore that simple observation? Maybe because it's not very convenient for their argument, so it's just easier to ignore it? I'd say so, yes.
He didn't, what he said (at the time), was that no experiment so far can OPTICALLY detect Earths motion. Didn't mean it couldn't be detected through experimentation, just not optically in a single experiment. This was before satellites and advanced camera technology that can now detect things directly and optically, he of course would not be able to predict we would ever have this kind of technology today. You should read the whole quote from his Kyoto address in 1922, it is as follows "While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."
Take note of the end of that quotation, where he bluntly states, the Earth is revolving around the Earth...funny how Flat Earthers leave that part out. Context is important...cherry picking quotes out of context is a form of confirmation bias, so you won't get anywhere with that tactic.
"why are there two complete different theories of gravity? Newton/Einstein"
Because science is a process and we do not know everything. So this means, as new information is acquired, it always has the potential to change old information. That's the reality...science is a never ending process of review and falsification and change. That's actually why they decided to call their conclusions "theories", because a theory allows them room to change, alter, or even completely discard a theory, whenever they need too...as we've done many times before. Germ Theory completely replaced Galen's miasma theory, for example, one of many examples. The reason we still refer to Newtons work, is because it's still useful in some aspects. Einstein didn't completely replace Newtonian gravity physics, just revised it, updated it a bit. Newtons equations still work in most applications and they are far simpler to use...but you require Einstein's more advanced theory and his field equations, when dealing with more precise calculations...like say, predicting the orbit of Mercury, calculating a fusion reaction, detecting gravitational wave, etc.
Einstein worked at a patent office in his youth...then he got his PHD in physics, at the university of Zurich in 1905, making him a fully accredited scientist, where he then went on to work in the field of Theoretical Physics. Most people don't just automatically become a scientist...it takes years. In the meantime, they work shitty part time jobs....this isn't difficult to understand I hope, every scientist has had to work a shitty job at some point in their life.
This is what I'm talking about and why I'm questioning you. Your questions are good, but your conclusions are in extreme error, due to false assumptions you have, led by an extreme bias you have. That is why we have peer review in science in the first place, to weed out errors due to bias, cognitive dissonance, and in worst cases flat out lying. It's a very important step in the process of science...but Flat Earth seems to think it is above peer review. It is not, nothing and nobody is. That's the reality.
I hope you've found this information at the very least interesting. You can do your own further research on each point, so feel free. If you have any further questions or rebuttals, also, feel free. I'm not here to mock you, these are honestly good questions, I just feel your conclusions are in error currently.
2
-
@Hebrew816 Also no, he eventually told me his location and the direction he was looking. Bringing up a map of the area, I was able to find the tower he was referring too, and the tower was only 8 miles from his location. This is why Flat Earthers are usually pretty reluctant to give exact locations. Because once they do, they can't argue from ignorance anymore, they can no longer lie about things, neither to me, or themselves.
It's why I take issue with so many of you, in my experience, you're very dishonest to us and yourselves. I don't want to be a dick, I'm not here to troll you, I try my best to be civil, but you really don't like being shown anything that might reveal how you could have been in error, and it makes you very difficult to chat with. So it becomes frustrating, then ribbing you is the only appropriate response at that point.
Just be honest, then we can work through the information, and MAYBE we could help each other. There's really no need for all the defensiveness.
2
-
@Hebrew816 Your extreme lack of caring for precise details is quite telling. You saw a few photos of the Chicago skyline, somebody told you it was from really far away, and thus impossible, and that was good enough for you? No further work required, just believe them at their word alone, no questions asked? Why believe them blindly, but when someone tries to help you reassess that information to check it for accuracy, you fight them tooth and nail?
This is why most layman should stay out of science, you are lazy, intellectually dishonest, unable to reassess potential mistakes made, and you do not care for the actual work required to reach the most objective and conclusive conclusion. The details matter, I would work through any of the math with you, but we haven’t even gotten past the gathering of the precise variables yet…so we can’t do the math, without locking down every variable first and confirming without any doubt that they’re accurate. How is this difficult to understand? :/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hebrew816 And if you do actually believe refraction to be real, that they cause superior mirages, that can and do affect what we see at distances, then great! We now both agree that the Chicago skyline being seen from the distance that photo was taken, is perfectly within the realm of possible, on a spherical surface at our scale. So you now have your explanation for how they could see the Chicago skyline, from that distance.
If you still feel refraction couldn't have been the cause, then it's up to you, under the burden of proof, to falsify that conclusion with your evidence that supports your claim. So, if that is your position, then for the third time, what is your evidence that falsifies that conclusion?
2
-
@kunallusso Words in the English language take on new meaning depending on the context...that's kind of why English is a hard language to learn and grasp. The same word can be used in many different ways and they take on a new meaning all the time, depending on what context they are used in...vacuum is one of those words that can change depending on context. In the context of space, it does actually mean...emptiness, a void, a vacuum. So I'm not yanking your chain here...whether you like it or not, Flat Earth is misunderstanding the context here and THAT is where they are going wrong when they are trying to understand this science. It's hard to properly discuss the science with people...if they're not even speaking the same language. Science uses a LOT of words in a different context, Theory for example is another word that is used differently in science...that Flat Earthers are also misinterpreting, but that's a different rant I won't get into for now.
But even in normal speech, words take on different meaning depending on the context, they are called Homonyms and you yourself are aware of many of them. Here are a few good examples I'm sure you're aware of. The word "Pen", can be used like this "do you have a PEN I can write with?", or it can also be use like this "lock him up in the PEN." The exact same word, pronounced the exact same way, spelled the exact same way...but the word takes on a completely different meaning depending on the context. Another good one is the word "Left". You can use it to say "He LEFT the building" or you can use it to say "Turn LEFT at the next intersection"...the exact same word, spelled and pronounced the exact same way, but takes on a different definition depending on the context. Are you getting it yet? The English language does this ALL THE TIME! Vacuum is one of those words.
Words in the English language change and take on new meaning....DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT! In the context of SPACE, vacuum means EMPTINESS! It does not mean a SUCKING FORCE like a vacuum cleaner...those are two different things. So I'm sorry, but this is ABSOLUTELY something Flat Earth is getting wrong and the fact that you people argue with us about something so simple...is a pretty clear indicator of who the real idiot is.
If you can't even grasp something as simple as context in language...then what makes you think you can grasp advanced physics?
That being said, if English isn't your first language, then you kind of have an excuse...but still.
2
-
@kunallusso Air in a pressurized space vessel isn't being sucked out into space, so much as it is being PUSHED out. Space isn't sucking the air out when/if a hole is cracked in a space ship...you've seen to many sci-fi movies, it's being PUSHED out from the pressure inside of the vessel trying to move from high pressure to low pressure. It's basic entropy...pressure attempting to move from high pressure to a low pressure system, so they require an airlock on space ships...so that they can keep the INSIDE of the vessel pressurized, because if they don't it will just push its way out into the low pressure system, because space is the ULTIMATE low pressure system...it's nothing but empty space...so space is not sucking out the air, it's being pushed out, is that clear yet? It's no different here on Earth, if you punch a hole in a pressurized tank of gas...is the gas inside the tank being sucked out? No...of course not, it's PUSHING out, it's high pressure trying to move into low pressure and it will continue to move from high pressure to low pressure until it is equalized.
That's how gas pressure works...BUT gas pressure is different from atmospheric pressure. In the case with our atmosphere, the molecules of air don't disperse into the void of space, because of gravity. They want too, and entropy still is occurring (and even wins on occasion, as hydrogen and helium do escape into space sometimes), but entropy is easily contained by attractive forces...like gravity. You getting all this yet? We're not "making excuses", I'm trying to explain basic physics to you...physics that is verified and universally understood and unanimously accepted by pretty close to the entire scientific community. Easily understood and easily demonstrated as well. Space does not suck on anything...that's not how space works. The rest of the world understands this...Flat Earthers do not...that's your problem, so I'm just trying to help you realize that.
2
-
@kunallusso "What do spin dryers do. They expel water. Spinning expels water. It doesn't draw it in." Spin dryers also rotate at hundreds of RPM's...while the Earth completes ONE rotation every 24 hours. How much water is flung from a ball that completes a single rotation every 24 hours? Absolutely none...our Earth is no different. Centrifugal force is generated by an objects RPM's, how many rotations it completes per minute. This is well understood in physics and is easily demonstrated and there are plenty of experiments that anyone can reproduce that confirms this.
Even simple thought experiments can help anyone realize this fact of Centrifugal force, thought experiments that include things everyone has experience with in life, making them valid experiments. Here's a good one. Put yourself in a Nascar moving at a constant rate at max speed of 200 mph. Now place this car on a track that is only 1000 meters in circumference...at 200 miles per hour, going around a track that is only 1000 meters around...that driver is going to feel a LOT of inertia, heck he'd be having a hard time staying on the course because of how many revolutions he's making per minute! But now place that same car, traveling at the same speed, on a track that is now a perfect circle at 1000 miles in circumference...how much inertia will he feel now? None, absolutely zero...still traveling at an intense speed of 200 mph, but with his track now extended, it means he completes less rotations per minute...he now completes a single rotation every 5 hours, meaning his Centrifugal force, his inertia is GREATLY reduced! Instead of his body now being flung to the door, his car barely even notices that he's turning...the turn is sooooooo gradual, he might as well be traveling in a straight line, meaning basically ZERO centrifugal force is generated upon his body, so he feels nothing. The same is true with our Earths rotation...it takes 24 hours to complete a single rotation, so that is why nothing is flung from the surface of Earth...besides the fact that gravity also plays its role as well. There are many experiments one can do to help understand inertia and Centrifugal/Centripetal forces better...so please do that sometime.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kunallusso "Ain't nothing getting far enough from earth else we would have had actual photos of the earth. We don't have a single 1. We have zero photos." Here is a video of 200 images of Earth taken from deep space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE&t=146s These were taken long before the days of CGI and composite imagery. It is a false claim again, saying that all pictures of Earth are composites...that is simply not true. Yes, many pictures of Earth are composites today, but there are quite literally THOUSANDS of images of Earth today that are full images, non composite, non CGI, un-edited, un-altered...the video above shares 200 examples. Provided in that videos description is a link to an archive where you can find many many more photos just like those.
Besides these images, there are several satellites in orbit right now that take full images of Earth, some that even snap a picture every few minutes and then upload those photos in real time. Himawari 8 is a perfect example, I'm sure you've heard of it by now, but if you haven't, give it a look sometime. Not sure how old you are but back in the early 90's there was even a Satellite that had it's own channel on cable, you guessed it...a 24 hour live feed of Earth from space, from a Satellite in orbit that filmed it and then broadcasted that footage to cable. I can't remember the name of the channel off hand, but if you do enough searching, you'll likely find it.
Here's a neat trick you can actually do as well, using these live feed satellites that are currently in orbit taking full images of Earth every couple minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q What this guy in the video has done, is he found the live feed footage taken from the Himawari 8 satellite (which is geostationary with the continent of Australia, India and most of Asia), then he went outside and compared the cloud cover of those images over his area, with his actual sky outside during that same exact time. Wouldn't ya know it, the satellite images of Earth, matched his sky. Anyone can do this for themselves, you just need to find the Satellite that is geostationary with your location. I'm not quite sure which ones are currently locked to the Americas or the UK, but here's a list of all the geostationary satellites currently in orbit.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit
Anyway, I'm sorry but...it's just another empty claim from the Flat Earth camp. There are thousands of full image, non composite, non CGI images of Earth. So to claim there is not, is just more ignorance and denial.
2
-
@kunallusso "No one knows what height curvature starts cause it never does" Here is a great website that can help answer this for you. walter.bislins.ch/Curve Because I've seen you mention this a few times in the comments above, asking "at what height exactly does the curve become visible?". What this website has done is it has created a globe Earth simulator that you can interact with (it's also the best curve calculator available online currently, so it's a pretty handy tool for this topic). So if you click that link and go to the blog, you'll see a bunch of yellow tabs above the simulator window. Click on the tab that is labelled "Curve" and then watch the demonstration. It shows you exactly how high you have to be to begin to see curvature.
What they've done in that demonstration, is they've used the simulator to generate what the Earth curve looks like at various altitudes, on a globe simulator that is TOO SCALE, and then they matched those simulations to actual photos taken in the real world from those various altitudes they simulated. You will notice that the simulated Globe matches the real world photos perfectly.
What I really want you to pay attention too, are the photos taken from around 100 thousand feet, which is the maximum altitude for most balloons. You'll notice that the curve of the Earth at 100k feet...is BARELY noticeable, and certainly not easy to see at all through the haze of our atmosphere. But if you watch as they match the simulator to the images...there is curvature, it is there, you can see it if you draw lines across the horizon that HELP you see the curve.
Then they go even higher in elevation, matching low Earth orbit photos and far Earth orbit photos...but yes, pay attention to that demonstration in particular because it helps to answer your question here. The answer is around 100k feet, that is roughly around when you can START to see curvature...but it is VERY hard to see even at these heights...you have to go even higher to REALLY make that distinction. So the Earth is MASSIVE, much more massive then I think you realize. 100k ft...this is what, 20 miles? You do realize the Earth is about 8 THOUSAND miles in diameter right? What percentage is 20 of 8000? I'll tell you, it's 0.25%...pick up a basketball and pull your finger about a millimeter off the surface...that's roughly how high a balloon gets to at 100k feet...you think that's high enough to see anything? You're reaching.
I can show you videos as well. I can show you several videos I have found of rocket footage, unedited, uncut, from ground to space...clearly showing the curvature of the Earth. I've made sure as well that the cameras used in these examples are not using a fish eye lens...of course there is always a small level of what's called "barrel distortion" in any photo lens, but the level of curvature in these videos is not possible with the slight barrel distortion caused by a photographic lens.
Here is a small sample of some videos I have found, feel free to give them a look sometime. There are hundreds of these online...you just need to know where to look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGYYqDDfRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMfQHzjNvRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlURVCK5ujo&feature=youtu.be This video does have a single cut, but it occurs after it arrives in space, clearly showing curvature before the cut.
2
-
@kunallusso "Tell me why we see 80 miles away if earth is supposed to curve after 4? " Ask yourself how high was the observer, how tall are the objects you can see beyond curve, what's the refraction for that day...these details matter. Flat Earth pays attention to ONE equation most times, the 8 inches per mile squared equation...but they never check that math to see what it is (a basic formula for a parabola, not a sphere) and they never think to account for other variables, a HUGE ONE being HEIGHT OF THE OBSERVER! Their math ignores these variables...because 1) Flat Earthers are not very good at math and wouldn't know how to check for better more accurate equations and 2) it's far more convenient for their argument of no curvature, if they use the WRONG math and pretend it is the CORRECT math anyway.
Essentially, they are using the wrong math...and I shouldn't have to tell you, that when you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion every time...that's pretty common sense. Flat Earth doesn't care though...because the wrong math gives them figures that support their claims...Flat Earth loves that, because they love chasing that bias.
The math is wrong because it ignores variables that YOU require to make an accurate distinction of how much is hidden by curve. Sure we see things 80 miles away...but you do realize as you go higher in elevation, you can see FURTHER? You are aware of that correct? Your vantage point is higher, so you can then see more...this is also common knowledge...so why does Flat Earth often ignore this variable? It's very important to include in your math. 8 inches per mile squared does not include a variable for height of the observer, it just measures a curve from a tangent line from surface....meaning those figures it generates, are only accurate if your eye rests at sea level...but even THEN it's not accurate, because it still also ignores refraction. Which again, is quite real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzLm6HVqI9o
So in most cases when Flat Earth makes these long distance observations...they are using the wrong math, either the 8 inches per mile formula, or a calculator that takes height of the observer into account but then still ignores refraction index.
Observe this structure in Denmark, the turning torso building. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gKKui_R7N9A/WeDRVA_y3nI/AAAAAAAAFLk/Pg2oH094BEIe-ttGt0zQ7BPFZChGupKqwCLcBGAs/s1600/Leaning-Torso-building-lean-horizon-hidden.png Now why is it that the further the observer goes back....the more and more that building loses it's base...more and more becoming hidden by horizon? Why is that? Why is it that when you use the correct math found here https://www.metabunk.org/curve/, it all matches with the Globe? Why is that? The correct math is also included in that image I shared, the actual formulas being used. Anyone can check those formulas for accuracy, so feel free sometime.
Flat Earth may be happy with doing the BASE level of research, stopping at the evidence that supports their bias and never digging deeper to see how accurate it is...but for the rest of us, we'd rather know the OBJECTIVE truth. Flat Earthers typically use the wrong math every time they go to make a long distance observation of things hidden by curvature...and then when we show them pictures like this one https://2img.net/h/s32.postimg.cc/fyr0mkoad/tower_all_distances.jpg, you guys often just ignore it.
Why does that building lose more and more of its base as you go farther away from it? Just like it would if the Earth were a sphere. Answer that for me, with math that supports your hypothesis and MAYBE you'll have more ground to stand on...but you'll still have all the Curvature math that I am providing here to contend with first. We already have done just that...and reality matches with our calculations for a sphere.
For more great curvature observations I highly recommend this blog. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App This blog has cataloged several observations for curvature, using not only the correct math but a REALLY great curve simulating program. Just switch through the yellow tabs to watch the demonstrations, but I highly recommend you watch the Soundly observations of Lake Pontchartrain. They are quite interesting and pretty clear observations of curvature.
For more info on curvature calculations I find this video puts it quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPNUU3yw2Y&t=18s He explains a little more in depth the math being used for several observations, breaks down WHY the math that Flat Earthers often use is wrong or missing variables and then he shares that same metabunk calculator I shared above, explaining why it is FAR MORE accurate calculator, for the simple reason that it DOES include all the variables you require to make a far more accurate calculation for what is hidden by curvature at distances, rather then ignoring them for conveniences sake.
2
-
@Livingtoblesschannel Well, she was talking about the vessel then, if that’s what you prefer, and she wasn’t wrong, that’s basically all it is. Though, still plenty of debate on that front I would agree, nobody really knows yet for certain how consciousness manifests or where it comes from, but there is plenty of research now that suggests it is just basically chemical interactions between molecules, that free will doesn’t really exist, we’re just a series of interactions between molecules, working through a domino effect.
Perfectly fine to disagree, but I wouldn’t be so quick to right that off...especially if you’ve based your conclusion on faith alone, no actual science.
You can certainly say “21 grams of energy leave a human body after it dies”, but you certainly can not just conclude it’s “the operator leaving the vehicle”, not without evidence you can’t. Further on that point, mind giving me a citation where Einstein ever said that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@T-REX72 When has the KKK, or Antifa ever contributed in government? To my knowledge, neither of them has...maybe local government, but certainly not state or national. Feel free to point out your evidence of that claim...but to my knowledge, neither is a recognized government party, nor are they on any government payroll.
Yes, I was speaking very generally. Like minded Idiots form groups all the time, some of them do damage. Like I said before, Creationists used to be laughed at too...now they’re organized, and lobbying to change entire school curriculums. It’s not a stretch to think Flat Earthers could do the same eventually, if they poison enough minds and gain enough support.
Just saying, if we can nip it in the bud now, we should do what we can.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@maatssun6713 We can test gravity, many ways to do it, it’s verifiable science. What we can’t do is scale down gravity, for the exact experiment you’re asking for....if you understood gravity at all, you’d know that and you’d understand why. But we don’t have too, because Earth already does it, so we test Earth...it’s not hard to understand.
The balloon footage is your demonstration, go look some up sometime, no point for me to waste my energy looking them up for you.
Here’s the reality of your situation, Flat Earth has no working model, and has nothing we can actually use in applied science. They claim to have superior scientific knowledge...yet nothing they spew leads to anything we can actually use, so Flatties will never contribute to anything useful for that reason. You just have bullshit...some of you are well aware it’s all bullshit, and you’re just trolling people....and some of you are the suckers who fell for it. Which one are you I wonder?
2
-
2
-
2
-
What’s so non scientific about climate change? We record data, the recorded Earth temperatures over decades show that it is rising…and we understand that C02 contributes to greenhouse gases. It’s proven through the scientific method to trap heat for longer, and we do create a lot of pollution through the burning of fuels that create more C02, specifically carbon 13 isotope, which is increasing in atmosphere, that’s what we detect an increase of…and that’s the exact isotope that cars and power plants produce, while Earth generally naturally creates carbon 12. So what’s so non scientific about this? 🤷♂️
Have you been to any major cities like LA, London, Hong Kong, or Bangkok? The air pollution in these places is so dense you can’t even see through it…so why is it so hard to see that mankind is capable of increasing greenhouse gases? You can literally see the pollution we’re capable of creating. It doesn’t take much, even a small increase in any of the greenhouse gases will raise temperatures through the trapping of more sun energy. We are dumping more C02 into the air through our power and transportation technologies…so it’s pretty simple to deduce that we’re causing the current increase in temperature.
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? 🤷♂️ What’s so wrong about wanting to reduce pollution? We used to all agree that was a good thing…so what changed? Think y’all been watching too many movies…there’s no shadowy villains plotting to destroy us all in the real world, it’s just us I’m afraid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Afraid of ignorance and paranoia turning into a mob mentality that effects progress and distorts knowledge? Yes, that is a real concern, can’t allow the paranoid and ignorant to force their superstitious bullshit and muddy the waters of knowledge, or else we get nothing done. Afraid of being wrong? No, could care less, science doesn’t mind being wrong, it learns a lot more from its mistakes than it does from success, science is all about falsification, that’s how it works. But they’re certainly not just going to roll over for every kook and crackpot with delusions of grandeur and nothing but speculations and empty claims. They’re gonna make claims, then they should expect the peer review of those claims. Flat Earth has no working model, and nothing that’s currently used in any field of applied science…that’s for a good reason, because it’s not reality. You can keep kicking that dead horse if you want, but you’re wasting your time.
2
-
@therussells4950 Well, considering every volcano on Earth spews molten iron in very high composition, that sure helps give us a clue. The fact that a liquid iron core spinning around a solid inner iron core, would easily generate the electromagnetic field we detect around Earth…that doesn’t just happen on its own, so an iron core makes sense of that phenomenon. The fact that we know iron to be one of the densest materials and the most abundant on Earth, it doesn’t take much deduction at that point to know that gravity would pull the densest material to centre. But the science that really helps us determine the inner composition of Earth, the science that gives us the most data, is the science of seismology.
Every Earthquake generates three different seismic waves, the surface wave that travels along the surface, which are the waves we’re familiar with, and two different waves that travel through the Earth, P and S waves. P waves, aka Primary waves which can pass through any material but are deflected differently depending on the material, and the slower moving S waves, aka Secondary waves, which do not pass through liquid and air, they stop at both liquids and empty open channels of gas.
Every single Earthquake gives us data of these two waves, passing through the Earth and pinging stations on the other side of the Earth, before the surface waves arrive, essentially because they took a shortcut through the Earth. This does two things, confirms the Earth is spherical, because the waves pass through Earth and hit stations on the other side, and it also gives us data on the Earth’s physical properties. It has confirmed that Earth’s inner core is mostly iron and nickel, which also just so happens to be the two most abundant alloys on Earth, with a liquid outer core and a solid iron inner core.
That’s how we know the inner composition of Earth, so now you learned something. Feel free to look up the science of seismology anytime, particularly on S and P waves and what they can tell us, it’s pretty fascinating research. You can also visit the IRIS archive anytime, which is where all world seismic activity is catalogued publicly, the data goes back almost a century…they’ve been studying Earth this way for a long time now.
What you should take away from this is that humans are indeed limited in what we can do physically, we can’t yet travel to the inner core, this is true, but we’re a pretty clever bunch, we have found many work arounds to our physical limitations. Point is, you don’t have to physically go somewhere, to learn about how that place operates on a physical level, you just have to be clever and devise different methods of exploration and discovery. Learn some science please, educate yourself on the many things mankind is doing out in the real world, stop getting your science from huxters online who really don’t know shit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamaldeep13 In terms of quantity of FE nonsense on YouTube, definitely improved…I was in these chats as far back as 2017 when it was REALLY bad, hundreds of comments a day under one video, new videos uploading constantly. But at least back then the majority in comments (not so much the videos they were making) were asking questions in good faith, I could have real conversations and maybe help a little, answer some questions, felt like I could actually get through to some people. Today…it’s just nothing but the die hard trolls making the same dumb arguments ad-infinitum. Not much discussion to be had anymore, they’re only looking for attention, so insulting is all we can really do. I’d say it’s better that it’s not infecting more people, the interest has died down substantially…but I don’t have Tik Tok, and I hear it’s getting bad on there. Still, I’d say it’s gotten better, not in terms of the arguments (seems they’re just getting dumber) but in terms of popularity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, this is exactly why most in science would agree, that public staged debate is no way to settle science. It is scary how many in the US though, see everything as a battle…with clear winners and losers. They do tend to hold winning above all else…regardless of the truth. It’s a very broken way of getting to the objective truth of things, for the very reason you described above. Science is settled by evidence, data, facts…and hopefully it remains that way, but now the jocks think they’re scientists all of a sudden. 🙄Sadly, their methodology is baked right into how they think, very emotionally driven, instead of objective and honest.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Gravity keeps the gases to our surface. Space does not suck, it creates zero suction, space is quite literally just the absence of matter, nothing more. There is entropy, gas wants to move into lower pressure systems, but entropy of gas is easily contained, if a force is present that can slow or contain that entropy...and there is, we called it gravity. Gas moves up due to displacement (buoyancy) and kinetic energy, but buoyancy no longer happens if there's nothing left to displace anything and kinetic energy of gas molecules becomes less and less the higher it goes and then it just eventually runs out and falls back to Earth. But some gas does escape into space...just not very much, we shed gas VERY slowly and it's generally only the lighter gases like hydrogen or helium that make it out. CO2 builds up because it's a heavier gas...and it's also a denser gas that helps keep and trap heat. So that's the problem we have today, if CO2 keeps building up, then we will grow hotter and hotter...climate change in a nutshell. The Earth will be fine, it will adapt, but we'll be fucked...it's not a good thing for modern society. We'll likely survive too...we're pretty damn hard to kill, but this world you know and understand today will likely be gone...and that sucks.
There is no debate that CO2 is building up, this is occurring right now, we've measured it. The question is what's causing it, that's really the only area for debate...but not really, our transportation and industries do emit CO2...a lot of CO2. The only thing that can really absorb that CO2 is plants and vegetation...but we're clear cutting forests at an alarming rate...which doesn't help. So it's kind of a no brainer that we have something to do with why CO2 is building up in our atmosphere. Either way, it's not good for us and it's going to fuck us if we don't do something about it.
2
-
I think you should look up the difference between a sidereal day and a solar day. All clocks are timed to the solar day (and actually, our second is also timed to the solar day), which adds a few more minutes to a day, to account for a little extra Earth rotation, so that Noon always lines up with the position of the Sun. A sidereal day is one complete Earth rotation (takes about 23 hours 56 minutes), solar day is one complete rotation, then a little extra to account for position of the Sun each day. This ensures the time keeps pace with Earth’s position around the Sun. A sundial of course does this naturally, as it works by sunlight…so it depends on Suns position.
It’s fine if people don’t know these things off hand, but we do live in the information age currently, your questions have answers and they’re just a few short keystrokes away, at any time. Flat Earthers need to stop jumping to rushed conclusions and start doing a bit more research, beyond what their YouTube overlords tell them.
2
-
2
-
No scientist really focuses on shit that's already proven and verified...and NASA certainly don't waste their time, cause if any organization knows for sure what the shape of the planet is...it's fuckin NASA. They could care less if a few people don't know anything about science and geometry enough to figure this out for themselves.
But here's something Flat Earth fails at here, why don't Flat Earthers keep the camera rolling when the got those ships at full zoom? Here's what happens when you do just that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi23xZmS03Q Here's another one, tell me if you actually think zooming in any more will bring the bottom of this ship back into focus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw&t=20s I'll save you the effort...it won't. That ship has gone over horizon...and it will not be brought back into view by zooming in...he even tries, the ships position doesn't change and no more of the bottom becomes visible.
What Flat Earth demonstrates when it brings ships back with binoculars or zoom lenses of any kind, is vanishing point. Which in perspective and optics is just the physical limit something reaches where your eye can no longer render it visible, so it appears to vanish. Put simply, if you can bring a boat back into focus...then it has not yet gone over curvature, it's as simple as that. The thing about vanishing point, it does not pick and choose what to make disappear first, it converges from all angles equally and at the same rate of instance. It does not make the bottoms disappear first...vanishing point can not explain this...but curvature sure can.
1
-
1
-
world class hacker And I’d rather not reach full conclusions, around nothing but paranoid speculations. Asking questions is perfectly fine, but keep your damn head on your shoulders while you do it. You don’t know it’s bubbles, you’re speculating that it is...but you don’t really know shit for sure, yet you’ve reached a conclusion anyway. See the problem with that? Could be ice debris, space debris, material debris flaking off the exterior, tons of other possible explanations you need to consider if you’re to remain objective. Oh yes, I’ve seen these videos claiming they’re “bubbles”, it’s always one or two little flecks of something...that could be fucking anything! Then you look at a breathing apparatus under water...and notice how many bubbles they’re really dumping out. Sure, they tell you it’s bubbles...and then you suckers eat that shit up. If you’re so all about asking questions......why didn’t you ALSO ask questions about these video’s on YouTube? Did you even bother?
Have you ever edited a film in post? I can tell you right now, editing out bubbles would be a fucking nightmare! If they were going to fake it, they wouldn’t do it under water...that would be a stupid thing to do, any film student could tell you that. They would just use wires and green screen...far less shit getting in the way of the shot. But...for some reason you all are happy to just assume it’s bubbles, no further thought or analysis required. Whatever confirms that bias is good enough, right? :/
You’re not just asking questions....that’s the problem! You’re reaching full conclusions from nothing substantial, just pure speculation and assumption. So save it...you’re not impressing anyone. It’s not hard to lie online, happens all the time, the modern internet is a con artists wet dream! Chop up a video full of speculations, half truths and content taken out of context, then spin whatever tale you want upon it...bound to be some suckers who will eat that up, no questions asked. :/
You need to consider the very real possibility, that the true liars and huxters...are the people making these YouTube docs claiming to be catching space agencies lying. If you don’t also turn that skeptical lens around on them, then you’re not really asking questions, you’re listening blindly to a narrative being fed to you. You’re chasing confirmation bias. Keep that in mind.
But go ahead, bring up any video you feel is substantial evidence, and not just empty claims, assumptions and speculations. Bet I could point out several areas where they straight up lie to you. I’ve reviewed many of them now, so go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Riptions Well, they’re only dismissed if they can be successfully falsified. Do you think flat Earth is somehow free from burden of proof and peer review? Because I sure don’t. You may not like having the questioning turned on you, but tough titty, the same standards of skepticism and analysis apply to you and FE as well. Don’t pretend like they don’t. It’s never a waste of time to review what you think you know.
Were you aware that you actually have to set a sundial by latitude? The gnomon has to be parallel to the 23.4 degree tilt of Earth’s axis, and so you actually have to angle it by latitude, 1 degree difference every 69 miles, to set a sundial accurately. This requires you angle it pointed South for the Southern Hemisphere. So no…this doesn’t actually work on a flat Earth, you’ve just made an assumption that they work without really knowing much about sundials. The steady adjustment of 1 degree every equal distance is another problem your model faces…that’s not a geometry we’d expect on a flat surface, on a flat surface that angle would be less and less the further away you got from the Suns position moving down the latitudes going South…that’s just basic trig.
Also, it should be noted that Eratosthenes wasn’t trying to prove Earth’s shape with his observation, he was merely measuring the circumference in his version of the experiment. You only require two shadow measurements to calculate a circumference, but take any more than two, take several more measurements from various locations, and you absolutely can determine the surface shape. Even with your lamp example, I can determine if the surface of the road is flat, just by moving equal distances several times, and then checking that angle to see how it’s consistent. Is the angle dropping by equal measures (like 1 degree every 69 miles like we measure on Earth), or does the angle drop less and less by each equal distance (say 1 degree in the first 69 miles, then 0.5 in the next 69 miles, then 0.25 in the next and so on)? If it’s the latter, then I can determine the surface of the street is flat, because a curved surface would cause a consistent drop, as a sphere curves consistently….you can actually do quite a lot with just basic trig and geometry.
So no, I think it’s your points that are easily falsified…and that’s probably why you prefer empty rhetoric, bragging and big talk, rather than sharing actual evidence.
1
-
@Riptions I’ve seen a few examples of sunset videos that are extremely over exposed and blurry, with a lot of haziness and cloud cover at horizon, shot so poorly on purpose to create the illusion that Sun shrinks in angular size throughout a day…but film the Sun with crisp clear resolution, using a solar filter lens, with locked exposure to remove all glare, and every time you do this the Sun is observed to remain the same angular size, throughout a full day, falsifying your perspective argument. This occurs regardless of where you observe it, over water or not…we’ve all seen a sunset, it sinks into horizon every time. This is impossible with your model.
Angular size is a consequence of perspective…you don’t have a vanishing point without angular size shrinking to a point where the object becomes impossible to resolve any further, because it’s angular size has reduced to a point unable to see. So perspective isn’t the explanation for a sunset…you have to ignore a LOT of perspective fundamentals, to think that ad hoc explanation is good enough. Maybe YOU are fine with ignoring the glaring holes in the FE’s perspective argument…but I sure can’t, and neither can most people.
Even you have to realize how flawed and intentionally ignorant that argument is. If not though……then how? 🤷♂️
1
-
@Riptions It only appears larger at horizon because of the Ebbinghaus optical illusion, aka the relative size illusion. Look it up sometime, our eyes are easily tricked by optical illusions such as this. Actually observing the Sun throughout a full day, with a solar filter lens to remove all glare, and you will see it does not change size. A pilot/amateur astronomer that goes by Wolfie6020 on YouTube, has many good clear and crisp observations of this, over water and over land, he’s done many observations, all verifying the Sun and the Moon do not shrink at all throughout a day. Give his channel a look sometime, he’s quite thorough with his observations.
As for your star’s argument, consider this, if the stars were closer, wouldn’t we expect to observe a lot of parallax effect, just by travelling a few hundred miles in any direction and observing the stars again? Shouldn’t the stars drift a lot, if they’re much closer to is on a dome? The fact that they don’t parallax at all from travelling, is a big clue that suggests they must be really really far away…that’s the first bit if evidence that led us to that conclusion in the first place.
You have to put it into the proper scales to understand how this works. The Earth moves roughly 800,000 miles in a single 12 hour night period. That may seem pretty far…to you and me, a couple of microbes living on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who thinks a mile is a measure of significance…but to the galaxy, we might as well have not even moved at all in that 12 hour time frame. Put it into scale that down to understand how this works. Polaris is clocked at about 434 light years away, a single light year is 6 trillion miles away…so that’s 2.604x10^15 miles…that’s a lot of zeroes. 800,000 miles is only 0.00000000003% of that distance. So…scale it down, go out at night and observe a street light from say a mile away, that will represent Polaris. What’s 0.00000000003% of 1 mile? You might as well not move at all, so the street light hasn’t moved from your perspective.
Does that help make sense of this? You have to think in terms of the scales you’re dealing with. Distance has a profound effect on perceived motion, it’s why a passenger jet in the sky moving at 500 mph, only appears to barely crawl across the sky at just 3-5 miles altitude from you. Parallax effect can’t be ignored or understated here.
I’m curious though, why only focus on the Northern sky? Why does every flat Earther only focus on the Northern sky, but complete ignores the South? I find that odd. You are aware by now I’m sure, that Earth has two hemispheres, with two celestial rotations of stars, around two separate polar axis? That for me is one of the best proofs that Earth is not flat, because it’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe…but flat Earth has essentially no answer for this observation. So why ignore the Southern sky? 🤷♂️ I mean if you’re gonna use the stars as evidence.
1
-
1
-
@Riptions I’m not phased because it doesn’t falsify the globe as you seem to think it does. It’s just ignorant of all the evidence and data that verifies the stars are far away, and it ignores parallax effect, which does more than account for why the stars don’t shift in a single night. I’m not phased because your arguments are quite simply, ignorant. You’re asking me to just ignore a valid explanation for your observation of Polaris. Sorry, but I’m not going to do that.
Doesn’t take any appeals from authority to observe the Southern rotation of stars for yourself, you can do it from almost anywhere, on any clear night. It’s best observed from the South hemisphere of course, but you can absolutely observe both rotations from anywhere below the 60 degree latitude line North or South, just point your camera South, you’ll see a second rotation around a second pole, it’s quite clear. And it doesn’t take much knowledge of basic geometry to understand the impossibility of these two rotations on a flat Earth, with one sky, and one rotation. And it gets worse for your model even more, by another fact of Earth’s surface geometry. The stars rise and fall to horizon at a consistent rate, 1 degree every 69 miles, that would not occur on a flat surface. It would however be exactly what we’d expect to observe on the surface of a sphere. So while your model requires a lot of ignorance to accept, the globe fits every observation and measurement…and explains every observation with ease, from sunsets, to the two celestial rotations, to the stellar parallax we observe in stars every 6 months, to every motion of every planet, to lunar eclipse..the list goes on. And it’s applied science, just learn to navigate if you don’t think so…navigation is simply not possible without accurate knowledge of Earth’s surface. So I’m sorry but, you really don’t have much of an argument…just ignorance.
Why are you happy to agree with every one of Robotham’s assumptions (and extreme level of word salad? Appealing to his authority without question is fine, but every other astronomer, scientist, expert in the world you can just ignore? Every other expert is wrong…but one guy, who lied about being a doctor for decades, and had zero actual credentials, heck he dropped out of school around grade 9…but he’s right, and you can appeal to his opinions without question? 🧐 You really don’t see the bias in that, or the hypocrisy?
No, you’re happy to agree with any assumptions and appeals to authority, so long as it agrees with your bias. That’s fine really, we all do that to some degree, we all have our biases. But there are glaring holes in the flat Earth, and that’s why we’re here commenting. You don’t have to agree, and I certainly can’t force you to agree either, but I do feel you’re just another victim of confirmation bias, confirmed through selective ignorance and personal incredulity.
1
-
1
-
@Poweruser75 Technology didn’t bite NASA in the ass…con men just exploited a few peoples general lack of knowledge in basic things, like the difference between vanishing point and horizon. It’s akin to a slight of hand trick, not a hard con to run, just keep your eye on the claim and don’t question it, and it works because you already distrust, hate, or resent authority and are looking for anything to hit them with. The con is simple, zoom a boat back into focus, then tell people it was horizon you zoomed them back from, when it was really just a demonstration of the vanishing point effect. Your desire to confirm your biases does the rest.
You didn’t “strike a nerve”, as much as you’d wish, I’m just trying to explain how you’ve been conned here. There’s plenty of examples online of people using the p900 on objects that are actually past the horizon…no amount of zoom brings them back, because they are being obscured by surface. Look up the turning torso tower observation sometime.
1
-
1
-
@davidsandall Every map is flat, because it’s easier to carry around a 2 dimensional sheet of paper, than it is to carry around a globe. But every flat map is inaccurate, with distortions, because it’s impossible to interpret 3 dimensions on a flat 2 dimensional surface.
No, they do not teach pilots to fly flat geometry, quite the opposite. You’re misreading the simplification being done in the mathematics, of aeronautics flight manuals. These are summary sections, running hypotheticals or removing variables in the math to simplify it, variables that are not required in the section they’re solving. Again, you’re just demonstrating your lack of understanding. You’re taking the summary literally, and that’s not how you interpret a research paper or scientific manual.
Just layman getting confused with things, they do not understand. That’s all that you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who do you think you’re fooling, seriously? YOU are the flat Earther, it’s pretty obvious…question is why hide it? 🧐 Gotta lie to flerf I suppose.
The independent variable in most experiments involving observations of celestial objects such as planets, is time. Look it up sometime, time is a very common independent variable used for many experiments. So if you weren’t aware, now you are.
No, the Cavendish experiment is not debated by scientists today, it’s long been settled and it’s very easily recreated today. The only people who contest it today are not scientists, they’re layman who pretend they know what they’re talking about.
The oscillation occurs because of the tension in the string, it’s impossible to remove that tension entirely and it easily trumps gravitational attraction at a point, hence the oscillation…but you measure the average angle of the oscillation, and the rate at which it occurs, to find the constant. Electromagnetic forces are easily ruled out, by simply changing the objects used in the attraction (every material reacts differently to static and electromagnetic attractions, but the oscillation in the cavendish is consistent regardless of materials used, and there is no repelling, only attraction, which rules out electromagnetism), and by using a faraday cage/screen which negates static and electromagnetic attractions. So you’re lying again…electromagnetism is controlled in the experiment. You must have a very low opinion of science if you honestly think they never thought to control for other attractive forces. 😑
Buoyancy is caused by gravity…this is basic physics, proven in countless drop tests. That’s also why gravity is included in the formula for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume…it can not cause motion. So again…just more bullshit.
The fact that you have to lie to hide what you are…only points out and solidifies the deceitful nature of Flat Earthers. Quite ironic for a group that often considers themselves “truth seekers”.
1
-
The Earth is photographed, in its entirety, around the clock daily, by geostationary weather satellites in orbit…so not sure what you’re talking about, there’s probably millions of photos at this point. Look up the Himawari, GOES, EPIC and many other satellites currently photographing Earth.
We haven’t been back to the Moon in 50 years because we really had no reason too and it was far too expensive. So it’s a simple matter of interest vs cost. It costs too much, and there wasn’t as much interest, so no new missions…it’s not a difficult thing to understand.
But now that private industries like SpaceX have helped in the development of reusable rockets, dropping the average cost of a single launch from half a billion to about 60 million (a massive decrease in costs), it’s now become FAR cheaper to do missions like this. So guess what, they are going back soon, just look up the Artemis program sometime. The plan is to build a refuelling base for future missions in deeper space. It’s always been something they’ve wanted to do, but until recently they really didn’t have the technology to do it, too costly and dangerous, so funding was cut and placed elsewhere until the tech could catch up with ambitions.
It’s fine to wonder, but jeez…why does everything have to be a conspiracy with people? Questions and speculations aren’t evidence, especially when there’s logical answers to those questions and actual evidence against speculations.
1
-
@trendynow1369 No, the satellites I shared are all geostationary…meaning not in low Earth orbit, meaning they’re not composite satellites. They’re far enough out in orbit, that they take full shots of Earth in a single shot.
They didn’t lose the technology, they destroyed the old modules, cause they were old, obsolete and not safe for use anymore. And since no funding was going into any new moon missions, they were not actively developing new modules, so they didn’t have any around the time that interview you pulled that quote from was released. But now they do, again, look up the Artemis program, they have new missions planned for as early as 2024.
YOU need to wake up, and stop listening blindly to every conspiracy YouTube documentary that pops into your feed.
1
-
1
-
@trendynow1369 They’re not lying, you’re just grossly taking quotes out of context, and taking them far too literally. You’re acting as though ONE scientist, who maybe chose his words a bit poorly, somehow speaks for ALL of NASA. It’s called confirmation bias, you’re not really looking at the nuance of what’s being said, just focusing on what confirms your bias and then ignoring all other inquiry. He’s not lying, they did destroy all the old modules and they did not put funding towards building any more (at that time). So where’s the lie in what he said? 🤷♂️
Here’s the truth, you WANT there to be something fishy in what he said, so you choose to see it that, over exaggerating the words, spinning it into conspiratorial nonsense. That’s the reality, YOU are creating the conspiracy from your delusions. That’s the reality here. At that point, it doesn’t matter what I say, I’m not speaking to a rational person, just a paranoid delusional.
1
-
1
-
@trendynow1369 Yes, and I see your logic and I entertained it (though all you did was make claims and ask questions, which is not evidence, so wasn’t really much to entertain) but I found many reasons to see it as nonsensical, so now I’m sharing those insights. Do you think I should just listen blindly to a stranger online and never question what’s said? Would you?
I absolutely see why conspiracy’s like this are so alluring for many, it’s within that sweet spot of; governments lie + very few people have actually been to space = endless room to speculate. I personally prefer to not chase speculations and paranoid hop scotch. I prefer actual evidence, speculations and empty claims are not evidence, so I do not follow them to conclusions. I can entertain them and listen to them, but I will not chalk them up as evidence until they are verifiable. It’s that simple.
I’ve shared many sources that verify satellites are in orbit now, sharing actual evidence…and all you’ve done is ignored them speculated on them further, so who’s really not entertaining a position? It’s a very real possibility that flat Earth is an online hoax, pushed by con artists, that knows how easy it is to push misinformation online, because they have no oversight or peer review system. Do YOU, in all your superior intelligence, ever entertain that possibility?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DigitalGus75 Flat Earth is just an easier topic than others, requiring a lot less scientific knowledge and experience to tackle, so that means a larger pool of people can chime in. Also, it’s more frustrating and shocking than others, because It’s obviously wrong, it shouldn’t even be a debate, but it is…somehow. So it’s more triggering, we’re just dumbfounded that anyone would even consider it, so the desire to snuff it out is greater.
Thing is, we’re all kind of sort of experts here, because we all live here, we have experience here. I don’t have any experience synthesizing a vaccine, or on collecting carbon data from ancient ice samples, or sending rockets into space, and most people don’t…but I have been to the ocean, I’ve seen boats go over the horizon. I’ve travelled to the Southern Hemisphere, I’ve seen the second rotation of stars around their own polar axis. I’ve been on long plane and ship voyages before, I know these professionals of navigation use a system designed around the knowledge that Earth is spherical. I’ve seen a sunset and I understand basic geometry, I understand how a sunset would be impossible, on a flat Earth with ONE sky, where it’s never blocked from my line of sight by the surface.
So it’s easier to debunk and we’re all basically experts on the topic, so that’s why it gets more attention, more people can chime in. It’s actually fairly rare to see an accredited scientist wasting their time. Most people debunking flat Earth, are layman, joining a conversation of science that’s not outside their experiences…like most other conspiracy’s are. I can argue for vaccines, but I’m not a virologist, so my expertise is very limited. I can argue against climate deniers, but I’m not a scientist out there collecting and analyzing data, so it limits what I can argue against. Flat Earth though…remembering just a few experiences in my life, and I can take the arguments as far as any flat Earther can.
That’s why it gets so much more attention, in my opinion. It’s the easiest one to debunk, with the largest pool of experts. We’re all experts on Earth, in our own ways, because we all have experience here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickhickman8723 Well, you certainly don’t mind ignoring basic facts, to ram a square peg into a round hole. Here’s some basic facts you’ve ignored so far.
FACT: Rockets are not Aeroplanes, so they shouldn’t be compared to Aeroplanes.
FACT: Rockets do not use air for thrust or lift, they use the third law of motion, action reaction. Ignited gas imparts a force on the rocket (action), rocket is pushed by that force in the opposite direction (reaction).
FACT: Rockets can and do propel in vacuum, Aeroplanes can not…hence why rockets are used in space travel.
FACT: Many words in the English language have different definitions depending on the context. Ex. Level.
FACT: Sea level is not implying Earth is flat, it’s implying that the surface of oceans are all at equipotential distance from centre of a field of force. Field of force being Gravity.
FACT: Plumb Bobs align with gravity vectors. Gravity vectors point to centre of gravity, so plumb bobs point to centre as well.
FACT: You are not smarter than the engineers and scientists who developed our current technology and scientific understandings. Far from it.
FACT: Flat Earth is an internet hoax, introduced by conmen and trolls, and perpetuated by the village idiots who fell for the scam. Which one are you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bongofury361 So Eric Dubay, in your video you shared with me, points out the same thing you did here with your question "How did early explorers use a sextant on a spinning ball Earth, if all the constellations are flying all over the fucking place?" This is actually a valid question and is the ONLY thing he mentions in that video that is relevant and not bullshit or a straight up lie.
It is a good question, how do the stars remain almost perfectly still night after night and in the same location, if we're moving so fast through the galaxy? But then I have a question for you, have you heard of parallax? Of course you have...It's very easy to demonstrate, you likely have noticed it every single time you get into a moving vehicle. The more distance between you and an object, the less it appears to move relative to you. This is why objects on the side of the road appear to whiz past at blistering speeds while the distant trees, houses, mountains appear to move very slow in the distance, slower and slower the farther they are away from you...and the Moon moves so slow it actually appears to be following you, as if it's not moving at all. This is parallax and you know what this is...Flat Earth talks about parallax too, when it talks about why stars don't appear to shift in their own model.
It works by distance....and the stars in our model are clocked at TRILLIONS of miles away. Sooo...pretty easy to see why they're not moving. The parallax here is even farther then the Moon. But then I do see where Flat Earthers are coming from on this, but I don't think you're thinking it all the way through, you're ignoring parallax here...and you know what it is, so it makes me wonder why?
It is fair though to wonder why there's not more movement, from all the different directions we're going in, it is a valid question. But then work it out, look at each movement and compare the distances they trace, relative to the distances from the stars in our model. Understand that parallax will only make objects appear to move, if there is an angular shift...not a straight line movement. With stars at Trillions of miles away, if you move in a straight path, you would need to be moving at many times faster than light to make those stars appear to move and parallax...cause you have to cover trillions of miles in mere seconds...and nothing moves that fast, not even light. So only a rotation can make the stars parallax in multiple directions...but if you look at our movements through space, most of our movements, are basically straight lines through space. You can work that out, by figuring out how far we've moved in our orbit around the Sun in just 24 hours...and then realize that we haven't even arced ONE DEGREE in that orbital rotation in a single day....it's even less in our rotation around the galaxy....far far less. So the only noticeable movement we should notice in 24 hours, is our daily rotational movement around our axis...and we do, the stars make a perfect circle that matches with our 24 hour rotation...and again, there is two of them, just like we'd expect to see on a Globe.
So if you REALLY focus on all the variables, if you understand parallax and how it works, and realize that rotation is really the only way those stars would make a noticeable shift and then work out how much our Earth actually rotates in its orbits...the only rotation that we should see, is the rotation around our axis, which is exactly what we do see. Sorry, I know I'm being redundant now, but hopefully repeating it helps to understand this.
So IF the stars are as far away as scientists say they are, then it actually makes perfect logical sense that they wouldn't move. So that's the only krux to this, how do we know they are as far away as science claims? Which is another good question...that can be answered as well and I can even show you how they do it.
Anyway, I hope I was able to articulate this well enough for you. I can also show some visuals if they'd help.
1
-
1
-
@natemontgomery5740 It's always perplexed me how anyone can think Earth being round and the universe being vast, in any way makes you insignificant. Being an ignorant flat Earther, clinging to a keyboard in a basement, spouting bullshit online, THAT right there does more to make you insignificant, cause you're just wasting your life.
But here's a question, what's more impressive, a God that could create a seemingly endless cosmos, the likes of which we will NEVER fully understand....or a God who created a tiny terrarium, for a few lowly pets he keeps inside who can never escape? Do you wanna be a glorified goldfish or something? Or would you rather have an entire universe to explore, with endless challenges to conquer and overcome?
Personally, I'd much prefer the latter, that excites me cause the possibilities are endless! But, we should never let what we WANT to be true, get in the way of analyzing things objectively. Science doesn't concern itself with what you want to be true, that gets us nowhere. Which is why mankind barely achieved much of anything for thousands of years, then the scientific revolution struck about 500 years ago, and we FINALLY got out from the clutches of religion and dogmatic superstitions, that had been holding us back for so long.
I'd much prefer we don't ever go back to that, we were just wasting our potential. You can create your own purpose Nate, you don't need a God to do that for you.
1
-
1
-
@spakeface9752 You’re not entirely wrong, an elliptical orbit does mean there’s a change in velocity, but it’s a gradual change over time. In Earth’s orbit around the Sun for example, at peak perihelion Earth is moving at roughly 67,800 mph, and at peak aphelion it’s moving roughly 65,500 mph, a difference of about 2300 mph. If you were to divide 2300 by 182.5 (half of an orbital cycle, half a year) you’d get a gradual increase of roughly 12.6 mph per day. An increase of 12 mph…over a span of 24 hours. Ever gone from 0-60 mph over the span of an hour? You wouldn’t feel any acceleration at any point in an acceleration that slow…but you think you’d notice an increase of 12 mph over the course of 24 hours? 🧐 Those accelerations just get slower the wider the orbital circumference is…our orbit around galactic centre might as well be a constant velocity from our perspective, when it takes probably a few million years to accelerate a 1000 mph faster.
It’s like Flat Earthers don’t even think these arguments through before you present them…you just stop thinking about it once you’ve found something you think supports your bias. Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
Yes, we feel acceleration, but if it’s a gradual acceleration than you will not feel it…and anyone can test that at any time, with a car, and a gradual acceleration over time. So putting it simply, we do not feel Earth’s motions because from our perspective, they might as well be constant velocities. The accelerations over time are far to gradual for our senses to detect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barrymitchell5831 Could you perhaps share this Encyclopedia entry where it states the Earth is Flat? I’ve seen no such entry and I used to have a full set from before that time, given to me by my great grandmother, who lived to be 104. She was big on education, she used to teach me some history, science being my favourite, so she taught me a lot of science history. She taught me about how we discovered the Earth was spherical thousands of years ago, mostly from paying attention to the geometry of the sky, world navigation being a big factor to that discovery. Then she told me about how Copernicus and Galileo discovered we were orbiting the Sun about 500-400 years ago. The church at that time, being the foundational institution for pretty much all education systems at that time, was in full agreement the Earth was spherical and that’s what they taught their scholars, but they persecuted Galileo and a few of his colleagues for their discovery of the Sun being the centre. So it’s well documented that even the church agreed a pretty long time ago, that the Earth was a sphere…that’s what I was taught, by someone who lived and went to school long before this entry change you’re claiming occurred.
My great grandma was born in 1904, her school years would have started around 1910 and ran into the 20’s. So if Encyclopedias, which were basically the Internet of that time, were saying the Earth was flat in her time, why then did my great grandmother not teach me about Flat Earth? Encyclopedias held pretty much the entire general collective knowledge of mankind, anything they said was pretty much taught in schools at that time…so again, why was my great grandmother taught different from encyclopedias?
Feel free to find any official Encyclopedic entry claiming the Earth was flat, because I’m certainly not about to believe empty claims like that, without a record to back it up. I don’t expect you to believe my story, no matter how true it is for me, I can’t very well prove any of that to you, it’s just how I personally know what you’re saying isn’t true, but you can verify your claim with just a single source, a place where I might be able to find proof of what you’re claiming. So feel free.
1
-
@iRecordOS 1) It’s a sloppy experiment, it’s that simple…you think science is done with single data points? Then you have no idea what is required of an actual experiment, to reach a conclusive conclusion. Look at the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it shouldn’t be difficult to find the official research blog…that’s how you conduct a proper experiment. That is recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, it’s conclusion is conclusive, the Earth is curving.
I’ll give you one simple falsification of the original Bedford level though, there are several errors, but I’ll give you one for now. 8 inches per mile squared is the math he used…it has absolutely no variable for height of the observer. As you’re well aware, you see further the higher you are…but that equation gives the same exact figure, no matter how high you are in elevation. So think about it…if that math is saying the same amount is hidden, at 2 feet or 1000 feet, then don’t you think the math is perhaps not the correct math to use here? 🧐 Ya…very much so. He basically pulled a sleight of hand trick, used the wrong math, but told everyone it was the correct math…and for some reason, many didn’t bother to check! Flat Earthers are still using that math…and I can’t face palm enough. 🤦♂️ It simply does not represent line of sight, so it’s the wrong math…use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion. If you’d like to know the correct math, or if you’d like more reasons why the original Bedford Level experiment is inconclusive, I can keep going…I’ve dissected it many times now, and I don’t mind doing it again.
2) That’s fine, it’s not really the job of science to convince everyone, its role is merely to conduct observations, collect data, and report on what’s been discovered through that research. If you’re not convinced, most the time it’s because you’ve never actually looked at the research. But most of that research is public domain, so YOU can research how these conclusions were reached at anytime. I’ll tell you this much, when astro physcists and astronauts are actively putting satellites, space stations and probes out into space…you think they really give a fuck about what you believe? 🤷♂️ That’s a hard no. But actually, it’s more Pyhagoreans cousin trigonometry that you can thank for how we determined the Suns distance. Plenty of data you research, I’d suggest looking up a user here known as Jos Leys, he’s a mathematician that’s taken the time to simulate the data in some pretty clear demonstrations. And it’s all data you can acquire yourself, and mathematics that’s pretty simple…so your arguments from ignorance don’t really count for much against evidence that anyone can access and obtain.
3) Eric Dubay is a Yoga teacher…who’s never stepped foot in a research lab in his life. And that’s the guy you’re gonna follow? Pay closer attention to his rambling sometime…let me know when he shares any actual evidence for anything he says. He makes a lot of empty claims, he’ll flash a few diagrams in your face, and then speculate endlessly…..but what actual evidence does he ever share, that can help to verify any of it? Just pay attention next time, keep in mind the difference between speculation and evidence…then try and spot when he actually shares evidence. You might be shocked to find, he mainly just rambles…empty claim after empty claim, but that’s about it. In debating circles, we’d call his method of argument a gish gallop, essentially quantity over quality, dumping a shit load of weaker arguments all at once, to make the core argument appear more bolstered, while giving your opponent a mountain to climb…but each point can be easily falsified with little effort, if taken one at a time. A gish gallop dump is a deceitful tactic in debates, and it’s often stopped before it’s allowed to continue. It’s his bread and butter…just something to keep in mind.
That said, you didn’t answer the question…how does a lunar eclipse occur, on the flat Earth? 🧐 The globe model gives a perfectly logical cause for this event…more than that, it can be used to predict them decades in advance. So what reason do we really have, to go against that conclusion? 🤷♂️ Because a yoga teacher said so?
4) Alright.
5) Try actually plotting that flight path, on an actual globe…you’ll see why they stopped in Alaska, and maybe you’ll also learn why the Mercator map is not accurate. That’s the problem here…you plotted the path on a flat map, to falsify a globe….where’s the logic in that? 🤷♂️ You never once thought to try mapping it on an actual globe? Go on Google Earth, use the ruler tool, and place one marker in Taiwan the other in LA…and you’ll see the shortest path go right over Alaska. I’ve mapped it several times myself when I first stumbled on this Flat Earth mess almost 6 years ago…it’s incredible this one still snags people today. You gotta stop blindly listening to people like Dubay, and start actually questioning these people. :/
6) So what obstruction do you have over water exactly? Isn’t all water level? So why can you only see 3-5 miles to horizon while at 6 feet viewing height at shore, but then see for hundreds of miles when you go say a thousand feet in elevation? A curvature can explain that with ease…but what’s your excuse exactly? I don’t feel you’re thinking about this very well at all.
7) My point was that it formed a sphere, due to the forces acting upon it that all create an equilibrium, applying an equal force from every angle inward…like how gravity works. A sphere is the most rigid shape found in nature and they’re actually quite common…I mean everything we observe in space is spherical. My other point was that level has many different definitions depending on context…it doesn’t just mean flat.
8) I don’t think you quite understood my point about elevation, I was simply trying to explain how it works on a sphere…the true reference point for all elevations is measured from centre, since the sea is roughly all at equipotential distance from centre, it’s a perfect benchmark for us to work from, because obviously we can’t go to the centre of Earth every time we want to determine an elevation. The point is, you’re misunderstanding what’s being implied by Kansas and Florida being “flat”. It means the topography is all at roughly equal elevation…it’s not implying that the Earth is flat.
9) Composite images they create from data collected by low Earth orbit satellites, is compiled and then created using photo editing software. But not every photo they put out, is a composite…and they’re very transparent about that, they will tell you when something is a composite and when it is not. The old Apollo photos though, none of those were composite…and they were all taken long before CGI was even possible. They took hundreds of photos of Earth during those missions, if you bother to look, you’ll find them, they’re well documented and archived…just one of many examples. Today, we have geostationary weather satellites, at much further orbits (25,000 miles to millions of miles) taking round the clock photos of Earth…none of these are composites, they are single frame photos, taken on high definition cameras. So no…I think it’s YOU who didn’t do their research here…you likely just watched a flat Earth video, that cherry picked that ONE interview, of the director for the 2002 blue marble photo, explaining how THAT photo was created…and you then filled the blanks to make it mean he was talking about every photo NASA puts out. Ya…real good research. 👌
9.5) Go ahead, look up a user named Okreylos, he’s actually done that with a smaller piece of topography data from California…demonstrating very clearly how it’s curving. Or talk to any Geodetic surveyor…that’s pretty much what they do for a living, it’s in their job title…they deal with Earth curvature specifically. An example of a construction job that would have employed them, are the LIGO stations…look them up sometime. It states right in their Facts section on their website, that they had build up both ends of each laser channel, to keep them tangent with the receiving stations…because of Earth curvature.
10) Then you have no idea how to video edit, because doing it under water would be the dumbest way to do it. You could do it a lot simpler with wires and green screen…then you wouldn’t have to remove anything in post, you’d just add. That’s the most efficient way to edit in post…the more you have to remove, the more time it will take, the more errors you’ll make. It’s just a stupid way to do it…no studio would ever film something like that under water.
Were they bubbles, or ice debris? 🧐 Did you even bother to consider other possibilities, or did you just blindly agree it was bubbles right our of the gate? Ever seen how many bubbles spew out of those tanks? Ever notice they always follow the same path upward? I’ve seen these “bubbles” in space videos…but what I saw was just a few chunks of debris, flying around in multiple different directions…how did you get bubbles from that? 🧐 Here’s the real problem with that argument as far as I’m concerned though…all you can do is speculate here, so why bother? 🤷♂️ And it’s not even a great speculation, I falsified it with very little effort…but either way, what a waste of time. I much prefer tangible evidence…like actually learning to navigate and then applying that knowledge. Seriously, why waste your time arguing with me and watching videos from a yoga teacher on a beach somewhere…..if this topic truly interests you, just learn to navigate. You’ll learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth actually is.
1
-
@iRecordOS For the same reason you can jump while upon any moving vehicle, and you will (in most cases) land right back in the spot you jumped from, because of conservation of momentum. Basic physics of motion, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force, that’s the first law of motion, the law of inertia. I’m sure you’ve heard it before…it’s the first thing you learn in physics 101.
Motion is tricky like that, Einstein learned a long time ago, that if everything is moving together, at the same general rate of motion, in the sane steady direction, then it will appear like it’s not even moving at all…it will all move together in a relative state of motion, hence the term relative motion. This creates an environment that feels and behaves as though stationary, it’s why you can get up and walk around the cabin a passenger jet flying at 500 mph, and never feel like you’re moving. Because we do not actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, or an unbalanced force acting upon us, like drag force, wind resistance. In the case with the helicopter, the atmosphere is actually moving with the Earths rotation as well, so there’s no drag force to slow it down (no unbalanced force), so it will just continue forward indefinitely, along with Earth’s rotation. So it’s actually more accurate to compare Earth to the inside of a vehicle. You’re right to say we’re not inside the Earth, as in under its crust, but we are inside its atmosphere, so technically, we are inside the Earth. Think of Earth more like a vehicle, transporting us through space.
It’s pretty easy to test relative motion, get a toy drone helicopter, fly it the next time you’re in a moving vehicle, you’ll notice it will be almost effortless to hover it in place, even though the vehicle is moving forward at speeds your drone likely can’t fly at otherwise. Even simpler tests are stuff like tossing something straight up while in a vehicle moving at constant velocity, from your perspective it will appear to go straight up and straight back down into your hand, but to an observer outside your reference frame, it actually makes an arc forward, moving in perfect motion with the vehicles forward velocity, to land right back in your hand.
It’s one of the most rigorously tested fundamental laws of physics, and one of the simplest to test and learn for yourself…there’s probably thousands of different ways to test it. That’s why it’s one of the first things you learn in physics, it’s always there, just gotta start paying attention to it. I think there’s a great many misconceptions like that today, all stemming from a lack of knowledge in basic physics.
Anyway, let me know if that’s helpful. This doesn’t help to verify Earth’s motions mind you, but it does help to make sense of how it’s possible. If you’d like to learn of the experiments and observations that led to the conclusion of Earth in motion, I don’t mind sharing more.
1
-
@iRecordOS No I did not, I even mentioned drag force. The bug outside the car is hitting all the air that’s not moving with it, this causes drag. That’s the unbalanced force which can cause a change in the bugs state of motion. It’s not comparable, because with the helicopter, the air surrounding it is moving with it, it’s all moving with the rotation of the Earth, so there’s no drag force. The bug is experiencing a lot of drag, the helicopter is not, see the difference?
Trust me, you’re not falsifying 500 years of science in a comment thread on YouTube, you’re just making a false comparison. Earth is more comparable to the inside of a vehicle, not outside, because just like the vehicle with all the air moving with it, the Earth does the same, the atmosphere moves with Earth’s motions. If you’d like to understand a bit better how the atmosphere rotates with Earth, learn a little about fluid dynamics.
1
-
@ee.es00 Just search 24 hour sun in Antarctica…you’ll get tons of videos. Does your search bar not work or something? 🧐
Perspective has rules…rules you have to ignore if you’re going to slot it in as answer for why the Sun sets, or stars change. For example; Perspective drop follows inverse square law, objects appear to drop to horizon, that part is true, but the apparent angle decreases with distance that’s inversely proportional to the square of the distance. In reality, the stars drop to horizon at a steady 1 degree ever 69 miles…you can test that yourself. It’s how the lines of latitude are determined. This consistent drop would only occur if the surface were curving at a consistent rate…like on a sphere. It gets worse for you, in that the South doesn’t just have its own stars…it has its own rotation of stars, a perfect circle rotation around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. Flat Earth model has absolutely no answer for this observation…that has been photographed by countless astronomers and astrophotographers. But it’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a rotating globe, with TWO hemispheres.
More on the point of perspective, if it were perspective causing a sunset, then we’d expect the Sun to shrink in angular size the further away it gets. Objects don’t just lower to horizon due to perspective, they also appear to shrink…the Sun does not do this. For evidence of this, check out a user called Wolfie6020, he’s done many very clear, high resolution, full day, time lapse observations of the Sun, using his solar filter telescope, with locked exposure settings…proving the Sun does not shrink at all throughout a full day. The observation is also very repeatable, you don’t require as much equipment or effort as he put in, but he even teaches you how to repeat the observation.
Another problem perspective has is that anything above your eye level will never drop below it due to perspective alone…any art student could tell you that, perspective causes convergence at eye level…but will never drop something below it. The Sun is clearly observed to sink into and under horizon…every day. Perspective would not do that.
So perspective is just an ad hoc explanation, it’s barely even a hypothesis…yet you jump straight to conclusion anyway, even though it’s very easily falsified with minimal effort. :/
And even if you could slot that answer in to make it work (effectively ramming a square peg into a round hole), it still does nothing to falsify the globe…which accounts for every observation with absolute ease, especially sunsets. The Earth rotates away from the Sun…there, explanation over, no mental gymnastics required.
Flat Earth is a lesson in total ignorance…stubborn layman, resentful of science, just looking to put some dirt in the eye of an authority they’ve come to distrust. :/
You want a great proof of the Globe? Just learn to navigate. Seriously…..if you honestly believe that millions of sailors and pilots, can successfully navigate the surface with pinpoint precision, without knowing for certain the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating….then you need a slap upside the head. :/
Flat Earth is a hoax…don’t be another sucker please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@63phillip That’s fine, it’s good to question things, it’s how we learn. But consider this please; the Earth is measured spherical, we prove that every single day, with every successful navigation that uses that model to chart their routes with. So probably millions of sailors and pilots per day, all using the same geographic coordinate system, designed for a globe of 24,000 miles circumference, all reaching their destinations with pinpoint accuracy. If the model they’re all using were wrong, then it simply would not work, it’s really that simple. Can’t navigate successfully until you have accurate knowledge of the surface you’re navigating. All Navigation uses the globe model, so Earth is spherical.
Do things fall towards the Earth whether you’re in America or Australia? Yes, they do. Does water adhere to the Earth whether you’re in the North or the South? Yes, it does. Okay…then it’s simple deduction at that point. If we observe everything falling and adhering towards surface no matter where we are on Earth, and if Earth is without any doubt measured spherical, then gravity pulls to centre…that’s how it works.
Obviously there’s no forces out in space pulling our oceans off, because the ocean remains in place no matter where we are on Earth.
Earth is the practical example you should be paying attention too. Gravity is just the name we gave to the falling motion we all observe and have experience with. Nothing is put into motion without a force to cause that motion, that’s physics 101. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is. Do things fall towards Earth when you drop them? Yes, they do. Okay, then there’s clearly a force attracting things to surface, because that motion doesn’t just happen on its own, only a force can cause motion. That force exists everywhere on Earth…things fall towards Earth no matter where you are on Earth.
It’s fine to question things, but there’s just some things about reality that are undeniable, and that are easy to confirm for yourself at any time. Why is it so hard to accept that there’s some things other people are not lying to you about?
Anyway, I hope that information has been helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
@63phillip You have an up and a down, down is towards surface, up is away from surface. I’m saying direction is relative, and Earth technically does not have a top or bottom. You have an up and a down because of gravity, gravity orientates you to surface, so gravity is your frame of reference, relative to your gravity vector, down is towards surface, up is away from surface, because that’s how you experience gravity, it pulls you in one vector, towards surface. So up is away from that pull, down is towards it, simple.
But Earth itself can’t do that, because for it, gravity is all around it in a 3 dimensional field of force, all vectors pulling towards its centre. So every point of its surface has equal gravity…so it has no top, and it has no bottom, it can’t orientate itself the same way you do. But I suppose if you wanted to get technical, if you do use gravity as the reference, its bottom would be its centre, because that’s how gravity works, we understand it better when we imagine it like a hole or a well, centre of Earth being the bottom of that gravity well, the point on Earth that everything is attracted towards, the point that everything falls towards. Make better sense yet?
Direction is relative, you can’t determine a top or bottom of anything, without first having a reference point. We choose gravity as our reference point…but Earth itself can’t do that, because it doesn’t have one gravity vector like we experience at our local scale, it has countless vectors all around it…so which one would you choose? 🤷♂️
So there is no top or bottom of Earth. It’s a common misconception to think the South is the bottom. It’s not actually.
So that’s why the South has no trouble keeping the ocean on…its gravity is just as equal as the North. There’s no other forces present, just the force we call gravity pulling everything towards centre, so the ocean has nowhere else to go, but towards that forces influence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@63phillip Do you understand that direction is relative? That down is something you can only determine after you’ve chosen a reference point to determine it from? If two astronauts meet in space, but they’re both oriented with their feet positioned at the other astronauts head…which one is upside down? They both are, and neither of them are…at the same time. To each other, it’s the other astronaut that’s upside down…but that’s because they each have chosen themselves as the reference point for upright.
So this little thought experiment proves that direction is relative. Something can be both upside down and upright at the same time, it all depends on the reference point you’re viewing it from.
Same goes for Earth, it has no top or bottom, because gravity is equal everywhere, but for you, down is towards its surface. No matter where you are on Earth, that holds true, because gravity is your reference point no matter where you are. So you have a down, Earth does not.
So when you make a snarky response like “so now there is a down”, you think you’re catching a contradiction…but it just tells me you’re not really grasping this yet. I can only explain things so well, the rest is up to you, I can’t make you understand. But I hope it’s been helpful.
Let me know if that makes better sense. If not, feel free to explain why.
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 There you go making empty claims again. Bring me the details for any one of those observations you are claiming, observer height, distance to object, objects elevation, etc, and then I’ll go through the real math with you.
But it’s simple really, if you’re seeing things at great distances, then it’s because you are really high up, or the object you are observing is really tall, or both. It’s common sense, observation height extends how far you can see, even hundreds of miles if you’re high enough…it’s really not difficult to understand. That equation I gave you includes observer height, 8 inches per mile squared does not. This isn’t difficult stuff…for most of us anyways.
My one single proof? How about EVERY FIELD OF APPLIED SCIENCE THAT USES THE GLOBE MODEL AND WORKS! We’ll start with a simple example, navigation. You think pilots and sailors can successfully navigate the planet, with extreme accuracy, without knowing the shape of the Earth? You are delusional if you do. 😄
You don’t seem to get it, I’m not debating with you, I’m just telling you how it is. Flat Earth lost this debate hundreds of years ago, now we just talk to numpty’s online on occasion, to sharpen what we already know, it’s a good exorcise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 I've debunked several of your points, with pretty simple explanations for why they're invalid. For long distance observations, your math is wrong and you're not accounting for every variable, such as height of the observer and refraction, just to name a few. So you reach false figures, cause the math and information you're using is wrong. So of course you're numbers aren't going to fit what you observe in reality...it tends to do that when you don't do the math right.
I've asked nicely several times for some examples with all the precise details so we can go through the math on at least one observation, but you duck and dodge and ramble instead. So not much I can do if you're not willing to go to the basic work required to verify or falsify a claim.
For the rest of it, it can mostly just be ignored, because you have stated conclusions without providing the evidence that led you to the conclusions. You expect me to agree to the conclusions, before you've even done anything to prove them as accurate. Pretty standard rule of thumb in scientific review; claims made without evidence, can be discarded without evidence. It's that simple. Conjectures and empty claims mean nothing in science. Provide some evidence for those claims, THEN we can go through that evidence. So far I've received none, that's been our conversation thus far.
I've just being doing my best to help you see how flawed your reasoning is. But you're not listening, your only interest is to win something here...rather than consider how you could have been duped.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Again, they're empty claims, so they mean nothing. You debunk yourself, the moment you state something without providing the information and evidence that verifies it, all I had to do was point out to you how they're empty statements, though I shouldn't have too...it's pretty common sense. So I can only assume, if you're seeing things at 100 - 200 miles away, it's because either your observer height is also really high, or the object you're viewing is really big, like a mountain range for example. Since you’ve provided NO further details, all I can do is assume…that’s why the details are kind of important. So your claims mean absolutely nothing, unless you have evidence supporting them. You've so far given me nothing, so those claims are debunked just by pointing out how lacking the details are.
For Chicago, refraction explains most of the observations, though at 40 miles, the math checks out just fine even without factoring refraction, leaving about 200 feet of the taller buildings visible and there are several. The 60 mile photo, from what I understand, was taken from the top of a 200 meter sand dune close to that shore line, but refraction can absolutely account for the observation as well. I've done the math on these, they check out, if you'd like to go through the math, then we can do that, but I need specifics. Which observation in particular would you like to go through?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Well, say hi for me. In the meantime, it appears YouTube scrubs all comments with links now...I can see any I post with the links I share, but you can't. That's really annoying. Kinda makes arguing on this platform pointless, cause if we can't share evidence, then it's tough to make our points. So you obviously also missed all my posts demonstrating refraction, as they all had links in them....that's just great.
Ok, well you'll have to search them yourself then, I won't bother posting links. I can share two points of evidence that are really easy to find in a single search.
The first one is the Turning Torso Tower observation, by Mathias KP, who has observed it from various distances, clearly showing it slowly descend into horizon the farther he gets. Unlike other towers it's difficult to determine an accurate height being obscured by horizon from just eyeballing it, this tower however has very clear sections, each are roughly 20 meters, you can see each section from a distance, so you can count the sections as it drops more and more into horizon...clearly displaying curvature. Many have done the math for this observation, if you search it, I'm sure you'd find many links from those crunching the figures. The amount it drops and becomes obscured by horizon is consistent with a spherical Earth of 25,000 miles circumference.
The second is the Rainy Lake experiment, you type that into YouTube, it should be the very first video. It's a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment...because this experiment is repeated quite often, and every time it is done properly, it actually detects Earths curvature, not the opposite like you've been led to believe. You'll find a link in the video description leading to the official report, where you'll find an in depth scientific report on that experiment, with its final conclusion being very conclusive, that Earth is curving. The reason Robotham failed here nearly 200 years ago, is because he only took ONE observation, using only ONE marker, using the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared), taking only one data entry, completely ignoring refraction, then he called it a day. That's why he failed...it was a sloppy experiment, poorly conducted. Upon all peer review, his work was found to be extremely inconclusive, due to multiple errors in experimentation process. It was clear after peer review, that he was just trying to confirm his bias, not conduct a thoroughly objective experiment. So his work has been long falsified.
So feel free to review those, I'd share the other 3 as well, but they were very specific links, and I doubt you'd find them. But those two should be easy enough to find, so feel free.
1
-
@Hebrew816 What they’ve seen is a boat being brought back from vanishing point, which is your eyes optical limit to render things visible due to perspective, which can and does occur BEFORE horizon. Once something has gone over the physical horizon, no amount of zooming in will ever bring it back into focus. So it’s simple, the videos you’ve seen were not yet over the horizon, they were being brought back from vanishing point…not horizon. So you were tricked.
Clever trick really, all they had to do was show you bringing a boat back into focus, then claim it was being brought back from horizon, and then never once mention vanishing point or perspective or your eyes optical limits. They knew some people wouldn’t look into things any further, they knew some wouldn’t question an empty claim, and they were right…sadly.
That building is still dropping into horizon…perspective and vanishing point do not do that, only a curvature can account for the base of that tower slowly appearing to sink into horizon.
So you were duped, successfully I might add. Do some research on the vanishing point and optical limitations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 The math also checks out, in both observations, math that is consistent with known and measured travel distances, that also verify Earth’s circumference. Cause it’s not just curvature observations that verify Earth’s a sphere, I hope you do realize. It’s ALL the evidence compiled together, that can’t be falsified, that leads to that conclusion. And navigation is a big one.
So even if you could verify conclusively, that the building is being obscured by waves, it’s a hypothesis at best, that in no way falsifies the globe conclusion. And it doesn’t answer for why it also drops below eye level. It’s a pretty basic rule of perspective, anything above eye level does not drop below it, anything below eye level does not rise over it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Really? So the waves are still there, obscuring the object, but zooming in makes it visible? So wouldn’t it be logical then that zooming in more could fix every observation? Why do many observations then, who zoom in, eventually reach a point where no amount of zooming will bring it back? 🤷♂️ And there are many. It also does nothing to explain how things drop below eye level.
So are you denying the vanishing point as well? I’m sure you’ve experienced it many times, ever spot a fly or mosquito, only for it to get further away and then seem to vanish from sight? It didn’t really vanish, it just reached the limits of your eyes resolution. It occurs due to perspective, an objects size and its distance from you. Boats on the ocean do this all the time, doesn’t even have to go too far. A few miles away is more than enough, so it can and does occur before horizon. Magnifying and increasing resolution on the vanishing point is how they’re able to bring boats back into focus…so you were tricked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 It’s really not that difficult to understand, it’s just a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment. The first few images lay out the perimeters of the experiment, how they’re placing the markers, explaining eye level and including controls for that variable specifically. It then does the math and simulates it visually for both a globe prediction and a flat Earth prediction. It then conducts the experiment out on the ice, placing the markers at various distances, up to 10 km. Then they photographed and took video over several days. Then that footage was compared to the mathematical visual simulations, to see which model fit the physical observations.
They then have a full section on refraction, images 31 and 32 being the most interesting to that variable.
It’s in depth…..covering every variable, cause that’s how you conduct a REAL experiment. This experiment has been repeated and reviewed MANY times, it has stood up to peer review, making it conclusive.
It is thorough, but not difficult to understand at all. Just takes time. You asked for evidence…well that’s evidence. What more do you want from me? I hope my summary helped, but I urge you to go over it yourself, because all ribbing aside, it’s fair to ask for evidence. It’s fair to not agree to conclusions until you’ve seen the evidence supporting the conclusion. I 100% agree on that. So I have no problem being civil about evidence.
And if you have valid rebuttals, I’m all for it! That’s a healthy discussion of science….all this childish ribbing is pointless and childish. I’d much prefer talking evidence, with respect. When the conversation turns into a pissing match, it’s just childish. But I’ll go there if I have too.
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 First of all, your argument is completely ignorant to gravity physics, particularly center of gravity and gravity vectors. But it’s worse than that, it’s ignorant to simple geometry as well. A plane that experiences zero G is dropping down at a rate of near terminal velocity, at a sharp angle down, a nearly instant dip to 45 degrees. They go from an altitude of 34,000 feet to 24,000 feet over the span of about 30 seconds, before they level off. It takes roughly 70 miles to arc even 1 degree difference on an Earth of 25,000 miles circumference. Even at 500 mph, it would take 15 minutes to arc one degree. So if it takes 30 seconds, of a constant 45 degree decline, to create weightlessness, what do you think a gradual 15 minutes to 1 degree would do? Especially with gravity vectors shifting with you as you travel. Hmmmmmm….I wonder. 🧐
So wow…you’re making a gross over estimate, and yet another false assumption. Good job…you express more and more with each comment, how incapable you are to understand basic physics and geometry. These are just false assumptions you're making...you're assuming your conclusion correct, before really looking at all the variables involved, and then you're defeating the assumed premise YOU invented. So basically a strawman argument....as all your arguments have basically been. Good job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Why are there hundreds of different models of Flat Earth (none working)? Why’d it take so long to realize the Earth is spherical? Because science is a process…we don’t just magically know everything instantly and without research, we have to learn it first, this is a process of trial and error. Mankind as a whole does not know everything yet, we’re still learning. So this means old information will always have the potential to change, as new information is acquired. Welcome to the reality of science and information gathering…it generally doesn’t think in absolute certainties, it prefers to think in percentages of certainty, based on all available evidence at the time, and it allows itself room to change and be updated, as our knowledge grows with time. That’s the best way to do it…but if you think you have a better way, then by all means…but then, I’m sure even you have to understand, that learning anything takes time, you don’t just know things instantly.
There isn’t two theories of gravity, there’s still only one, it’s just been updated a bit. But, there’s the simpler form of understanding it (Newton) and the more advanced way (Einstein). We keep them separate for teaching purposes, largely because sometimes to learn where we are currently, you have to understand how we got there. Both are the same basic principle, mass attracts mass, Einstein merely refined the theory, added to it, updated it a bit…that’s all. And Newton’s math is FAR simpler, and still works for most applications, so it’s still used, in many more applications than Einsteins equations, it’s just when you get down to more precise measurements, you require Einsteins more advanced field equations. It provides far more accurate figures at more precise scales…which you require for things like advanced orbital trajectories, or creating fusion reactions, etc.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Lol, again, your arguments are now just “nuh uh! It’s flat, cause I say so!” 😅 Empty claim after, after empty claim, round and round we go. Everything in that ramble is just repeated nonsense and biblical gibberish, most of which we’ve already gone over and I’ve falsified, but there is one more thing to point out. The Greeks were actually among the first to verify Earth was spherical, it’s well documented, so feel free to research it. So we’ve known the Earth was a sphere for over 2000 years now. Your ignorant ramblings do not change anything. 😄
Sorry bud, until flat Earth has a working model we can actually use in any field of applied science, it has no argument. It’s just contrarian bullshit perpetuated by the village idiots of the world, who found themselves online.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Alright, you just get back to me when you or anyone can demonstrate any industry of applied science, from engineering, to navigation, to communication, to infrastructure, that uses any Flat Earth model to do their jobs. You just try plotting a navigation route from New Zealand to England sometime, see how well you do. 😄But seriously dude, you gotta wake up. It’s cute to have these little arguments online, but you are well aware that Flat Earth is a long falsified theory, that nobody in actual science uses. For good reason…because we can’t do anything with false information. Junk science simply does not work, so it is discarded.
1
-
@Hebrew816 You obviously haven’t been paying attention to how much I know. I’ve challenged it as well, namely the applied science of navigation, which is an easy one for anyone to learn and test for themselves. I’ve confirmed for myself that the stars do drop at a consistent rate to horizon, the further down lines of latitude you travel. That is simply not a geometry that could occur on a flat Earth. The stars would drop a little due to perspective, but they would not drop at a consistent rate by latitude, the drop would be inconsistent on a flat Earth, reducing inversely to the squared root of the distance, so they would drop less and less as you travel further. It’s basic geometry…this is how sailors have been able to use the stars for celestial navigation for centuries, because of that consistent drop. Each line of latitude, is a drop of the pole star Polaris, of 1 degree…consistently 1 degree, for the same distance of roughly 69 miles travelling directly South. At the Equator, you can no longer see Polaris at sea level and then a completely new set of stars become visible in the South, rising up from the horizon at 1 degree every latitude you continue to travel South.
This is basic geometry…that simply would not happen on a flat Earth. I have tested this myself, I’ve travelled a lot in my life and celestial navigation has been an interest of mine for awhile. I’ve even spent some time over the years making simple observations of the stars, sun, moon, planets in both hemispheres. This is how I have confirmed the Earth’s spherical shape for myself. Here’s what I have confirmed. The stars are completely different in the South to the North, there is a second rotation of stars around their own polar axis in the South, North rotates counter clockwise, South rotates clockwise. The stars drop consistently in degrees by latitude, the Moon is flipped for each hemisphere, the Sun rises and sets to the Northeast to Northwest for the North Hemisphere, while rising Southeast and setting Southwest in the Southern Hemisphere.
This is all basic geometry that is impossible on a flat Earth…meanwhile makes perfect sense on a globe, because it’s exactly what we’d expect to see with that surface geometry changing your angle relative to the sky.
So I know for a fact, that Flat Earthers are lying. They have not tested any of these applied sciences, you all just listened blindly to some conmen on YouTube videos, feed you bullshit information, and for some reason you agreed to all of it without question. None of you have actually tested it…heck I bet most of you have never even left your home country. Learn to navigate Keithan, then put that knowledge to the test, I dare you to challenge what you think you know. It’s not difficult, anyone can learn and anyone can test what I’m telling you.
I’ve also talked with a few civil engineers, that have told me their job is made a lot harder, because the Earth is spherical. If they do not factor Earth’s circumference, when designing city zones and mapping future road ways, then they will be off in their measures and the contractors that are hired to build these sections, will find they don’t have nearly as much room to build as the plans said they did. So you just go ahead and talk to a civil engineer or a geodetic surveyor sometime. Go ahead, I dare you.
You are lying to yourself, to win an argument…that’s all you’re doing Keithan. Is it worth it? Is living in ignorance worth it? I’ve talked with hundreds of Flat Earthers now, you know what’s been consistent? None of you are engineers, pilots, scientists, sailors, surveyors, etc. Very few have ever been to university or taken secondary education in science. Most of you have never travelled. Most are deeply religious, citing the Bible as their truth. It’s no surprise to me at all that none of you are actually experts in any field relevant to the discussion…yet you believe yourselves to be the true experts anyway, regardless of your actual experience. You should look up the Dunning Krueger effect sometime, you are all prime candidates.
1
-
@Hebrew816 You can usually tell who’s actually winning a debate or argument, when your opponent can’t argue with legitimate rebuttals any further, they can only mock, insult, laugh and deflect. Like I said from the start though, I’m not really debating you, I’m just telling you how it is. Flat Earth lost this discussion centuries ago, and that certainly hasn’t changed through our discussion. Mock, laugh, deflect if you feel the need, whatever helps you cope I guess. Or you could reread my last comment, and give me actual rebuttals to even one point, with evidence, rather than the runaround deflection. Or demonstrate your model, use it for an application of some kind, show me one real industry of applied science that uses it. Good luck with that.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Well, let’s review a little then. Here’s the conversation so far as I’ve experienced it.
- We started when I pointed out to you that 8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math for long distance observations. It is a parabola equation, does not represent line of sight, nor what is hidden from line of sight. I’ve explained in great detail why it’s not the correct math, so far, you’ve given me no answers to why you still believe it is the accurate math, you just blindly assert that it is.
- You then fired back with gish gallop, dumping multiple empty claims with no evidence supporting any of them…that’s been a standard from you actually, endless empty claims. Gish gallop…a typical tactic from those who have no single strong argument, so you instead barrage people with several weaker arguments, dumping them all at once.
- So I tried to focus the conversation on one claim, your claim that you could see the Statue of Liberty from 60 miles.
- I asked for the details of this observation, such as viewing height and location, very simple details that anyone would be required to provide in an actual scientific review, variables that are required for the basic geometric math…and you still have provided none, even though burden of proof was yours, and worse yet, you don’t even seem to think it’s important….as if you believe these variables don’t matter.
- I then tried in vane for several comments, just to get some further details for that ONE observation, so we could do the proper math…but I never got any, so we could not do the math. For someone who claimed there were hundreds of observations, you couldn’t provide even ONE.
- So you moved on, completely ignoring the burden of proof that was yours. So the claim wasn’t resolved at all, we did zero math, nothing could be verified or falsified…yet you think you won anyway. Ignorance, that’s been your main method of argument this whole conversation.
From there it’s rinse repeat. You make an empty claim, I ask for evidence that supports that claim, you don’t provide any, then you declare victory. Rinse repeat, rinse repeat.
That’s been our conversation….wow, you’ve sure showed me alright. 🙄
Evidence is required to conclude a claim….or at the very least, an explanation, that’s basic common sense Keithan. Only once from what I can recall, did you ever provide a valid rebuttal to anything I said. When we got to discussing some of my evidence, particularly my evidence of the building sinking into horizon the further away the observer got, you FINALLY joined the conversation with a rebuttal that showed some real effort, that wasn’t just deflection, insults and gish gallop. You said it was waves out on the water, that obscured the perspective. FINALLY a valid rebuttal, hallelujah! And for a moment it seemed we were FINALLY going through the steps of a legit scientific falsification process, where you gave actual reasons for your point…it was refreshing.
But it didn’t last…I kindly pointed out that the tower wasn’t just obscured by horizon, it was also dropping below eye level…which falsified your claim of waves obscuring the perspective. Because eye level remains constant on a flat surface, if something is at eye level…it does not go below it or above it. It’s a very simple fundamental truth of perspective, artists have been teaching art students this fundamental law of perspective for a long time now, its basic perspective knowledge today. If something is at eye level, it does not go below it…that tower is sinking below eye level, it’s not just that it’s being obscured by horizon, it’s also dropping. That falsified your claim of waves causing this effect…the ball was then in your court to give a counter rebuttal, if you could.
But you gave absolutely NO explanation for that dropping from eye level…you just ignored it completely.
Then you moved on, dumped more gish gallop, and declared victory. Sigh….and we were doing so good there. From my experience, it’s like I’m talking to a pigeon…you are the pigeon playing chess analogy, in the flesh. Knocking over pieces and shitting on the board, calling it a victory.
Now here we are, several comments of gish gallop later. I gave a full explanation of evidence that I have personally confirmed for myself, concerning celestial navigation and Earth’s basic geometry. I’ve verified the model for global navigation, I’ve tested it, I provided a few good points of observation for how you could also verify it. You ignored the entire comment, simply just called it a “dud”, but gave no reason for why, just dumped more gish gallop, and moved on. Great….round and round we go.
That’s been the conversation so far. No points have been resolved, you’ve proven none of your claims, provided no evidence for any of them, no explanation, just endlessly asserted they are valid, expecting me to just agree, blindly and without question. Not very scientific or honest of you, in the slightest.
Try this, pick a single point, and we’ll discuss it until it’s resolved. You think you can remain focused enough to stay on a single point?
1
-
@Hebrew816 Ok, let’s get into that math….again.
We are making line of sight observations, correct? 8 inches per mile squared does not represented line of sight, it calculates a figure for a tangent line at surface, going down to surface from that tangent. Does your eye rest at surface? No, at any given time, your eye is always several feet above the surface. As you know, the higher you are the further you see. The higher you are, the further your visual horizon extends.
So lets say your at 6 feet viewer height, viewing an object that is 150 feet tall, from 20 miles away. You can’t see it, and the 8 inches per mile squared math agrees. But now you go higher in elevation, say 100 feet. Now you can see it…your visual horizon has extended due to your viewer height, so now that tower becomes visible thanks to viewer height. But wait…the 8 inches per mile squared math hasn’t changed, the figure it provided still says you shouldn’t see it, but it has no variable for height of the observer, it only calculates one figure regardless of viewer height. See the problem yet? You went higher, and now you see the tower where before you couldn’t, yet your math still says you shouldn’t be able too.
So honestly…if it has no variable for height of the observer, and if you can see further the higher you are, then how can you honestly believe it’s still the correct math to use for these observations? 🤷♂️ How is this not clicking? Seriously…
It’s not difficult…you see further the higher you are, but 8 inches per mile squared has NO VARIABLE for height of the observer. It does not represent line of sight, but these are line of sight observations we’re making here. So it’s the wrong math.
What we have here is a half truth, it does accurately tell you how much the surface drops from a tangent at surface (accurate for about 100 miles), but we’re trying to determine a drop from a tangent, we’re trying to determine what is hidden from line of sight due to curvature…and that math simply does not represent line of sight. It has no variables for observer height, horizon distance, curvatures hump, arc length, refraction, etc. A surveyor can use it to quickly eyeball horizon drop from his eye level at his position…but that’s it. So you’re right to say it follows the curvature (up to about 100 miles), but it’s still not a line of sight calculation, so it will not accurately tell you how much is hidden from your line of sight by horizon, at a specific distance.
Not sure how much more clear I can be. I’m starting to think you don’t know that you can see further the higher you are. Ever climbed a hill before in your life? Been on top of a building? Ever notice how you can see further the higher you get? This is common sense…
1
-
@Hebrew816 Ever been on a plane? You can see a lot further than 200 miles. You know why that is? Because you’re really high up. You’re just not factoring observer height at all…it’s like you’re not even listening. You keep ignoring observer height.
Observer height matters. 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t factor observer height…so it’s lacking variables that are important for the observation, so that’s why it’s wrong. This isn’t hard to understand.
I’ve seen photos seeing objects at 100-200 miles distance as well, but they’re never observed from sea level. These photos and observations are always made from really high elevations, observing MOUNTAINS that are also really high in elevation. If you do the proper math, including observer height as a variable, it does check out. These observations are not impossible on a globe at our scale…if you’re high enough in elevation, it works just fine. Of course 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t work…it has no variables for observation height, it completely ignores observer height. That’s why it’s wrong….it’s not hard to understand.
It’s incredible that someone honestly can’t understand this…I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.
Bring up any observation of objects seen from 100-200 miles away, I guarantee you, the observer height in every one of those observations will be a few thousand feet from sea level. And I bet the objects being seen are typically really tall buildings or really tall mountains. That’s how you see them from those distances.
What’s sad is you honestly can’t understand this it seems…I don’t wanna call anyone stupid, but there’s really no other explanation.
1
-
@Hebrew816 So I’ve pointed out several times now why 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math to use for long distance observations. The simple answer is because it’s missing important variables, relevant to the observation, height of the observer being a big one. So now I have a question for you, you’ve so far ignored every time I’ve mentioned height of the observer, so I can only assume it’s because you don’t understand how it’s relevant, or you don’t feel it is relevant. So if it’s the latter, can you explain to me why you feel height of the observer is not relevant to these observations?
If you can’t give me a valid answer, then you’ll have to concede you’ve lost this point. If you say my argument is just BS, without giving me a reason why, then you’ve lost the point as well, because that’s not a valid argument or explanation.
1
-
@Hebrew816 That doesn’t address the math. Don’t run away to a different point again, before we’ve addressed the main point we’re discussing here, the math. Where is the variable for height of observer, in the equation 8 inches per mile squared? Feel free to point it out to me, but I already know it’s not there. If we both agree height of observer is important for how far you can see, but 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t have a variable for height of the observer, then we technically both agree the math is wrong for long distance observations.
So if you now agree that height of the observer is important, then you now should understand why 8 inches per mile squared is the incorrect math to use. You asked me why that math is incorrect…that is why it is incorrect. It gives you the same exact figures, regardless of viewer height, even though viewer height extends how much further you can see. So it’s the wrong math, so if you use it for long distance observations, then that’s why the math won’t fit the observation. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s that simple.
It is the wrong math, so you can’t use it for these observations. So your error was in using the wrong math. The correct math can be found at the Metabunk curvature calculator. Search it sometime and learn it, it’s what you should be using.
We now both agree the math equation 8 inches per mile squared is wrong for these observations, because height of the observer is important and it has no variable for that, among others. So now we can conclude that point. You were wrong. Now let’s keep going, let’s focus on another singular point. Which would you like to address now?
1
-
@Hebrew816 We’ve concluded you were wrong about the math, that point is done. 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math, and we both agree, because it has no variable for height of the observer and you agree observer height matters for how far you can see.
You’ve provided no reason to dispute the math being wrong, so until you do, it’s concluded and you were wrong, that’s the conclusion. So now we’ can move on to another point.
You’re now claiming there are observations of objects that are seen 100, 200, even 300 miles away, from a 6 foot viewing height. This is absolutely false. The longest distance photograph on record is the Pic Gaspard photo, which was 443 km (275 miles). The photograph was not taken at 6 feet, it was taken from the peak of Pic de Finestrelles, which is at an elevation of 2826 m (9272 feet). You do not see the entire mountain of Pic Gaspard, only the very tip of its peak. Do the correct math, including every variable, including height of observer and standard refraction, you get a hidden by horizon calculation of 3810 m (12,500 feet). Pic Gaspard is 3380 meters (12,730 feet) tall, so that leaves about 70 meters (230 feet) of its peak still visible over horizon from that viewer height.
So the math checks out. You can crunch the figures yourself with the correct equations, at the metabunk curve calculator. So feel free. You can confirm this is the current record holder for long distance photography on the surface, at any time, with a quick Google search. So feel free.
You’ve presented no evidence for your claim of any observation at that distance, seen at 6 foot viewing height, so it can be discarded until you do…and good luck with that.
So that concludes that point, you are wrong again. The math checks out perfectly, the observation fits.
If you wish to dispute this point, provide another observation with your evidence supporting it. Go ahead, until then, you have nothing and this point is concluded.
Any other points you’d now like to discuss?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Your claim was that you could see 200 miles away from 6 foot viewing height. That was proven false. Any long distance photography of distances like that, is never done at 6 feet, they’re done at thousands of feet elevation. Which works just fine, an extreme viewer height would of course make that distance possible, as the math verifies.
So until you provide a 6 foot viewing height seeing 200 miles or more, then it’s just an empty claim and means nothing. It’s that simple.
Sure, search Scott Manley Earth, the first video that comes up should be ‘Satellite photos show the true shape of Earth’. This short video demonstrates the tiny difference between Equator and poles, demonstrating why you can’t just eyeball that tiny difference so easily. Our eyes are not very good measuring tools, that’s pretty common sense. The Earth is oblate, but it’s such a tiny deviation, it’s not easy to detect with just your eyes.
Anything else?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Holy shit, so I watched your video “29 reasons why the Earth is flat” and it’s all the exact same dribble…none of these points you’ve brought up so far are your own, you’re just repeating every thing from that video, almost word for word. 😂 It’s the same empty claims with no evidence, he CLAIMS everything is as he says it is, but doesn’t do much to provide evidence for each claim he makes….which is exactly YOUR problem, thinking that empty claims somehow count as evidence. Empty claims, with no evidence, that’s the bulk of that video. So you basically watched that video, and then agreed to it 100%, without questioning any of it, and now you repeat it all as if it’s fact. Good job…you are basically a zombie, repeating the bullshit of your masters without question. 👏
By all means, find me an example of someone using a more powerful telescope at 6 feet to view an object 100+ miles away. He didn’t share any examples in his video, so not sure what you’re talking about. 😅 He zooms in on some buildings with a telescopic…which revealed hundreds of feet of their base obscured by horizon, zooming in more doesn’t ever reveal the base…as you’re claiming it should. That observation also didn’t say the buildings were 100 miles away, it didn’t provide any details for that observation actually. So that video sure doesn’t verify your claim, of just requiring a more powerful telescope…not sure how you can think it does. 😄
Near the start he rattled off a bunch of observations….but did you bother to check ANY of them for yourself?
The first few he claims are seen from various distances, but he provides no actual pictures that verifies any of those distances. So they’re empty claims. So they mean absolutely nothing, empty claims with no evidence supporting them, mean nothing in science, so they can be discarded. Until evidence is provided for each claim, that can confirm what’s being claimed is accurate, then you should not take them as fact. That used to be common sense…so I really shouldn’t have to tell people that.
He then mentions a few skylines, and does provide some pictures, so good, we have evidence to go off of for these observations, that’s great….but you’ll immediately notice, none of them are from 6 foot viewing height. 😂 He shares the Philadelphia skyline observed 40 miles away…from an elevation 205 feet. Making the observation perfectly visible. He even does the correct geometric math, and even says only 335 feet would be hidden by horizon…but is he or you aware that on average the Philadelphia skyline elevation is WAY above 335 feet? 🤣 On average today, the skyline is about 500 feet, that leaves a good 165 feet of buildings still visible. The tallest building being 1121 feet, the next tallest is 974 feet, the next tallest is 945 feet. So you’d easily see these buildings over 335 feet. And that’s just the Geometric hidden…he completely ignored refraction, which even at standard refraction drops that 335 feet to 253 feet. So holy crap man…you just ate up every word he said and agreed to it without any questions. 😂
Then he mentions the New York skyline, observed from Bear mountain 60 miles away, at an elevation of 1283 feet. He gets the geometric calculation correct again, the horizon should hide 170 feet from that elevation…but I hope he’s aware that New York has some of the tallest buildings in the world, an average skyline of about 1000 feet. Do I even need to list how many buildings here EASILY tower over 170 feet? 🤷♂️
THAT video was your evidence? You really think THAT video debunks my points? 😅
He confirmed my point. If you’re seeing things from really far away, it’s because they are REALLY TALL, and your elevation is REALLY HIGH. This isn’t rocket science my man. 😂
But thank you, I haven’t laughed that hard in awhile. 🥲
You just verified my points, so thank you. You are a drone, listening blindly to conmen feed you bullshit. I hope you realize that someday. I think we’re done here.
1
-
@Hebrew816 And yet you argue with empty claims, acting as if every little made up thing you say is accurate, as if I should just blindly agree to anything you say, without question. 😅 And here you are again, claiming you’re right…yet providing no evidence that verifies or even suggests that you are.
If your claims were true, then you’d have no problem sharing evidence that verifies it. So go ahead smart guy, show me an example of someone at 6 feet viewer height, seeing an object from 100+ miles away. 😄
You verify for me that you never questioned or researched any of the claims made in that video you shared, when I clearly demonstrate how the points are so obviously bullshit, without much effort. I didn’t have to go very deep beneath the surface of that information, to find out he was lying and making empty claims. Had you actually done any further research of those points he makes, you’d realize pretty quickly as well, that they’re all bullshit. 😂 So I can only assume you never did question or challenge any of them, you just stayed on the surface and gobbled up every word he said. Good job. 👏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 The 29 reasons video doesn’t include any observations for anything seen 100+ miles away, at 6 foot viewing height. Did you even watch your own video? 😂 I mean, I know you at least heard it, cause you repeat a lot of the same bullshit. Seeing the statue of liberty from 60 miles away, one such example of you blindly repeating what’s being said.
And again, Convex Earth is a fake documentary, it’s been verified. So nothing in the documentary is factual. I haven’t watched it in a long time…but I sure don’t remember them ever making an observation of anything 100+ miles away, from 6 feet viewing height. But it doesn’t matter either way, because those were not scientists, and none of the observations were real. They were faked, to fool gullible suckers like yourself. 😂
So no, you haven’t provided me anything. Give me one observation, just one, of anyone observing something 100+ miles away, from 6 foot viewing height.
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 I see a horizon of ocean, and then the peak of a mountain or the top of a building, but not the base. 😂 Which verifies the Globe. You’re arguing against the globe, which means you absolutely do have to factor height of the observer…because in long distance observations, all you ever see is the tops of the distant objects. You might be able to lie to yourself, but I sure can’t. 😂
Your 29 reasons video doesn’t demonstrate any examples of seeing a seashore, from 6 feet viewing height, from 100 miles distance, or 200 miles…so really not sure what you’re talking about. There’s a guy near the start who’s in a Lake seeing a shore line…but both observations he makes are really quite close, nowhere near 100 miles. I actually know the lake he’s in too cause I’ve seen that particular observation before, I’ve reviewed it and debunked it, it’s a lake found in Banff Alberta, Canada. The first shoreline he’s observing is more like 3 miles away, the second is right next to him…it’s maybe 200 feet away. So I hope that’s not what you’re referring too…cause if so…hoo boy. 😅
Be more specific, is there a specific point in the video you’re referring too?
1
-
@Hebrew816 Again, show me ONE observation made at 6 feet, where we see an object, any part of it, from 100+ miles away. A specific observation, stop leaning on the bullshit documentaries full of gish gallop, give me ONE location, ONE example of an observation. Saying you see the statue of liberty from 60 miles away, without evidence supporting that claim, means nothing to me or actual science. Provide a location, that is confirmed to be at 6 feet, that clearly sees something 100 miles away. Should be countless examples, if the Earth were actually flat, so this should be easy for you. 😂
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Ok, so I’ve reviewed the Convex doc again, or at least the observations where they use a telescope on the beaches. The first 4 observations of boats, share absolutely no verifiable details regarding the distances, so they’re basically useless. But then finally they make an observation, from 10 feet, that they claim is 110 KILOMETRES away…not miles. You know there’s a difference right? 110 km is only about 68 miles. But it gets worse for them here, cause they point out where they are on a map and trace their line of sight. Go on any map, you can find that exact location and measure the real distance….and it’s not 110 km, it’s only actually 36 km (22 miles). Which makes the observation completely possible from their elevation.
Don’t believe me, then check it yourself…instead of just agreeing blindly to their claims. The location is Lake Titicaca in Puru, observing from Amatani island, and the line they trace is from there to the tip of the Jachaja region…which is only 36 km, not 100 miles, not even close.
How many more examples do I have to go through, before you realize these people are lying to you Keithan? Check them yourself…this is exactly what I’m talking about. Remember the guy I told you about who said he was observing a 150 foot tower from 20 miles away, at 6 feet observer height, and then when I got his actual location, it turned out he was lying, the real distance was actually only 8 miles away? That’s exactly the same kind of bullshit they’re pulling in the Convex documentary…again, these were not scientists, it has been confirmed, they are mostly actors and self help coaches.
These are conmen…who are bullshitting you. That’s all they’ve ever been.
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 No, you used the wrong math, we’ve determined that, so you didn’t debunk anything mathematically. Your “science” so far has been mostly empty claims or referring to what you consider authority, by claiming somebody else debunked it and then referring to their videos. I’ve reviewed those videos, and demonstrated that they were all in error, so they have been thoroughly debunked time and again. Some of the only physics I’m aware of that we discussed was refraction, and you basically just denied it was a thing…so no, you didn’t debunk anything, you just denied it. Do you think…denial, is a valid argument? 🤦♂️
So not sure how anyone can think they’ve “debunked” anything, with how poorly you’ve argued here. You’ve done almost nothing to verify your points, or falsify mine. The conversation has been very one sided this whole time. You sure make a lot of empty claims, stating that my positions are wrong…but you’ve so far done basically nothing to demonstrate or prove how they are. 🤷♂️
Mostly just appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance…ya, that’s some real good debunking alright. 👌
And you still have yet to provide a single verified observation, of someone seeing an object 100+ miles away, from 6 foot viewer height. That’s been your dumbest claim so far…saying that people just require a more powerful telescope and then they’d see further. If that were true Keithan, then there would be hundreds, probably even thousands of examples of this…you don’t think Flat Earth would be all over that observation, if it were actually possible? But you couldn’t even provide me with ONE example of this, nothing solid that is, because I reviewed your ONE observation you felt fit that bill, and it was proven that they weren’t seeing 100+ miles away…they were really only 22 miles away. 😂
Oh ya…you’ve debunked me alright. 😄 Oh boy…no, you’re so far up there as one of the worst Flatties I’ve talked to in the nearly 5 years I’ve been debunking you people. Your arguments are terrible, this has been very easy for me.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Oh boy, 🤦♂️ well you clearly forgot when I mentioned eye level, being a major factor to perspective. I didn’t deflect, you just have a terrible memory, so let’s review.
If anything is below eye level, then it will not rise above eye level the farther away you see. Perspective converges at eye level, so nothing below eye level goes above it, nothing above it goes below it, it’s basic perspective. So your wave argument is terrible, in that those waves out on the distance probably don’t get any higher than a meter, meaning they’re way below eye level even at 6 feet, meaning you should be able to see over them just fine, at distances. And you’ll easily see over those waves from higher elevations, so it’s a pretty poor argument that’s ignorant to basic perspective. The fact that you can’t see over horizon, even after zooming in with the most powerful telescope you can, suggests a curvature is obscuring your view. The base is missing in every one of the observations we reviewed…waves can’t account for that, cause your line of sight and your eye level are well above those waves, so it’s an easily falsified argument. It’s also falsified by the fact that things aren’t just obscured by horizon, they are also dropping into it, confirmed again by eye level…because in all these observations, it’s clear that things are dropping below eye level, which they would not do, if Earth was flat. Research basic perspective sometime…namely the topic of eye level and how it debunks your waves argument.
You have a bad memory my guy, we went over this. Unless it was a comment I shared a link in, cause then it would have been auto deleted by YouTube without me noticing, so that’s possible, but I’m pretty sure I went over it several times, many without links. I’ve since stopped sharing links for that reason, but I’m sure at least one of my responses on that topic made it through. So I feel you’re just being ignorant again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 It’s common sense, you make a claim without evidence supporting it, then what reason does anyone have to believe you? 🤷♂️ I know Flat Earthers think an empty claim should mean something, cause if there’s one thing I’ve noticed that’s consistent with all of you, is you never seem to check ANY of the claims that are fed to you, yet you believe every single one of them. You believe them all, despite having any actual evidence to verify them, that’s pretty consistent with all of you.
Let’s take your Statue of Liberty claim for example….you CLAIM it’s seen from 60 miles away, but yet you can’t bring me ANY examples of it actually being seen from that distance. I know you strongly believe that to be true…but what EVIDENCE do you ACTUALLY have to support the claim? Why…would you ever agree to anything, without evidence? Again, are you stupid? 🤷♂️
Then you CLAIM that we see a seashore from 100+ miles…and the only example you have is actually only 22 miles and you don’t even actually see the seashore…yet you think I should just agree, even though your evidence is shaky as shit and easily falsified with even a few seconds more research. You don’t see the seashore…but that’s not even your bigger problem……they LIED about the distance, and you don’t seem to care at all. 😂
Now you CLAIM that “modern science and technology” proves Einstein, Newton and Copernicus wrong….yet you’ve not demonstrated ANY evidence that verifies that claim, in the slightest. Are you seeing a pattern yet?
This is common sense, it’s not “scientific doctrine”…how….have you gotten through life so far, not realizing that claims made require strong evidence, before they should even be considered viable? 🤷♂️ If you commit a murder by shooting someone, then put the gun in someone else’s hand, then point and say “he did it”, does that now mean the law should take you at your word and agree without question? 😂 You have to be the dumbest person I’ve ever met.
1
-
@Hebrew816 I’m just saying, when you’ve brought me a claim with evidence I could actually analyze, I’ve demonstrated it to be false. I’ve provided locations you could check yourself, I’ve provided the math, or pointed you to where you could find them, I’ve given you everything you require, to check for yourself. You have so far only provided me with 2 videos, both hours long, with no time stamps or any way of me knowing exactly what you’re talking about. It’s like you seem to think I can read your mind…I’m not watching a full 1 hour documentary, just to get to the ONE point you are arguing, but if you provide a time stamp, an image, or any way of narrowing it down, I will gladly review a claim. When I make a claim, I provide information so that YOU can also review that claim for accuracy…that’s not “scientific doctrine”, that’s common sense.
The math you can find at metabunk curve calculator, the locations data you can look up yourself on any online map service, they have ruler tools you check the accurate distances yourself. I’d gladly share direct links, if YouTube allowed for it, but they don’t, so it means you have to do some of your own work.
When I have locations I can verify, I can then do the math…until I have that information, it’s just an empty claim, that’s how this works, it’s not difficult. Many of your observations haven’t provided direct details, the ones that did, I was able to demonstrate their errors very easily…the fact that many of them had to lie to you, just to sell you the conclusions they wanted….should be a HUGE red flag.
1
-
@Hebrew816 I went through the proper math with you, using all the correct figures, we’ve concluded that point, it’s not impossible at all. Your friend, if she’s actually real and not just a voice in your head, is just not quite capable enough to understand how. It’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t really matter. If Earth was flat, you’d be seeing a LOT more of that mountain at 270 miles, not just 70 meters of its peak. You both don’t seem to get it, the fact it’s obscured by thousands of feet at all, is evidence the Earth is spherical…because that would not happen on a flat Earth, you’d see all of that mountain, not just the peak. And it’s dropped from observers eye level significantly…how exactly does a taller elevation, which was at least 1000 feet taller (Pic Gaspard), drop below your eye level from a much lower elevation, if the surface they’re both on is flat? 🤷♂️ There’s plenty of more thorough reviews of that observation, that all verify what I’m saying, so go look them up sometime. The point is concluded, until you can bring a rebuttal that hasn’t already been addressed.
My people? It’s just me and you bud, and I’m just addressing claims made and correcting them in my free time, that’s all. There’s no debate on this subject anymore, nothing we say here changes modern consensus, I’m just telling you how it is. Despite your extreme ignorance, it’s still a good mental exorcise and the psychology of online trolls is fascinating to me, so I’ll keep addressing any new points, for as long as it interests me.
Maybe I’ll look at your other claims later.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Alright, I’ve reviewed the Lake Winnipeg observation, it also works fine. He of course used a purely geometric calculation, even though there’s clearly a great deal of refraction occurring. That shimmering in the distance, that’s refraction. If you’re curious why that matters, I urge you to look up the Rainy Lake experiment again. Find the Walter Bislin blog page that documents that observation, then scroll down to images 31 and 32, it clearly demonstrates why refraction is important to factor in calculations. It can’t be ignored, yet Flatties conveniently ignore it every time.
It’s typical really, ignoring refraction is one of many common errors flat Earthers make. At least he’s using better math than the 8 inches per mile squared equation, so props there, his geometric calculation is correct. However, just a couple side notes, he wasn’t 1 foot above the ice, he was 2 feet. And I double checked his distance, it’s accurate…but only from the town where he put his marker, but he’s clearly out on the ice and there’s really no way to verify how far onto the ice he is, all I can do is take him at his word, but I’d be willing to bet he’s at least a good kilometre or two further out than his marker suggests. He’s not in the town anyway, that’s for sure.
But either way, even with just standard refraction (there’s always at least a standard refraction), you get a calculation of 125 feet, leaving 20 feet still visible, you only see the very top, about 20 feet, so the math checks out just fine. Refraction is always important to factor, we make every observation looking through our atmosphere and it does have an effect on what we see at distances, so it can’t be ignored. You even agreed to that not to long ago. Refraction can’t be ignored, he ignored it in his calculation, that’s his error.
Now, there’s no waves out on that ice to obscure his line of sight here, so how exactly is 125 feet going missing? If Earth were flat, you’d be seeing the whole tower, not just the top.
You can check the refraction calculation at the metabunk curve calculator, they even have a section ob refraction. The Walter Bislin blog as well has a whole page on refraction, demonstrating its effect and explaining how to calculate for it. So feel free to check it out anytime.
On that note, I seem to recall you completely ignored the Rainy Lake experiment I shared some time ago. You do realize it’s an observation out on lake ice as well, it’s a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, done on 10 km of a frozen lake, making a very conclusive observation of curvature. Care to review it? You just hand waved it aside last time, but as you said above, ignoring evidence is not much of an argument. 😛 I’ve reviewed your observations, the ones that included verifiable details and photos, so now feel free to review the Rainy Lake experiment.
1
-
@kunallusso What I'm trying to tell you is that space is not a SUCTION, it is absolutely a vacuum...it's just not the sort of vacuum you think it is, you're misinterpreting the meaning of the word in this context. That's not theory...that's basic English, it's linguistics...it's how the language works, words in the English language can have multiple definitions...that's common knowledge. Vacuum when used in the context of space means EMPTINESS...it's really that simple and that's all I was trying to tell you here. Sorry if I had to be a little condescending to get the point across, it's really not a big deal if you weren't aware of this, nobody knows everything, was just trying to point out where you (and many Flat Earthers) are going wrong here. Vacuum when used in the context of space does not mean "suction force", it means a place void of matter. Space does not suck on anything...it physically can't do that, there is no suction being produced in the void of space.
Now to address your question here quick "What air is space then". I'm not quite sure what you're asking here...are you asking me what space is made of? Cause that's a good question and physicists are still trying to figure that out...that's what Dark Energy and Dark Matter are working to figure out. They're more then just titles, they're a framework for trying to answer that very question. The short answer is...nobody knows for sure yet, not even scientists and they're happy to admit that.
So now I will actually address another word definition Flat Earth (or science deniers in general) gets wrong, because of how the word changes due to the context it's used in. The word "theory" means something a little different in the context of science. A theory in the regular sense, is an educated guess based on prior knowledge, it's mostly assumption and speculation that has plausible merit...everyone knows that, and that's the definition layman people use no matter the context...and that's where they go wrong again. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY means something different, the word takes on new meaning in that context and it is defined like this.
A scientific theory is the end goal of all research that works to describe HOW and WHY something works the way it does. A LAW in science describes WHAT is happening, a THEORY works to explain HOW and WHY that something is doing what it is doing. Does that make sense? Nothing in science graduates to the level of a THEORY until it has gone through the rigors of the scientific method. In science, a hypothesis takes the place of the regular meaning of the word theory. In science a hypothesis is an educated guess based on previous knowledge, while a theory is a tested and verified conclusion. It is the end goal of all research in science...NOTHING in science is higher then theory. So when people say "it's just a theory" or "you're just talking theory dude"...we can't face palm hard enough, because you're not getting it. It's not "just a theory", it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which is VERY different! And that's the truth...you can look this up and any place you look will explain this to you the same way. A scientific theory is not just a best guess...it has been verified to be more then likely true, it is far beyond guessing and shooting in the dark...NOTHING is labelled theory unless it has evidence to support it. Which is the case with all things in science that are labelled as theory...they EARNED THAT TITLE!
I hope that helps, apologies if I'm not articulating these concepts well enough for you to understand, but I'm not just bullshitting you here...words do take on different meaning given their context. These are a few examples of words that Flat Earthers (and science deniers in general) misinterpret. It's important in any conversation that everyone be on the same page with the language...or else we'll never get anywhere.
1
-
@kunallusso "are there any experiments that we can observe of gravity holding air next to a vacuum?" Yes actually, there are several examples I can share with you. Our own atmosphere for starters. I'm sure you're aware we've sent up balloons into upper atmosphere, Flat Earthers have even done this as well. When they bring back footage from these balloons, do you notice whenever the Sun is visible in the video how black it is around the Sun? Unlike when you observe the Sun while still inside our atmosphere, the Sky is always illuminated blue...indicating that we have an atmosphere...the blue is just the light from the Sun scattering through our atmosphere bouncing off of all the molecules of air. Well, if that is true...then why is it completely Black around the Sun? This would indicate that there is no matter surrounding the Sun, no molecules of...anything, meaning it is an empty void, a vacuum. So if watch those videos, you'll notice that our atmosphere sits directly next to this black void...no barrier, none that we have EVER interacted with or detected, so there's a good observation right there of air next to a vacuum. We've gone further then that though, we don't just observe it visually...we also take measurements. There is a point in upper atmosphere where the air is so thin...it's basically a vacuum, we have measured it...our atmosphere easily rests next to the vacuum of space.
That's one example, and quite frankly the best...but here is another.
Have you ever seen what smoke does in a vacuum chamber? You know how smoke operates in any other environment, smoke always rises...because smoke is a gas, it has mass, and that mass is less dense then the surrounding air, so buoyancy causes it to rise, pretty simple. But in a vacuum chamber, there is no air to displace smoke and cause it to rise...so do you know what smoke does then? It falls, it falls the bottom of the container and then it settles at the bottom, forming a perfect layer of smoke (you can also do this with any gas) at the bottom of the container. So if you really think about it, that means the smoke (or gas) is just like our atmosphere, the very top of that layer of smoke resting directly next to a vacuum of empty space...gravity causing that smoke (or gas) to fall to the bottom, instead of dispersing and filling the tank due to entropy.
So that's another observation we have made, and this also a good one because it's also a good experiment anyone can recreate if they know how to create a simple vacuum chamber. So it is VERY repeatable, even for the layman on a budget.
The truth is, there is absolutely no evidence for a Dome Firmament, so that's a bit inconveniant for the Flat Earth argument of their being a dome...so the next best option for you guys, butcher physics and twist it to your liking...that's what you're doing here by making the claim that gas pressure can't exist next to a vacuum. It's denial...an argument from ignorance and not much more. I repeat THERE IS NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE FOR THE DOME FIRMAMENT! We have not interacted with it, we have not photographed it, we have not discovered it and we have no theory in science that supports it either...just a bible, that has been wrong many many times now already...that some people just can't let go of.
1
-
@kunallusso A fact is something that just is, but it doesn't do anything to explain WHY or HOW something works...that's what a scientific theory is for. Facts make up a theory, they are included in the foundations of a theory of science...but at the end of the day, a fact is not used to describe how something works, so they are two different things that must be understood and treated differently. Go ahead, use a fact to explain HOW something works...the best you will come up with is "it just does". It's a FACT that the sky is blue, it's a FACT that things fall...but none of this describes WHY or HOW the sky is blue or why/how things fall....THAT'S WHAT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS FOR! Do you see the difference yet?
They are not the same thing and therefore we require both...and again, it's VERY important everybody understands the purpose of each. It's important we are all on the same page with the language and how it is used in each context. So here's a little review on these terms in science. Laws of science describe WHAT is happening, Facts are used to state what IS without any physical explanation for why or how something is the way it is, and THEORY is used to describe WHY AND HOW SOMETHING WORKS THE WAY IT DOES! That's its purpose....following me so far?
But thank you, I feel like I'm making some progress here. You did say this after all "A theory might be high in science..." which indicates we at least agree now that theories in science actually hold a level of importance.
So now I'm trying to dispel another misconception most people seem to have about science....scientists were correct not to label their end conclusions "facts" because that's not what a fact is...facts don't explain how something works, so they can't be used in that context. So they chose the word "theory" instead...and they were wise to do so, because theories have the potential to change, where as facts do not change, if they could...then they are not really a fact then are they? The reality of information gathering...is that it always has the potential to change. That goes for any information you gather, from the information and data that goes into a scientific theory, to the rumor you heard about your friends...the reality is that as NEW information comes to light, it has the potential to change OLD information. So because we don't know everything and likely never will...that means we are constantly gathering NEW information, that could someday potentially change OLD information...so scientists called their end conclusions "scientific THEORY", this allows them wiggle room. If they had called them "scientific FACTS", it would be wrong...and it would be too rigid, it would mean they're 100% confident with every conclusion...and that's bad science.
Here's something science deniers need to understand...no theory in science is set in stone, every single theory in science has the potential to change or even become completely falsified and every single scientist worth their mettle understands and accepts this fact. Big Bang is not set in stone...it's just the leading theory in cosmology because it has the most evidence to support it...that is all. If we ever find tangible evidence for God, you can bet science will accept it with open arms and admit they were wrong...but the thing is, they haven't yet (and that's not from lack of trying I assure you), so they go with what they HAVE discovered so far to be true and they go with the leading theories that have the most evidence to support them...in our current modern world, that leading theory is Big Bang...welcome to the fringes of modern science.
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, both are plausible, the math checks out, so that's why they're the leading theories today as well...but you are absolutely correct, we have not directly found or interacted with either...but there was once a time when radio, x-ray, microwaves, infrared, the entire electromagnetic spectrum was not discovered...did this mean these things did not exist? Of course not, it just means we hadn't discovered them yet. Science takes time...there is still LOTS we haven't discovered yet...but we're not going to discover anything if we don't try, so that's all scientists are doing...they are at least TRYING to figure out our reality! The best thing about it, through their efforts...WE ALL reap the benefits. This computer/phone we're both using to interact with each other, is the fruits of all that TRYING.
It's fine if people want to challenge Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Big Bang Cosmology, Evolution, heck even the shape our planet...but then why not ACTUALLY participate and ACTUALLY attempt at falsifying these theories and models in science? You think Dark Energy is bogus...ok, then figure it out, devise your own counter hypothesis and then test that hypothesis to see if it's more plausible then the current leading theories. Science doesn't care in the end who's correct...they just care about WHAT is correct. So go ahead, science welcomes people who are ready to challenge it directly...in fact it favors those who do. You think Einstein got famous for sticking to the status quo? Quite the opposite...he's famous today because he challenged modern science for the time, and was able to prove his concepts correct, essentially changing a LOT of what we thought we knew.
But...again, can't even begin changing science, until we're all on the same page with the language of science, so I hope I'm helping clear up some misconceptions here. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just telling you how it is...Flat Earthers and science deniers misinterpret a lot of what is being said in science...and that's the root to a lot of their problems in science.
1
-
@kunallusso Yes, it took a long time to accurately figure out that the world was a sphere, because from our tiny perspective it looks quite flat to us from just looking at it...but looks can be deceiving and our eyes can fool us, it requires we probe much deeper to get to the truth of things and it did take us a very long time to come to the conclusion we are at today. We have the evidence now today and a much deeper understanding of our physical world...but honestly, it all started with the Sun and the Moon. How does the Sun set on a Flat Earth? It can't...that was our first clue and it still holds true today. The Sun would not set on a Flat Earth, neither would the Moon, you would see them all day, every day. This is a fact...not an opinion. Flat Earth goes to some great lengths to butcher physics and perspective to make these things work...but the simplest answer is often the correct answer and a Globe Earth explains this occurrence with absolute ease. The Earth turns away from the Sun each day...creating Sun set and Sun rise, it's pretty simple. Not only that, it lines up with all angles of the Sun light. When measurements of the Sun angles and position of the viewer are taken, then when you place that data on a Globe Earth to scale...the Sunlight angles only work on the Globe model.
Here's a few great videos that have taken the time to look at Sun angle data (even collecting their own in the real world), and then placing that data on both models to see which fits. Spoilers...the Globe is the only model that works. These are some great demonstrations and experiments, so I urge you to take a look. They are also easily repeatable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGG3x3v8RA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=438s if you're pressed for time, just watch the last 2 mins of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=8s
I have been answering your questions for the Globe this past few hours, but I can just as easily spin it around and ask questions for the Flat Earth if you'd like.
Why are there two hemispheres with two different sky's? On a Flat Earth with a rotating dome, we'd only expect to see ONE hemisphere and ONE night sky, but there exists TWO in reality...which is something that doesn't make any sense on a Flat Earth, but it matches with a Globe Earth perfectly. It's exactly what we'd expect to see on a Globe. On a Flat Earth with a rotating dome, this is what we'd expect to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpLTztOP6-0
That's not what we see in reality...we see TWO hemispheres, both with perfect circular rotations around a central celestial axis...just like we would expect to see if the Earth were a Globe. I live in the Northern hemisphere and I have been to the Southern Hemisphere several times in my life...I have confirmed it for myself, there is indeed TWO hemispheres. The question Flat Earth needs to answer is, why is that? It doesn't make sense if the Earth is Flat with a rotating dome...and deep down you know this. It's odd to me that Flat Earthers would fight tooth and nail against something so very obvious, almost like you don't want to accept it...so you ignore it instead. I find that odd.
When Flat Earth can answer those simple questions and accurately account for these observations, then they MIGHT have some legs to stand on...until then.
1
-
1
-
@kunallusso "And suddenly now we cant pass through a van Allen belt yet we did 50 years ago." We can pass through the Van Allen belts just fine...the reason we haven't in over 50 years, is because there has been ZERO reason to go back to the Moon. We did all that we could do for now, the goal for the time was just to see if we could...and we did, several times...but why go back if there's really nothing there? So interest in Moon missions declined and the programs were cancelled because they lost funding...it's pretty simple. Kinda hard to put these BILLIONS of dollar missions into action, when you don't have that funding anymore. Yes, NASA still receives a lot of funding, but you have to understand that most of that funding goes into keeping the lights on for the thousands of buildings they operate. It also goes into the salaries of the hundreds of thousands of employees they keep, and then the rest goes into the supply cost for their R&D departments...they are a science and research facility, so they're not just sending rockets and satellites up into space, that's just a small fraction of what they do. So they don't have the dedicated resources for another Moon mission...and even if they did, why go back now? What would they do?
That's half of why they haven't gone back in over 50 years, the other half is because of the R&D. When you develop a new system...you have to TEST that new system rigorously, in multiple different scenarios and environments, to ensure that they are safe to use and will not fail on you out into space. In the last 50 years we have developed A LOT of new systems...that have gone far beyond the old analog systems they used in the old space craft.
Analog systems are sturdier, less likely to fail in areas of high solar radiation and strong electromagnetic fields...like the Van Allen Belt. The tiny microchips that are in many of our computing systems today, are far more susceptible to damage in these areas of space...especially the old magnetic strip hard drives we've been using for the last 30 - 40 years....today we have solid state drives that ARE NOT damaged by electromagnetic fields...so guess what, NOW we have the computing technology that is resistant to the Van Allen Belt! Which means, we have gotten closer to developing these new systems so that they too can go into space and be included in the new space vessels.
That's the reality Kunal...space travel is not a walk in the park. They're not just going to send a crew of people up into a new space vessel...that hasn't been tested properly yet. That would be stupid of them...they would be putting the crew at risk.
So why don't they rebuild the old space vessels and go back with the analog systems? Because what would be the point? Those old analog ships were VERY limited with what they could do for us...if we go back to the Moon, we would want to do a LOT more stuff then what we did previously. A moon base would be nice for instance, but a little hard to create a Moon base if the old Analog vessels can barely even get a crew there with a limited supply. The Newer vessels they are working on, will have more supplies, more equipment...which means more systems, that ALL NEED TO BE TESTED AND CLEARED FOR THE MISSION!
You're in luck though, there are new Moon missions scheduled for our future, quite recent in fact. Over the next 5 - 8 years they plan to send several new missions to the moon, the plan is actually to lay the foundations for a future moon base...so interest has returned in the Moon, so we are going back.
Anyway, I hope that helps put a new perspective on things for you. I see this a lot with space deniers, moon mission hoaxers and Flat Earthers...cherry picking quotes and information, taking it out of context and twisting it to fit the bias belief of space being faked by NASA. If you actually LISTEN to everything they say, rather then just filter out the bits you can twist for your own purposes, you might learn how you're jumping the gun on a LOT of your narrow conclusions. NASA never said they COULDN'T go back into the Van Allen Belt, they said they can't CURRENTLY, because they don't have the funding and the new technologies are not ready for such a mission yet. It pays to pay attention to every detail...not just the details that support a paranoid bias.
1
-
@kunallusso "flat earth doesn't need ti answer everything right now." But it can't just ignore these things either...plus, the flat Earth and geocentric cosmology came first LONG before the heliocentric model, so how much more time do they require? We moved on from both models, because it was discovered that neither conformed or fit with reality, so that's when we realized the Earth was a Globe and have since verified it a thousand times over. Heliocentrism is used today to predict eclipses YEARS in advance, it's used in applied sciences to put satellites into orbit and explore space, it's used in ALL world navigation. Pilots, ship captains, military and rescue crews...they ALL use lines of longitude and latitude that are designed for our Global system, and they work. It would be pretty damn hard for these people to get around (especially in the southern hemisphere) if these lines of navigation were wrong and if our maps were off. The model works and it explains reality, it explains everything. So the problem here, is that you're trying to convince people the Earth is Flat...but most of all you've done is demonstrate a lot of personal misunderstandings of physics, language, the heliocentric model...that's not a problem with the science, that's a problem with your ability to understand it.
It's fair to not know all the answers, scientists are the same, they don't claim to know everything and they are happy to admit if they're wrong...but Flat Earthers are being VERY paranoid and irrational here. You honestly think EVERY scientists around the world is lying to you? Have YOU discovered anything in science recently that is beneficial to society? Have you invented anythng? How much physics do you actually know? How many innovation patents for technology do you have? There are MILLIONS of scientists around the world...all using the science we know and understand today to create EVERYTHING around you that you take for granted...you honestly believe these people are pulling the wool over your eyes? That's paranoia talking...it's not being very rational.
It's fine to believe what you want, but the rest of us are FAR from convinced...because like I said, all we're seeing is a lot of people grossly misunderstanding a lot of science. Which again, is not a problem with the science...it's a problem with the people trying to understand it. At the very least, it's a growing problem of trust issues. Some Flat Earthers are not stupid, in fact a lot of them are quite well articulated and inventive...so they're not stupid, but for some reason they ignore clear evidence to the contrary of their conclusions...and in those cases it seems to have more to do with paranoia robbing them of their better reasoning. Trust issues...a lack of trust in authority of all kinds. Which I do see the logic in, trust me...but I try to remain rational and objective, paranoia can lead people to bias thinking...and that's what I'm seeing occurring currently with Flat Earth and science deniers in general. The Earth is not Flat, and you're being misled by huxters online. I'm just doing what I can to stave off that paranoia, so I hope all the information I have shared so far has been helpful.
In the end, it's fine to believe whatever you like. If there's one thing I DO admire about Flat Earth, is that they are challenging the current theories, which is actually pretty awesome! That's Science! Challenging what we're told and shining a light on the flaws, reevaluating what we THINK we know and seeing if we've missed anything. Falsification, that's the key to TRUE science, so I'm all for that. So go nutz I say...but just know people like me are just here exercising our right to peer review as well, so all I'm doing is making sure Flat Earth is checked for their claims...and honestly, I'm seeing a LOT of empty claims, speculation and misunderstandings being thrown around in these camps...so just doing what I can to point out any errors. I hope at the very least, the information I've shared is interesting to you.
1
-
@kunallusso Yes, I'm aware of the Selenelion eclipse, and yes I am convinced that refraction does account for this, as well as many other optical anomlies that do occur. The news was wrong in that Chicago example...it's not a mirage, it's just refraction. Refraction is slightly different from a mirage, a mirage is just basically a reflection, so you're correct, it's mirrored. Refraction however is light being bent by humidity and heat, which causes our visual horizon to shift upwards depending on the refraction index for that time and area...and it's always higher over water, because humidity plays a huge role in the intensity of refraction.
I watched your video, so please do me a favor and watch this video if you could quick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzLm6HVqI9o I may have already shared this with you, not sure, but either way it is a clear demonstration of refraction so it's worth looking at. It is well known and understood in physics that light bends when passing into denser mediums...this is all refraction is, the bending of light as it passes into denser mediums...like our atmosphere. So refraction is very real. If you were to reside INSIDE the object that is refracting that light, then you are going to see objects differently from where they actually are...they will shift. You've no doubt experienced this for yourself, if you've ever dunked your head under water while looking up. But you may not have been paying attention, but when your eyes go from above water to under the water, everything shifts up. Try it sometime...this is a perfect experiment for refraction that anyone can repeat, it's best done at a pool. Here's a video that goes into this phenomenon a little more in depth as well, including another easy experiment you can try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XafvfOGp4Ag&t=263s start this video at about 3 mins 20 seconds into the video and watch from there. If you're pressed for time, just watch his experiment starting at 4 mins 45 seconds. Another clear demonstration of how light bends downward when passing into denser mediums, causing what you see to appear to rise upward.
Here are a few more quick images demonstrating refraction.
http://www.khadley.com/Courses/Physics/ph_212/topics/waves/images/refract.jpg?crc=3925797755
https://www.assignmentpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Assignment-on-Refraction-of-Light.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/ff/d0/d4ffd0a879c33695d7ded3c950c7d07f.jpg
Refraction is very real, and therefore can not be ignored. It's also very understood in physics, so much so that we can accurately give a refraction index for an area and we can use that refraction index in mathematical equations that we can use to help us predict how much something will become distorted. So I'm sorry, but refraction is not up for debate...it exists and it does bend light over the horizon of Earth making it possible to see things that should be hidden by horizon.
Mirages do occur as well, but they are different from refraction...and so that Chicago news report was false...as most news reports tend to be...these people are not scientists, they fuck up all the time when reporting on science. So you really should take news reports with a grain of salt.
So back to the Selenlion eclipse. Don't you find it odd that these are very rare? That they only occur during sunset or sunrise? That they only occur if the index for refraction is great enough to allow for it to occur? That they only occur when the Sun is always on the complete opposite side to the Moon, and both the Sun and Moon reside very near the horizon during these events? I realize that refraction may sound bogus to those who don't accept or understand it...but this is explained by refraction and can even be demonstrated. This is just a trick of our atmosphere, causing light to bend. It's an optical illusion...and it is very possible.
I'll admit that it is quite interesting...but refraction can account for it. For me, if a Selenlion eclipse happened while the Moon was closer to the Sun...rather then on the complete opposite side, if it occurred higher in the sky and not so close to the horizon...if it happened at any other time other then sunrise or sunset, then sure, then there would be some missing variables...but Selenlion eclipses only occur when all these conditions are met, which makes it plausible on the Globe model...which means it's odd sure, but impossible...no, not at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kunallusso More cherry picked quotes...taken out of context and spun for Flat Earths liking. That video was showing pages taken from flight and aeronautic handbooks and schematic designs for aircraft...and cherry picking the parts where they were simplifying the science/math to make the problem or question easier to calculate for, by removing variables that don't hinder the end result anyway. This is done a LOT in physics...and is seen ALL THE TIME in research papers. We often simplify a problem by focusing on what we're trying to solve for, by assuming and simplifying some variables, essentially removing any variables that don't hinder or change our end conclusions. In the case with flight over our Globe Earth, it's understood that relative motion and conservation of momentum hold true in most cases...which means when calculating for aeronautic problems they don't have to include all the movements of the planet in their variables...because relative motion and conservation of momentum create a system that makes everything behave as if it's operating in a flat motionless system...so they can remove those variables and just focus on the singular motions of the plane itself. BUT they have to make that clear that this is what they're doing....so THAT IS WHY they mention "flat motionless plane". A layman wouldn't know this...because the average person doesn't write research papers or draw up schematic manuals for a living.
The best example I can give is with throwing something around inside a moving vehicle. Pretend you are on an airplane traveling at 500 mph. Now, I'm sure you've been inside an airplane, you're aware that once the plane maintains cruising altitude, you can get up and move around the cabin...and at no point are you sucked to the back of the plane. Well why is that? You're moving at 500 mph with the plane...shouldn't you feel some inertia? Nope...because you are now moving RELATIVE to the plane because of CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM...so you will feel no inertia from the movement alone, so long as that motion is constant with no sudden changes in forward velocity, this will hold true. So this means the inside of that plane now operates as if you were stationary and not moving, which is a basic rule of thumb for relative motion and conservation of momentum. Which means, you can throw a ball around inside the cabin of that moving plane, and it will behave as though you were throwing it around on the ground while not moving inside the plane. Make sense yet? Give it a try the next time you're in a moving vehicle by the way. So long as that vehicle maintains a constant rate of speed and a constant forward velocity, you can throw a ball around just fine and it will behave as though you're not in a moving vehicle. But hold on...you can't throw a ball at 500 mph can you? Of course you can't...but you don't have to, because the ball already conserves the momentum of the plane, moving relative to it. Pretty cool huh....that's relative motion and conservation of momentum in a nutshell.
So if you were writing a research paper to figure out some simple math for throwing something around inside the cabin of an airplane while in flight...you would then start that section of the paper with "we will assume the system is motionless". Because anyone reading it will already agree that relative motion and conservation of momentum are in effect, so stating that up front is just simplifying things to make it easier to do the math. But of course that's not the case, the plane is moving of course....it's just what you have to state when writing these papers, so that anybody reading it knows which variables you will be simplifying and discarding from any math equations or explanations.
This is how these papers are written out...so in the case with these aeronautic handbooks, or schematic designs for aircraft...that's all they're doing. They are simplifying things...and they are simply stating what exactly is being simplified. By saying "flat motionless plane", they are stating that the other variables such as rotation of the planet, orbit around the sun, orbit around the galaxy, curvature of the planet...these variables do not matter for what they are trying to solve for in that section of the paper and will not effect the math they are working on and therefore do not need to be included as variables.
So again...just more misunderstanding, from people who have NO IDEA what they're even looking at.
1
-
@Livingtoblesschannel So basically, just arguments from personal incredulity. Gotcha...same ol’ creationist MO. The trouble is, you’re not even trying to understand...you’re just scoffing at it before even giving the concept a chance. It’s just one of many hypothesized ideas for how consciousness manifests, and so it’s worth exploring. No need to get upset about it, nothing is conclusive yet, still tons of debate here, so relax.
Either way, she’s not wrong, if you just look at the vessel itself, it’s just dead inert matter, clumped together, performing a series of chemical reactions...that statement is empirically true, so that is what she was talking about. Whether those chemical reactions are also responsible for our soul, spirit, consciousness, that’s up for debate...so any conclusion on that is largely wherever your bias leans you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JudaismIslamUnited Where exactly on Earth is it ever winter in the South at the same time as the North? 🤷♂️ I’ve been to New Zealand (twice now) from November into February, and it’s summer there while it’s winter back home in Canada. So what are you talking about? You ever actually travelled? Heck ya ever left your home town?
Angle effects temperature, this is basic physics bud. Get a heat lamp and a thermometer, first place the lamp perpendicular to a surface, pointing straight down on a thermometer, now angle the lamp at 45 degrees to the surface pointing at the thermometer…you’ll notice it’ll read a lot cooler, why? Because the heat is now less focused, more scattered over a wider area. Same thing happens with the tilt of the Earth. Angle effects how much DIRECT solar energy is contacting the surface, and how much it’s being scattered. This effects temperature…it’s pretty simple stuff.
This doesn’t just answer for the seasons either bud, it fits perfectly with sun position data. You’re arguing against settled science, with more evidence and data supporting it than you seem to realize…and your best shot is arguments from personal incredulity. Not a hill I’d wanna die on.
You’ve been conned by a movement of numpty’s…verifying that you’re one of them. Good job. 👏
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yanostropicalparadise755 For a narcissist, attention is as good as gold. What did cult leaders want exactly? To be praised, worshipped, idolized...for some people it’s not about money. A following also brings power, the larger a movement grows, the more people you have for things like voting. But you’re pretty naive if you don’t think they’re not selling books, con tickets, t-shirts, making money from donations and ad revenue.
It’s an easy con...lotta idiots out there with very little knowledge in science and mathematics. Twist some facts, cherry pick some quotes, tailor a bunch of bullshit together into hours long gish gallop dumps, throw a little dramatic music over the whole mess, and bam, you got yourself a propaganda piece. You won’t fool everyone, not even a majority, but you’re bound to snag a few suckers....and that’s all you need.
All they have to do is plant seeds of doubt, your anger will do the rest. Con men have been running these kinds of rackets for centuries...today, they have the internet, which is con mans playground.
1
-
1
-
@yanostropicalparadise755 Science is all about falsification, but they don’t just roll over, or fold to what other people want to be true. You make a claim, then expect it’s going to be challenged and reviewed...that’s just how it is. It’s incredible I even have to explain that to people. It makes perfect sense...you think every numpty with an opinion should just be allowed to publish research, without review? Where’s the sense in that? Can’t do anything with junk science...that’s a fact, not an opinion. You allow any person to have a say...you open the door to a flood of junk bullshit science, that NOBODY can use. Everyone thinks they’re a genius, but here’s the harsh reality...they’re not, that includes you and me as well. I don’t know about you, but I MUCH prefer there’s a filter in place that stops idiots and con men. :/
They’re not just gonna blindly listen or agree, certainly not from layman who have no real experience or credentials in science. It’s no different from any other profession. If you’re not a pilot...then they’re not gonna let you fly the plane, it’s just common sense. So why would you think you get a say on matters of science, if you’re not actively researching anything, with the credentials to back your experience?
It’s fine to question, fine to disagree, but really...how many discoveries have you made? What have you invented? What applied science are you currently contributing too? Why should anyone listen to you? What research or empirical evidence do you actually have, that you think should bring modern science to a screeching halt? Go ahead and enlighten me...otherwise, you’re just whining. :/
Just saying, I feel your argument is ignorant...and I’m tired of that bullshit. There is a REASON why people without the proper credentials don’t get a say...because most people just form conclusions from bias and misinformation and belief, so science took steps to weed these fucking people out. It’s not a perfect system, I will agree to that, but it’s necessary and it’s doing pretty good so far...that proof is all around you. You see it as a religion, I see it as method...the best method we’ve made so far, to deduce truths of reality.
But besides that, cause I feel like I’m talking down now and that’s not productive. So what would you prefer they do instead? How would you prefer they operate? Offer a productive solution how’s about...cause all I’m hearing currently is whining. How would you fix this “religion” of science you feel is occurring? How can you be so certain, you’re not just misunderstanding the current fringes of science, due to a lack of real knowledge and experience on the science?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. You’re not bringing them back from horizon, you’re bringing them back from vanishing point, your naked eyes physical limit to render an object visible. Once something has gone over the actual horizon, you’ll know, because no amount of zoom in the world will bring it back and it will begin to sink into horizon and drop below your eye level. On that note…you do realize the P1000 wasn’t the first telescopic lens camera, right? I’m starting to think Nikon started Flat Earth to sell more cameras. You must have a really low opinion of science, if you honestly think they never thought to use a telescopic lens in their observations.
2. True, but if Earth were flat, then there wouldn’t be a geometric horizon. Instead we’d just expect everything to slowly fade into the distance, there would be no horizon line. The fact that there is a clear horizon line, is evidence of curvature.
3. Oh boy. 🤦♂️ That’s not a falsification of anything. It’s an inferred logical premise to keep in mind, but it doesn’t refute any of the evidence. So it’s a moot argument as far as evidence is concerned.
4. No, because gravity would orientate you to the current location you’re in, so you’d experience the same up and down that they would. It’s gravity that orientates your feeling of up and down, down is always towards surface, no matter where you are, because gravity pulls to centre…that’s how it works. Your personal incredulity doesn’t change that.
5. Well our senses are shit really. Do you feel the motion of a 500 mph passenger jet while you’re on board? How exactly is it that you can leave a cup of scolding hot coffee on the tray in front of you, while travelling at such velocity? The fact about motion is that we do not actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. Since all of Earth’s motions are constant, with only slow gradual changes in velocity over long periods of time, we shouldn’t expect to feel anything. You’re reaching a false conclusion, from a false assumption about motion. Your personal misunderstandings of basic physics, are not arguments. Learn some physics.
6. Okay, but even you have to be able to understand, that if the surface is rotating, it’s going to make everything around that surface shift. Stand in the centre if your room, now spin around on the spot…are the walls moving, or are they stationary? You can’t honestly think this is a good argument…can you? 🤦♂️
These are terrible arguments….are you just having a laugh? There’s no way anyone could make these arguments seriously. I can only assume you’re trolling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Here’s an example of confirmation bias. You said, quote “The military controls GPS first off. They get the data and can manipulate it.” Pure speculation as far as I’m concerned, why should I blindly agree to your paranoid speculations? You really don’t see the bias in even mentioning that? It’s a logical inference, sure (if we ignore all the actual data and don’t actually look into it), but it’s just a conjecture, you can’t form a solid conclusion from that…and yet you’re presenting it as if it’s an argument I should actually take seriously. It’s your bias that allows you to ignore that you’ve formed a conclusion from speculation here. You may not notice, but it’s clear as day for us. So don’t tell me you’re not bias, because you very clearly are.
Point is, you’re not really falsifying the geodetic navigation system, you’re just flinging gish gallop at me there and hoping one sticks. For example, your argument with the NASA flight dynamics models. NASA creates mathematical simulation models for flight dynamics, with assumed variables…they’re not literally stating the Earth is flat, they’re simplifying math fir simulation purposes, that’s all. In that very same document flat Earthers pull that from, it also assumes “a rigid vehicle of constant mass”, two variables that are also not reality, as they are impossible, with a vehicle with moving parts, crew members, and fuel that depletes over time. Why doesn’t flat Earth zero in on that? Because they can’t sell it…doesn’t fit their bias, so it’s ignored.
Next up, the AE projection map is used by these agencies, for the same reason flat Earthers thought to use it…out of all the globe Earth projection maps, it’s the most symmetrical, has the best balanced composition, it’s the most pleasing to the eye. Humans are creatures of habit, we’re all drawn to the same pleasing compositions. It’s also from a neutral point (The North pole), so it’s a perfect symbol to represent the nations of the world. Now, I’m happy to admit that’s purely my speculation…but so is your conclusion…and you know that too, that’s why you lumped all those weaker points together in a gish gallop, instead of ACTUALLY providing evidence that falsifies geodetic navigation.
All perfect examples of confirmation bias. Weak arguments, shotty evidence and empty conjectures. We all have bias, it’s fine really, as long as people are aware of that, and then accept it and do their best to identify theirs and keep it in check as best they can…but I can’t help but notice some religious people do seem to think they’re the one exception to confirmation bias…and it is annoying, if I’m being honest. You have bias, it’s very clear, so just own it please. I’m not saying every conclusion you’ve reached has been from confirmation bias, some of these are good and fair rebuttals…but others are quite weak and speculative, and it’s incredible you’d even bother with some.
Does the military also manipulate the consistent 1 degree drop in stars to horizon, every 69 miles traveled North or South? That’s how the lines of latitude were determined, and that’s how celestial navigation works…and that’s how those angles would work on the surface of a globe. We would expect the stars to drop to horizon at a consistent rate, on the surface of a sphere, because the surface would be curving at a consistent rate. Upon a flat Earth however, the drop would not be consistent, the stars would drop less and less the further from the North celestial pole you got…that’s just basic trig and geometry. And you’ve not answered for the Southern celestial rotation, you’ve ignored it…as all Flat Earthers do. Care to explain exactly how the stars in the South rise up at the same consistent rate, 1 degree every 69 miles? How is there a second rotation that’s in the opposite rotation from the North? How can every Southern continent see the same southern sky, and rotation? You can’t just ignore this…it’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe.
If Jos Leys stopped talking to you, it’s probably because he noticed, as I have, that you come off as quite intentionally ignorant, and clearly biased in many of your conclusions. You’re ramming a square peg into a round hole here, forcing conclusions, ignoring anything that’s not convenient, and filling many blanks with conjectures, that you also expect me to agree with, without question. I think there’s only so much of that nonsense one can put up with.
His moon video clearly shows a Moon that would arc South, rising from East, tracking South, and then setting West…which is exactly what we observe, I see it every night, I live in Canada currently. Because he placed the observation from a person on a latitude line in the North, and presented it without Earth’s tilt, thus making the vectors point up…you think that means the observer sees it in the North? 🧐 You’re not quite visualizing his model very accurately I feel. Do me a favour, and take that video, pause it at the point where it shows the vectors upon a globe, then tilt your phone or IPad or whatever you got, until those vectors are parallel to your floor…that should be roughly 23.4 degrees (though the Moon is off the ecliptic plane by about 5 degrees as well). Now, it should be a little clearer to help you see the angles an observer would see…it’s not in the North.
There is a slight centrifugal force produced by Earth’s rotation (it’s why everything weighs slightly less at the equator), this will eventually over time cause a deviation in Earth’s shape. Most of the other planets in our solar system have the very same oblateness, Saturn being a great example, it’s so oblate you can see its deviation with the naked eye. So it’s pretty common. Yes, it’s conserved angular momentum that causes it, but it’s an outward force…not a downward crushing force, so where did you get that assumption? 🤷♂️ You’re sure making a lot of very poor assumptions.
1000 mph is a linear velocity, our Earth’s rotational velocity however is 0.000694 RPM’s…not very fast at all. Why do you think a plane couldn’t adjust for this over time? I think you should perhaps learn the difference between a linear velocity and a rotational velocity.
I feel you are very much ignoring perspective fundamentals, and you’re doing it by slotting in ad hoc explanations. You barely have enough for a hypothesis in most of these conclusions, yet you’ve reached conclusions anyway. So the Sun becomes magnified as it reaches horizon? Why should I agree with that hypothesis? So it magnifies perfectly to maintain a consistent size throughout a full day? Can you demonstrate this perfect consistent magnification? And how exactly does that account for the steady 15 degree per hour travel time? Feel free to share these experiments if you got them, I’m certainly not going to just take you at your word here. Even if you could demonstrate this, It’s still not a falsification of the Globe mind you. The Globe model still accounts for a sunset, without any need for ad hoc explanations. Earth rotates, surface blocks Sun…explanation over. I mean, if we employ Occam’s Razor here…are you really shocked that anyone would find your conclusions here to be pretty forced?
You’ll have to explain a little better how Coriolis contradicts Relativity, it’s not entirely clear what your point is.
So far you’re not really falsifying the globe…you’re still just trying to prove your model. The only attempts at falsification, that I’ve noticed so far, just amounts to misunderstood physics. Feel free to share some actual experimentation, observations, measurements, data…you know, evidence. Flat Earth loves to butcher difficult physics, and then pretend it’s an argument, but I’d really prefer to see experiments and actual real world data if you don’t mind. That’s how you truly falsify something.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 I will mention this though, Einstein said in a speech in 1922 that he came to believe no “optical experiment” could detect Earth’s motion, meaning using light. Followed directly after that line in the speech though, he then said “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun”. That part is conveniently left out of presentations by Flat Earthers and geocentrists. So just more quote mining and confirmation bias.
There’s nuance here though I feel is important to mention. Einstein wasn’t saying Earth’s motion couldn’t be observed or detected (obviously the Foucault pendulum experiment, and North aligning gyro experiments, had already done that), he just wasn’t aware of any optical experiments that had done it successfully…at that time. And the “optical experiment” he was referring too was the interferometer experiments, using light bounced off mirrors…that was of course until 1926, where the Sagnac effect was used to detect Earth’s rotational motion, with a large area ring interferometer. Look up the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.
So he was wrong…yes, even Einstein can be wrong. In 1922 he believed that, but I’m sure he changed his mind on that after that experiment. Today, ring laser interferometers are used to detect rotational motions in aircraft, with extreme accuracy…as well as Earth’s rotational motion. If they can be used on aircraft to detect rotations…why can’t they do the same for Earth? They can and they do. Another device you should research sometime, is the gyrocompass. It’s a device used on most modern sea vessels…and it actually works by using Earth’s rotation as part of its function. If Earth wasn’t rotating, then this device would not work as designed. Lots of information online for the gyrocompass, you can even find a pdf for its engineering specs pretty easily if you try, it explains in pretty great detail how it uses Earth’s rotation as a function in its design. So Earths rotation isn’t just verified by experimentation, it’s also an applied science.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Still isn’t a valid argument. Your paranoid speculations, don’t equal truth…evidence is all that matters here, not empty conjectures. I don’t care how afraid you are of your government…can you prove your claims, with evidence? That’s all I care about.
Nope, you wouldn’t have a consistent 1 degree drop of stars every 69 miles, on a flat surface. Please understand how basic geometry works, instead of just assuming your model fits here. I’m so very tired of Flat Earthers just assuming these things work on their model, without doing any actual work to verify that conclusion…and even more tired of you guys thinking I should just agree to your conclusion without evidence. It doesn’t work…so please stop pretending it does. It’s no coincidence that the stars drop at a rate consistent with a globe geometry….you are only fooling yourself if you think this geometry works for your model.
“Which document authors should we approach?”
The authors of any flight dynamics model you think supports flat Earth. You’re not stupid, so don’t play dumb. You’re cherry picking from these mathematical models, and twisting them into something they are not……….so, if you think you’re not, then the next logical step is to contact the authors of these papers, to make sure you’re not doing that. It’s not difficult to understand…so again, don’t play dumb.
“I want the truth to stand, regardless of what that means for the shape of the earth.”
Bullshit……you don’t really care about truth, you just want to be right. It’s no secret why………you’re trying to confirm your religious bias. That’s the real reason why you ignore so much evidence, like navigation, sunsets, lunar eclipses, the entire Southern Hemisphere, etc…you don’t care about truth, what you really care about is your religious beliefs. Everything else doesn’t matter. I know it, and so do you. So please…stop trying to bullshit me. Your true motivation is very clear…I just wish it didn’t blind you so absolutely.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 We do detect Coriolis drift….again, ANY long range marksmen, or artillery gunner, will tell you there is a Coriolis drift they need to account for, or they will be off target. We also do observe it in cyclones and hurricanes, and there are experiments that anyone can recreate, that do verify Coriolis. So spare me your misunderstandings of how the physics works…your misunderstandings are not an argument against the evidence.
The gyrocompass is designed to point towards true North…it has to align its rate of precession with Earth’s rotation in order to do that, so it uses Earth rotation to function. This isn’t difficult. If Earth was not rotating, then it would not require that function, they’d be a lot easier to make…any ol’ gyro would be useable for this purpose.
All mechanical gyros precess over time, there’s no overcoming this flaw in the mechanical gyro (not without additional mechanisms like pendulous vanes), because you can never completely remove friction in the gimbles. This friction applies a small torque, which causes precession over time. So all mechanical gyros precess over time. Foucault was aware of this precession, that’s why he started to experiment with it to see if he could set the rate of precession, to match Earth’s rate of rotation. He was successful, this was yet another of his experiments that helped prove Earth was indeed rotating. He then set out to develop the first gyro compass, but he was unsuccessful, mainly because he didn’t have the time and resources to dedicate to the project, so it ended up taking several more decades before engineers worked out all the kinks and got one working. These devices use Earth rotation…that’s how they work, so it’s more proof of rotation.
I’m just saying, you’re trying very hard to deny a lot of physics and engineering that’s pretty simple and undeniable. Flat Earth asks for proof of rotation, and then we give it to them…but then the excuses start coming. Why bother asking for evidence of rotation, if you’re just going to ignore it? I understand the effort put towards falsifying the evidence provided…but you’re not really providing valid falsifications, you’re just misunderstanding Coriolis physics and denying the plethora of evidence for rotation. Denial isn’t an argument…it’s just ignorance.
1
-
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 A drone floating in one spot isn’t moving forward within the inertial reference frame of Earth, to cause Coriolis drift. You don’t seem to understand how Coriolis occurs, it’s caused by conservation of momentum, conserving the motion of your starting position, then moving to a different location where the surface is moving slightly slower or faster, because of rotations being faster the further from centre of rotation you are. So it requires motion within a system of motion, that’s a key variable to Coriolis drift. Your hovering drone is not in motion within the inertial reference frame it’s moving relative too…so no Coriolis drift. It’s not difficult. Please get yourself a firmer grasp on how Coriolis works.
If you cannot prove that Wolfie forged his HUD, with evidence to support the claim, then it’s just an empty claim, so I’m not interested. Share your evidence that led to your accusation, or don’t bother. I’ll take a look at this water level claim you’re now making, don’t suppose you have a video title I could find it at?
A gyrocompass has to be manually set by latitude…so it’s not just gonna automatically flip once crossing the pole, that’s not how it works. It has no magnetic influence…that’s the whole point, it’s aligned to true North and syncs its precession rate with Earth’s rotation. This is why I can’t rely on much of your conclusions, because there’s just so much physics and engineering you don’t really know much about…so no wonder you reach so many erroneous conclusions.
Aether does not exist, it has never been verified or detected in experimentation, and it’s not from lack of trying. So your argument is null, on the fact you’re using long falsified science, as if I should agree it’s relevant. You’re just using it as an excuse as a means to ignore the results. Simply put, I’m not going to just blindly agree to any arguments where Aether is used, until it’s verified science….and good luck with that. Here’s the reality, RLG’s are used in aircraft to detect rotational motions…so they are more than proven to detect and measure PHYSICAL rotations, from the surface they’re attached too. So if it accurately detects the physical rotations of a plane in flight…why couldn’t it do the same for the Earth? It can and they have…slotting in falsified science as an ad hoc response so you can ignore the results, is pretty poor form…it isn’t an argument, it’s just biased.
Share these videos then, I’m not interested in your empty claims. Provide me with a search query for these gyrocompasses. The electric motors only function is to keep the gyro spinning, so again you’re just slotting in ad hoc responses to explain away things you don’t like…so more confirmation bias and ignorance.
You’re most certainly lying to yourself (and me), so you can continue to deny reality. It’s all a vane attempt to confirm your bias religious beliefs. That’s painfully obvious for everyone else here reading and engaging with you, even if you refuse to see it.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Why would it rid the world of all religion if Earth were a globe? You don’t think God could have created galaxies and spherical stars and planets that orbit each other, as we understand the cosmos today? I’m personally far more impressed by a God that could create a seemingly endless cosmos we’ll never fully understand, or fully experience…over a tiny terrarium that keeps us trapped. Fact is, most scientists throughout history and even still today, were and are theists, believing in some form of higher power and religious teachings. They don’t have too much trouble marrying their beliefs with the conclusions of modern science, most don’t I feel. Religion doesn’t just go away when Earth is proven spherical…I mean, history has already shown that to be true. We’ve known the Earth is spherical for roughly 2000 years, since the time of the ancient Greeks, sailors and explorers have been using their maps and systems of navigation designed for geodesic geometry, since at least Ptolemy. And that model has been accepted by the very large majority of academia and also society, for at least the last 500 years. Religion is still thriving just fine despite that…so the globe Earth model doesn’t rid the world of religion, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
It’s never been the goal of science to falsify God, nor could it. Science deals with the physical realm, it can’t do anything to explain or falsify the metaphysical, or the unfalsifiable. We will never know everything, that’s the reality of our situation. So superstitions/spiritual metaphysical beliefs will likely always exist between the cracks. It’s not a bad thing, I’m an artist for a living, I love pondering the possibilities and wondering about what could be. I’d be more than happy to learn about, and be humbled to accept a spiritual realm, if it’s ever proven to me to exist. I just prefer to remain objective, when it comes to the physical reality I occupy, that’s all.
Trouble is so far your quandaries are just questions…not evidence. They’re great physics questions, some of them anyway, but I think you seem to think if you can eventually ask a question someone can’t answer, it means you’re correct…but no, because questions do not equal evidence at the end of the day. And it’s very hard to take you seriously, when your bias is quite clear.
Anyway…back to the science.
You think a few feet off the surface is gonna be a very substantial difference in air speed? Takes 1000 yards for a bullet to drift a few inches…what do you think a few feet is really going to do? 🤷♂️ Aside from that, not sure if you’ve actually seen a drone hover before…but it does shift around a bit, they don’t stay perfectly in place. So I feel you’re just reaching.
You’re assuming a jet immediately drops from 1000 mph to 500 mph right when it lands. How do you know it wasn’t gradually dropping that velocity as it travelled?They do account for Coriolis drift, as much as you disagree, you can find pilots explaining this, Wolfie being one of them them. I have no reason to conclude they’re lying about that. There’s also a few great explanations of this tackling the opposite question, how they fly from the poles to the Equator and gradually increase velocity, give them a search sometime. It’s a great question of physics and aviation, but you’re not pointing out anything that can’t be answered.
Neil said the horizon will appear flat to the naked eye, at hundreds of thousands of feet elevation. And he’s not wrong, if you do the math on this, horizon curvature doesn’t become blatantly obvious to an observer until you’re at least 100 miles or so off surface. Because we see curvature in terms of degrees…and it takes 70 miles for Earth to arc even 1 degree. Most people can’t see and determine 1 degree of difference, or even 2 or 3 degrees…around 10 degrees though, becomes a bit more apparent, you have to get pretty high before it reaches that point.
Doesn’t mean you can’t see it at lower elevations, it’s just very difficult to the naked eye, especially while seeing through so much atmosphere. But you can certainly measure it with better equipment. I haven’t watched the video you’re describing yet, but I assume he was just demonstrating the horizon drop from eye level at higher elevations, because you can measure and observe that with a levelling rig…which uses water. I assume that’s what he’s doing with the water bottle, making a crude levelling rig. He typically uses a surveyors theodolite in his presentations though, which is far more accurate, have you seen those demonstrations? They also reveal a drop in horizon…and he’s not the only person to ever try this. Have you bothered to repeat the observations? You can say he’s lying all you want, but nothing he does is ever really outside an individual’s ability to recreate. So have you? If this topic truly interests you, I assume you’re not just spending all your time watching YouTube.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 No, you set the gyrocompass by latitude manually, the gyroscopic precession then happens on its own, because that’s a natural thing that occurs in mechanical gyros, because of gravity, which applies a constant torque. When you apply a torque to a gyro, it begins to precess. Engineers just found a way to set the level of torque, so the gyro precesses in sync with Earth’s rotation. That’s how they work. If Earth was not rotating, then these devices would eventually drift out of alignment with true North. You set the gyro by latitude, because your angle relative to North changes, 1 degree every 69 miles, so you have to reset that angle when you enter a different latitude.
Frankly I’m done explaining it to you…you can find tons of resources on the gyrocompass, including the engineering specs in pdf form. They all explain pretty clearly how it functions, by using Earth’s rotation.
Aether was hypothesized, sure, it was even the leading hypothesis for a time…but it was never successfully detected or verified. So you can’t really use it in an argument until you can verify it exists…otherwise your just arguing from hypotheticals, and pretending it’s reality. And worse you’re expecting me to agree, to science that’s unverified…I’m not about to do that, sorry.
Funny that the RLG used to detect Earth’s rotation, is a steady 15 degrees per hour, just as our Earth rotates. We can detect magnetic fields…so if Earth’s magnetic field was rotating above us, we would detect that. But it doesn’t, it moves with Earth’s rotation. So your attempts at falsification are largely ad hoc. These devices detect physical rotations, they’ve been used for decades now to detect Earth’s physical rotation, the sane way they do in planes.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 You don’t put the latitude in on the motor…the motor is just to keep the gyro spinning, that’s all, that’s its only function. You adjust for latitude to correct latitude error (also known as damping error), caused by a change in gravitational torque…that occurs because the apparatus stays rigid, but centre of gravity does not. The trouble is that gravity doesn’t care, the gyro stays rigid, but the angle of the gyro relative to the surface changes, and gravity vectors change, so the gyros centre of gravity changes…which then applies a different torque on the gyro. This is a problem for this device, because it only works if the torque is set just right, to cause it to precess in sync with Earth’s rotation, any faster or slower, and it falls out of alignment. A change in torque, changes its rate of precession, so you have to counter the gravitational torque applied at different latitudes. That can be done in many ways, one way is with counter weights. This is set manually once you know your latitude.
For the last time…if Earth wasn’t rotating, then this device would not work as designed. And if Earth wasn’t curved, it wouldn’t really work either. Just think of it this way, the gyro is aligned to true North, pointing towards it. But if you’re on a flat surface (using the AE projection map here), if you were to travel from say Argentina, to Australia, staying on the same latitude, and the gyro remains rigid, when you arrive on the other side, it’s now pointing in a completely different direction from North. Just think about it…if it’s at 45 degrees pointing North in Argentina, in Australia it’s still 45 degrees, but it stayed rigid and you’re now on the opposite side, so it’s not pointing North anymore, it’s now pointing South. On a globe, this device works, cause it remains rigid, so traveling on the z axis (depth) doesn’t effect it, it’s still pointing North. And since gyros precess over time naturally, it makes it possible to sync with Earth rotation, keeping it pointed North. It would still precess on your model, sure, but now you’d have to set precession rate to match your rate of travel…which would be impossible, because a ship can’t maintain a perfectly constant velocity. Earth rotates a steady 15 degrees per hour, much easier to set a rate of precession to a constant motion that never changes.
So I was wrong about one thing, I said before it would be easier to make a gyrocompass on a flat Earth…but I hadn’t thought that through well enough, it actually wouldn’t work at all on a flat Earth, the device actually only works on a spherical geometry. There would be absolutely no point to create one of these on a flat Earth, it would never work…so a magnetic compass would be all you could use. These are not magnetic compasses, gyros ignore magnetic influence, so they’d be pretty useless as a magnetic compasses. On top of that, these are designed to point to true North…magnetic North is not located at true North. So if you’re gonna argue with me that magnets influence these compasses…if that were true, then these compasses wouldn’t point to true North, they’d just find magnetic North. And at that point, why bother going to all the hassle? 🤷♂️ A regular compass already does that…with far less engineering involved. So again…just the fact this device exists, proves both rotation AND Earth’s spherical geometry.
Thanks for keeping at it I suppose, I learned a lot more about these devices than I had prior. Learn something new everyday.
So, have you actually tried spinning up a gyro for hours at a time? Give it a try sometime, I assure you…it will drift, it will not stay in the same position. I’m sure you could find a time lapse if you searched for it, so go ahead if you don’t believe me. You know Foucault didn’t just prove Earths rotation with pendulums, he also did it with mechanical gyroscopes. They can be used to detect Earth rotation as well…so do some research on that. There are mechanical gyroscope experiments you could recreate, that also verify Earth rotation. Look them up sometime.
Mechanical gyros precess over time…go ahead and fire one up for a few hours.
Aether has never been detected…if you think it has, then show me the experiment. The author of such an experiment would be world famous, cause the physics community has been trying to find it for centuries, and have failed on every attempt.
So until you or someone can verify the Aether exists, you can’t use it in argument. To do so is being intentionally ignorant and biased. It’s as simple as that.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 And I’ve seen them spin for hours and eventually drift…you can look up countless videos of gyro precession online, as well as the many experiments that show rotational drift, from mechanical to ring laser gyros, they both can be used to detect Earth rotation. I’d be willing to bet, your video is demonstrating a precession in sync with Earth rotation, making a crude North aligning gyrocompass…similar to the experiments that led Foucault to begin designing the gyrocompass. But I certainly won’t assume that without confirmation, but claims made without evidence can be discarded without evidence, so that’s where we’re at on your points. You claim to have video, yet you’ve not shared any sources…so not much I can verify. Look up the original gyroscope experiments by Foucault…they’re repeated pretty often, tons of demonstrations online.
Earth is proven to be in a rotation, the evidence is staggering for that conclusion…while Flat Earth just has denial. You’ve not demonstrated your claims, so I’m not about to agree with any of them.
It’s beyond experimentation at this point, it’s applied science, the gyrocompass is proof of that. I tried my best to help you understand how this device single handedly verifies Earth rotation, but I can only do so much…can’t help the willfully ignorant. Believe you’re on a flat Earth if you like…but you’re only fooling yourself. The rest of us will stick with the model that actually works and that is actually applied in the real world, the globe.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Thanks, I’ll check it out sometime. Are you going to search the many recreations of the Foucault gyroscope experiment? Type it into YouTube sometime, you’ll find lots of recreations. So why is it that so many can repeat an experiment and get the same results? That is the crux of experimentation after all, it has to repeatable…both the Foucault pendulum experiment and the gyroscope experiment are repeated constantly. Are the (possibly) millions of repeated experiments all wrong…or are you? I trust the experiment and what it reveals…that’s evidence. I’ve seen enough to conclude it’s you who is wrong here.
“If the earth is a globe and it’s the real world, there wouldn’t be flat earth documents, which is odd in and of itself”
I assume you’re referring too the linear flight dynamics models. They are just math simulation models…so they’re not stating the Earth is flat, they’re just laying out the base variables for the simulation…it’s a math simplification. These papers are not to be taken literally. Mathematical models range from accurate physical representations of reality (ex. orbital mechanics), to pure abstract hypotheticals (ex. warp drives)…these flight dynamics documents lie somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, as they’re simulating aspects of reality while simplifying the rest by omitting variables that don’t effect what they’re used for. When you simplify variables, you have to state very clearly what variables are being omitted. All Mathematical models though, are never a complete representation of reality, so they should never be taken as such. There’s always missing variables somewhere.
So what we have here is an example of extreme cherry picking. Layman with very little mathematical knowledge/literacy, misinterpreting something they don’t fully understand.
Here’s a thought, if you think I’m lying, each one of those mathematical models has an author. It wouldn’t be all too difficult to track them down and ask them directly. So why hasn’t any Flat Earther ever thought to do that? Or even just track down an actual mathematician and ask them about these documents…but I’ve never seen Flat Earthers do even that much. You prefer to just jump to conclusions.
“You wouldn’t get someone like Einstein saying we can’t detect earth motion cause it’s relative”
That’s grossly over simplifying and misinterpreting what he actually said. He said (at the time) he felt no optical experiment could detect Earth’s motion, he was referring to the interferometers they were using in experiments. He was of course proven wrong on that later, after the Sagnac effect was used to accurately measure and detect Earth rotation in the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, just a few years after that speech. Even Einstein can be wrong, he was not infallible, nobody is.
“And we wouldn’t measure water to be planar”
Why wouldn’t we? Earth is massive, so locally, you’re only ever experiencing fractions of a degree of its curvature. So that’s going to appear almost perfectly flat from your perspective. So ya…we would. But you know there is a whole field of work in surveying known as geodetic surveying. The whole purpose of this type of surveying is to measure Earth curvature, for geographic purposes and long construction jobs. For example, look up the LIGO research facilities sometime, check out their Caltec website. In the about section, under facts, here’s the direct quote at the bottom of the page; “Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature.” A geodetic surveyor would have been necessary in this construction.
If Earth was not spherical, there wouldn’t be geodetic surveying, it wouldn’t be required at all.
I’ve loosely been paying attention to your conversation with FlookD, he’s already going into great detail on your refraction arguments, so I won’t bother.
“The high ups that know the earth is flat out their data into transform equations, and derive things from reverse engineering of the Biblical model.”
Whatever you gotta tell yourself, but it’s just empty paranoid speculations to me…meanwhile, anyone can get outside and test the Earth themselves, no shadowy elite can keep you from observing a sunset, or measure its shadow angles around the world. You can travel South, and observe the second celestial rotation of stars, a geometry that fits the globe perfectly, while flat Earth still has no explanation. You can test navigation at any time as well, at any time you can go out and measure the 1 degree drop of Polaris to horizon, every 69 miles travelled South…also a geometry we’d expect on a globe, that does not fit a flat Earth.
So you can waffle on about your shadowy elites hiding biblical cosmology all you like…doesn’t change the evidence. Evidence that anyone can acquire, with just a little effort.
Sorry, but you’re not doing anything against the actual evidence. So you’re quite frankly living a lie.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Show me those underground tests then, from my research, the effect is actually difficult to recreate, most don’t detect it at all. So you’re claims are a bit of a contradiction to what I’ve researched on the anomaly. Point is, we don’t just toss out hundreds of years of science, because of one anomaly, especially one that’s rare. You’re doing it, because it supports your bias. Aether has never been proven to exist, and neither has the anomaly been proven to be caused by Aether. So your conclusion is extremely biased…you don’t seem to understand how science works, if you form conclusions from unverified science, then YOU are not an honest researcher, you are forming conclusions from bias alone.
The Foucault gyroscope experiment is the same every time it’s conducted…the gyro moves. You need to look it up, there’s plenty of examples you can find right here on YouTube. So I don’t really care about your claims that gyros show no precession…I’ve seen the experiments, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s just more denial and ignorance.
You’re not getting it…every mathematical model ever written, has simplified variables. Because there’s always something we don’t know about, and we don’t recreate all of reality in single models, so variables are always omitted. These are simulation models though, so they are not accurate representations of reality, so they state very clearly what variables are not included in these simulations. Yes…there is a need to simplify math, mathematicians would very much prefer easier equations…the easier the formulas are to use, the more people can use them, the faster they can be applied, this increases productivity greatly. You’re very confused here, that’s the bottom line. Why would mathematicians continue to use difficult equations, if they didn’t have too? 🤷♂️ If there’s a simpler way to derive an equation, that can then be used by more people, thus increasing productivity, then why wouldn’t they continue to look for ways of simplifying math? 🧐
Did you pay attention at all to the other variables that were simplified? A perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass is not possible in our reality….so that’s your first clue telling you these are not to be taken literally, they are assumed variables. You really need to stop ignoring things simply to stick to your bias.
We see curvature everywhere, from the Lake Pontchartrain observations, to the plethora of mountains seen with thousands of feet missing at their base, to ships dipping into horizon base first, to the Rainy Lake recreations of Bedford Level experiments, curvature is observed everywhere.
“Geodesics use GPS and WGS84 and these things that are owned by gov and military, which have access to flat data, and can manipulate it.”
Empty claims, and paranoid speculations, that’s all these are. Doesn’t mean anything to me, and they do not count as argument. The government can’t change the surface geometry, you can test the 1 degree of stars to horizon every 69 miles for yourself, at anytime. That geometry is not possible on a flat Earth, it’s as simple as that.
Rainy Lake is a clear demonstration of refraction causing distant objects to rise up as refraction index increases. So all it’s intended to do is prove that refraction is real and can not be ignored in calculating long distance observations. You’re having a hard time separating the purpose of each observation, the time lapse of refraction wasn’t to demonstrate curvature, it’s just focusing on refraction…proving that it does cause the horizon and things behind it to rise up. Which means it’s a variable that matters in long distance observations, so it has to be included in each observation. Flat Earthers often claim we see to far, often they’re just using the wrong math, or they’ve used the wrong distances and observation heights, but often times refraction index is ignored as well. It all points to a group of extremely biased observers, who are not being entirely honest.
“All those poles are straight and level on the water…”
No…if you actually looked up the set up for the Rainy Lake observation, you’d know they set those poles up with several controls. The bottom markers were placed level, but the top ones were actually raised up more and more down the line, to match rate of curvature…to demonstrate that if Earth is curving, then the top markers would be more aligned, while the bottom would not. As observed, that’s exactly what we see. Until refraction index increases causing a rise in all markers. You can find the in-depth report on Rainy Lake if you search it, it is a VERY thorough observation of Earth curvature. So look it up sometime.
No, NASA does not use the Saros cycle. That cycle can only give us a day of occurrence…but it can not tell us the path of shadows totality or the exact moment it occurs, down to the second and square mile. NASA uses the globe and heliocentric mathematical models, to accurately predict eclipses, decades in advance, with extreme accuracy. There’s several great lectures on YouTube describing how anyone can mathematically predict the next eclipse using just a few measurements they obtain from the Sun, and strictly using the heliocentric model. Figuring out path of totality and exact second of occurrence, is a bit harder, and it requires you do more, using the globe geometry, you can find lectures on that more advanced mathematics as well. There’s a great website called ‘EclipseWise’ that goes over tons of information on predicting eclipses. They state clearly that all predictions on their site are calculated, here’s a quote from their site; “The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE406 solar system ephemeris”. Which uses Earth’s latitude and longitudes designed for geodesy, an Earth with two hemispheres of equal distances, and the heliocentric models elliptical orbits and distances, to calculate and predict eclipses.
They also explain the Saros cycle, explaining how it’s not as accurate as actually doing the math. The eclipses drift after every cycle, so the eclipses occur at slightly different times and drastically different locations.
Further more, it’s just a deflection really…flat Earth has no working model that can even explain an eclipse…let alone predict it mathematically. It’s not a coincidence that the heliocentric model can be used to mathematically predict these occurrences, and both lunar and solar eclipses make perfect sense with the model. Flat Earth has no explanation for how a lunar eclipse can even occur…but you’re happy to ignore that. So I’ll go with the model that works and has predictive powers. Your arguments are quite flimsy and intentionally ignorant.
1
-
1
-
@dawnmaze7129 It’s all peer reviewed…you’re ignorant if you think it’s not. :/ You’ve been reading too many bullshit memes feeding you false information…and for some reason you believed that information without question…so how exactly are you different? At least those getting vaxxed chose information that has a system of peer review in place…while you chose to trust random joe down the road, who has ZERO scientific or medical experience, with NO system of checks and balances to keep them from making shit up.
Here’s what I know, I’m vaxxed, most of my friends and family are as well, nobody has been seriously sick yet, nobody has died, nobody has complications. Can’t say the same for the crazy people I know, who watched a few bullshit documentaries, and now felt they are qualified doctors and virologists…a lot of them got sick, some still are. A big name of Flat Earth, Rob Skiba, even died from Covid last year…because he refused to get vaxxed. I don’t like laughing at stuff like that, it’s horrible…but the irony isn’t lost on me. I’m just saying, did you reach your conclusions from peer reviewed sources, or did you see a few random memes, or watch a documentary, and never questioned any of it? 🧐 If it’s the latter…are you seriously gonna argue it’s the rest of us believing whatever we hear? You really don’t think those antivax memes, articles, and docs don’t have an agenda? 🧐 Make no mistake, YOU got your information on vaccines from someone else too…so don’t pretend like you didn’t, it was just different information.
I’ll agree with one thing, it’s wrong to force people to take a vaccine, if they don’t want it and don’t trust it, I completely agree, it should be an individual’s choice…just like it was my choice to get vaxxed, but the information you’ve been getting I feel is mostly cooked up by the quacks of the world, exploiting your lack of medical knowledge and experience, to wedge bullshit right into your fears, that were more than likely created by watching too many movies. :/ It’s fine to ask questions and keep science honest and in check…but do you really have the facts, or are you just another victim of meme education? 🧐
“Your argument falls short of you producing proof without relying on others work”
Go ahead and show me your first hand research…without citing it from someone else. 😳 Good luck with that…so kettle, meet pot. It’s still just another argument from ignorance…which means essentially nothing. At least I can repeat the experiments that verify Earth is spherical, and I have in many instances, as an amateur astronomer most my life and an avid traveller, I’ve made many observations now, from locations around the world, that have helped me too conclude Earth is in fact spherical. And YOU can do the same, whenever you’re up too it…ignorance is no excuse. :/
At some point, you have to put your trust in another person’s expertise…there is no getting around that. You didn’t collect any data on vaccines I’m sure, but you were happy to agree with the sources you think did. Don’t pretend like you didn’t, because I see you guys posting shit on my social media all the time, believing every word without question…then when I dig a little deeper, I find it’s always just cherry picked information, that completely twisted and misunderstood the actual facts. :/
1
-
@dawnmaze7129 You started your comments here, by mocking the opinions of others and made many assumptions of your own, with a fabrication of those opinions…and now you’re surprised when people take the piss out of you for it? You’re no saint miss, your comments have all been intended to assert some sort of dominant opinion…we’re just pointing out how ignorant some of it really is. Don’t get mad at us for responding in kind to bullshit….welcome to the internet.
If your point was just to say that doctors and scientists make mistakes and aren’t perfect, then great, you’re right, but at least they have a system in place that keeps them in check…can’t say the same for every memer on Facebook spewing out bullshit every second of every day. You currently think vaccines are not peer reviewed…..did you bother to share a source for that claim? Nope, it’s just true according to you and I’m expected to believe it on your word alone. Do you see the problem here? It’s fine to question things…but oh boy is confirmation bias and misinformation running rampant today and I’m so very tired of it.
You say you’re not a flat Earther, but you sure do make a lot of their arguments. They argue against gravity as well…in the same way you just did, so what am I supposed to think? It’s the same ignorance, thinking that because it’s a theory, it therefore means it’s not true. It’s also a law of science, were you aware of that? Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, look it up if you’re not familiar with it currently. Flat Earthers also don’t know the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory…as you just demonstrated, you also don’t appear to know the difference. A scientific theory is very different from a theory in layman vernacular. So if you’re not a flat Earther currently, you do appear to be on the way there. It’s the bottom of the current conspiracy rabbit hole.
Anyway, I will apologize if you’re feeling attacked for simply stating your opinion, but I’m really not all that sorry for pointing out some ignorance on your part. We’re all ignorant in our own ways, so it doesn’t have to be a bad thing, I hope despite our disagreements there’s some nuggets of learning we can both take away from the exchange. I get that the last few years have been difficult, and we’re all just trying to do our best, but there’s a growing paranoia spreading, that’s targeting the scientific community, that’s largely perpetuated by extremely biased layman, with zero scientific or medical backgrounds…and it’s getting a bit ridiculous I feel. I just think we all could do a bit better, in our research…something needs to be done about misinformation, I do feel it’s getting out of hand. Things like Flat Earth are a warning sign, of the current mental health of society as a whole.
1
-
@fareenhassan9 1. Heat from Sun doesn't travel in the same was it does here in our pressurized environment. In a pressurized environment, heat it transferred by convection. In space, it travels in the form of Solar Radiation, which basically just light energy. That solar radiation interacts with our atmosphere and heats it, creating the convection heat transfer you and I experience. Most of the solar radiation from the Sun is filtered out before it reaches you and me, but we still feel it and UV rays are still very dangerous to our skin cells.
2. It's really not that high of a pressure difference, it's 14.7 psi on the surface of Earth...for comparison, a car tire is at about 30 psi....so the pressure here isn't that great really. Space is just 0 psi, there is no negative psi, it's just 0. So it decreases gradually from 14.7 psi, to 0...and that is measured. We have sent weather balloons to space that have measured this pressure difference, and these balloons do reach near vacuum conditions...which is why they eventually pop and then come back down to surface.
Why can't we tell you it is due to gravity? Because it is...gravity attracts all the gas of our atmosphere to the surface...why is this so hard to comprehend for people? The vacuum of space is not a suction...so it's not actively trying to suck our atmosphere off. So I think that's where a lot of the confusion arises. Space is just the absence of matter...that's it, empty space, a vacuum. The definition of vacuum is "a place void of physical matter", that's all space is...which is 0 pressure. So since space has no means to suck all the air off of the surface, it will conform to the only attracting force that will attract that matter...the gravity of Earth.
3. Why can't it? When you toss a ball around inside a moving vehicle, it now has a new velocity, within that other relative velocity of the moving vehicle. So why can't the same be true for the Earth orbiting both the Sun and the galactic center? Our Moon does the same, orbiting both the Earth and the Sun and galactic center...there is really no end to how many different relative velocities an object can be moving within. I urge you try throwing a paper airplane or a ball around inside a bus, train, or plane sometime...you'll find that throwing that object back and forth is just as easy as throwing it while in a park. But now pay attention, cause in a plane you're in motion...so when you throw a ball, you've now created a NEW velocity of motion, within that relative system of motion of the plane. Food for thought.
4. Every other star is moving with us in the same direction...but aside from that as well, they're really not moving very fast in the grand scheme of things. 500,000 mph is fast...to you and me, the microscopic life forms living on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who believes a mile is a measure of significance...but to the galaxy...they might as well not even be moving. Observe every star in the sky and take note of the distance between each star....now keep in mind that in the heliocentric model, the distance between each star is TRILLIONS of miles. Moving at a mere 500,000 mph, even IF one of those stars stopped moving, it would take the other star thousands of years to close that gap...and that's only IF they were moving completely perpendicular from our direction. Like cars on a highway in front of you though...do you see them moving very fast? If they're all going in the same direction, at the same rate of travel, do they appear to shift very much at all? Not really no.
On that point though, they do actually shift...and any astronomer would tell you that. Every six months we observe a stellar parallax in stars, that is consistent with what we understand about our planets orbit. This is well documented and it's also one of the ways we use to measure the distance of many of those stars. So do some research on stellar parallax sometime, the stars are indeed changing gradually. Also look up a star known as Bernard's star, this star is a famous one that astronomers love to track, because in just a few short years of observing it, you can notice quite a lot of motion from this star. http://astronomer.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Barnard_199_-to_2007.jpg Far from the only example, the stars are moving quite a bit actually, but people who do not actually watch the stars night after night, will likely ever know this. I think it's ignorant though to assume they don't ever move...if you don't actually know that to be true for certain.
5. Here's a simple diagram that can help illustrate how this is possible. https://ibb.co/12pNG6t Just because the Sun is in the same direction of these planets, doesn't mean our spherical geometry can't make seeing these planets possible. It should also be noted that these planets are only visible around sunset and sunrise...but never at midnight (except for places very far North or South during their 24 hours of night periods). Which is consistent with the Globe model. Maybe actually take a look at the Globe model sometime, rather then assume things are impossible.
6. Distance is not the only way that heat is increased or decreased though, direct light can also focus itself to becoming hotter then light that arrives on a surface at an angle, which spreads out that energy. This is what happens at the poles of the Earth, the light at these locations never hits the surface directly, it is always at angles, spreading that energy out in a wider span, rather then focusing it, like it does at the equator. You can do the same thing by shining a strong heat lamp directly down on an area then take a temperature reading, and then do this again with the same heat lamp firing that light at an angle...your temperature reading in the second example will be less, because that energy is spreading out rather than being focused, it's the same principle.
This effect also accounts for the seasons on Earth. Summer arrives for each hemisphere in opposite times of the year, when each hemisphere is titled more towards the Sun, making the light of the Sun arrive in more focused amounts upon that surface.
7. How do you know they don't? Also, which gyroscopes are you referring too? The massive ring laser gyros buried underground that measure Earths rotations? Or just simple mechanical gyro compasses? From what I understand, our rotation never changes it's rotation velocity, so we would never detect an acceleration or deceleration in that motion. It's our orbit around the Sun that speeds up and slows down gradually at aphelion and perihelion, but not many gyros around the world are designed to register this motion. The large ring laser gyros I believe can pick up these motions, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
My question to you is, what makes you think they haven't picked up these motions? Why give such a speculation with such certainty, if you really have no idea?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shawnm2113 No, the “ship hull disappearing” observation, has just been twisted by flat Earthers. They’re demonstrating the vanishing point effect when they bring an object back into full focus. That is caused by perspective, but this is already well known and understood by science, because they make these observations with telescopes and zoom lenses too, you’re ignorant if you think they don’t. Eventually, objects reach a point where no amount of magnification will bring them back, they begin to sink hull first….that’s the observation they’re making. So Flat Earth has conned you with a sleight of hand trick, they zoom something back from vanishing point, then they claim scientists have been lying. If you don’t dig any deeper, then you’re not likely to realize that vanishing point and horizon are two different things. Keep watching the horizon, eventually things reach a point where they begin to sink hull first, and no amount of zooming in will bring the bottom back.
Plenty of observations of this as well online, so maybe don’t spend all your time watching videos from only flat Earthers. The horizon is different from vanishing point, if you can zoom something back into full focus, then it hasn’t gone over the horizon yet…it’s that simple. If you zoom in and the hull is missing…then it’s reached the horizon. The con works like a magic trick, they dazzle you when they bring the ship back completely by zooming in, demonstrating vanishing point, then they complete the trick by saying the horizon doesn’t really exist. If you never question it, as some don’t, then the trick works.
In reality, it’s just bad science, forcing a conclusion before it’s been properly peer reviewed, and ignoring any attempts to point out his it’s wrong. That’s when you know you’re dealing with pseudo intellectuals.
It gets worse, when they keep the lie going, using the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation…it does not represent a line of sight, or even an accurate Earth curvature for that matter. It’s missing many key variables required for an accurate calculation of line of sight over a curvature, the biggest variable being height of the observer. I’m sure you know that the higher you go, the further you see, right? Well, 8 inches per mile squared only gives you one figure, regardless of how high you go. It’s really only accurate if your eye is at sea level…but when is your eye ever tangent to sea level? Never…so the math is quite simply wrong.
Use the wrong math, and of course your observation isn’t going to match the numbers…that’s why scientists and mathematicians always double and triple check their math, whenever observation doesn’t match the predictions.
So why would anyone even consider these people have any grounds for an argument, when it’s so very clear they have no idea what they’re doing? It’s a con…the people who perpetuate it online are the victims of a con. It’s sad really…they have no idea they fell into a hoax, pushed by conmen and narcissists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TEOS_UK Of course not, most people don’t trust governments, it’s pretty standard, but governments lying sometimes, does not automatically equate to Earth is flat…especially when I can verify that it isn’t flat, with just a few simple observations. Been looking at this mess for about 5 years now, I’ve talked to hundreds of flat Earthers, I’ve seen their “evidence” I’ve heard their arguments, and the most apparent thing I’ve learned is that Flat Earth is a hoax perpetuated by the paranoid and scientifically illiterate. It seems to me like you don’t form opinions from evidence, you form them from how much trust you have in something, so purely psychological. I think some people need to screw their heads back on, and look again…without the bias of distrust in all authority. Because nothing is that black and white, thinking in absolutes is a fallacy of logic…like it or not, nothing lies to you absolutely, they have to tell the truth sometimes.
I tried searching for that Neil clip (despite it being your burden of proof), I didn’t find anything. This is why it’s your burden of proof, because I can’t know for certain what clip you’re directly referring too…and Neil has thousands of various clips, so it would take me forever to find it. It’s just much quicker and easier if the person making the claim, provides their evidence, so that’s the standard. On top of that, huxters, liars, and conmen use that move a lot, “oh it’s there, you’re just lazy”…then I’m on a wild goose chase to find something that doesn’t exist. Not gonna extend that effort. Your burden of proof, so you find it, or I have no reason to believe it actually exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Can facts be wrong?”
I suppose some would say that something technically is not a fact, if it is wrong, though we should really never assume any fact can not be wrong, because then we’re assuming ourselves to be infallible…and nobody is infallible. So yes, I’d say facts can be wrong, happens a lot I’m sure.
“…why can’t we use science for proving whatever we want to prove.”
I don’t think you should ever use science to prove whatever you want, because then you’re more likely to follow your bias, which can lead you to false conclusions. It’s better in scientific practice to falsify, not prove. Science should take every effort to falsify a concept, then the information that holds up upon all attempts to falsify it, is the most likely conclusion. That’s a far better way to avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias I feel, and most scientists today agree with that methodology I would say.
“Science is available to everyone to use isn’t that the idea?”
Sure, anyone can use the scientific method…but that doesn’t automatically imply that they’re doing it correctly. Lots of quacks and pseudoscientists out there selling their grifts under the guise of “true science”…but just because they call it science, doesn’t mean it is.
“Why does this video have nothing but famous people?”
This video does, but Big Think interviews lots of different people, from the famous to the obscure. Just check out a few more of their videos sometime, you’ll see a pretty good mix. But, I’d be willing to bet the views on videos shoot up with every famous person they have on, for obvious reasons…and when you’re on a platform which earns you money for viewer counts (YouTube), then it’s pretty smart to have people on who can bring in more viewers…wouldn’t you say?
But it’s a bit of an odd question really, because why does it matter? 🤷♂️ You could ask that question with any video featuring just famous people…and the only answer really would be “because it does”, so what does it matter?
“Do they think there followers will aid them in the the journey of proving something?”
No, I think they just know that the more famous the expert, the more views they’ll get. As mentioned above, it’s pretty smart to do that, when your whole channel relies on views.
“Why don’t more people go to Antarctica? Can we even go?”
Antarctica has at least a hundred thousand annual visitors, so lots of people go. There’s plenty of photos and video taken from many of these trips, you can search for them at anytime, there’s plenty of them. So I’m inclined to believe they’re a reality. When I was travelling the Southern Island of New Zealand, I was given plenty of pamphlets and brochures to book trips to Antarctica, even stayed in a town called Dunedin, which was very close to the port where these trips typically left from. They left pretty regularly. Again, it’s a bit of an odd question though, because it makes a lot of assumptions. We could speculate endlessly on whether people really go or not, but it’s kinda pointless, until you actually go, or try to go.
“Why did people back then think the Earth was flat?”
Seems like a pretty obvious question to me, it’s because they didn’t have the knowledge we have today and from our tiny perspective, it appears flat. So if you have no other information to go off of, that’s very likely gonna be your first assumption. We don’t instantly know everything all at once, knowledge is obtained over time, so our understanding of the world changes as we learn more…this should be pretty common sense.
“…I Believe Jesus/God made the earth to be a very special place for us why couldn’t he make it look different too?”
Look different to what? 🤷♂️ That’s a relative question needing a bit more context…relative to what exactly? Aside from that though, your beliefs don’t effect what we measure and observe in reality, reality really doesn’t care about what we choose to believe, it just is what it is. It makes it pretty pointless to attempt at a rational discussion with anyone, who just concludes everything from the foundation of a belief…because then anything’s possible and no evidence matters, speculation rules, free to argue from ignorance endlessly. Welp…a lot of good that method of thinking does, for a ship captain who requires accurate knowledge of the Earth’s surface, if he wants any hope of getting from point A to point B, without getting lost. I don’t think he really cares about what conclusion someone else has fabricated from whatever fictional reality they believe…can he use that information to do his job? If not…then it’s pretty useless.
The whole point of science is to learn more about physical reality, to obtain accurate knowledge about how it works, so that we can then apply that knowledge for our benefit. So if you’re conclusions provide no working applications…then it’s very likely made up bullshit. That’s how you spot pseudoscience, it reveals itself by being absolutely useless. So you’re not really doing science, if you’re just reaching whatever conclusions you want…if it brings no working applications, then it’s not reality, it’s just nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 If you don’t care, then why dump so much gish gallop on me? 🧐 Fact is, you didn’t have all the facts of that debate, so you reached a false conclusion...you were wrong. So now that you’ve been proven wrong there, are you gonna take your own advice and see if maybe you’ve been wrong about everything else? Probably not. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you just ignored it, then buried me in mountains of other unrelated points....typical.
I’m not new to this discussion....I’m one of those debunkers, I’ve been doing it for years, I know this argument inside and out, I can probably guarantee I know it better than you do at this point. There’s a REASON we can debunk these claims, because they’re very flimsy claims. Most of it is just mountains of speculation that you think somehow counts as evidence, the rest of it is misunderstandings and cherry picked words pulled out of context and misinterpreted. Take a moment to research things beyond what some YouTuber told you, you find out pretty quickly they were lying and twisting the facts....like you did, when tried claiming Tyson agreed to debate Dubay. You claim you’re looking at both sides objectively...then why did you not research that a little closer? Why are you now deflecting from the fact you were wrong? Seems ignorant to me...and if you’re ignorant on that one thing, what makes you so confident you’re not ignorant on most things? Didn’t take much for me to falsify your claim there...just had to start with questioning it objectively. You tried strong arming me into believing you blindly, I chose not too, then dug a little deeper...doesn’t take much to remain objective.
You fell for an online hoax...that’s the reality. I’ve looked at all the arguments from FE and space deniers, it’s all confirmation bias...you want it to be true, you don’t really care if it is. At the very least, you should consider that very real possibility. If you’d like, I can go through every point with you and point out the errors, I don’t mind...but only if you’re interested in a civil discussion, where information is just shared, no ridicule or patronizing. Leave the superiority complex at the door, and I don’t mind doing the same, then we can share info. Up to you...I’m just saying, we have more reason to question FE than you seem to believe we do. If you claim to be objective, then feel free to chat sometime.
1
-
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 Alright, then I can shift gears into a more civil tone, and just share information without ridicule or disrespect. I’ve always agreed it’s perfectly fine to question things, in fact it’s perfectly logical....I just feel bias tends to lead us more than we realize. Talking with an opposition, with an open ear and respect, that’s the best way to see if we are perhaps being biased. I don’t want to convince you, my main intention it just to share some information....I have an ego, just like we all do, but it has its purpose, helps weed out trolls...and there are plenty on both sides. Anyway, sure, feel free to ask me anything or share anything. I’ll address only the information from here on.
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 Ok, but you’re kind of romanticizing ancient cultures and speculating heavily on a culture we can’t confirm much for. I just find it odd why anyone would focus on the past so heavily, while ignoring the modern world right in front of you today. Pilots and sailors today use the Globe model to navigate...how exactly do they plot courses and find their destinations with absolute precision, if they’re using a geometry that’s completely wrong? Why ignore that simple geometric fact? It doesn’t add up. You have your head in the past, while completely ignoring the present. You don’t think this is a bias?
And how much do you really know about ancient structures or cultures? Are you an archeologist? Do you read glyphs and decipher language for a living? The Greeks and Mesopotamians are also considered ancient cultures, they both deduced the Earth was a sphere thousands of years ago. Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion today, about 3000 years, and they teach the Earth is a sphere and always have, it’s even carved into their ancient structures. Why ignore these cultures?
Also, why pick and choose what to believe from these ancient cultures? If you believe the Egyptians were right about everything, then do you also believe in Ra and Anubis and worship the Nile river god Sobek? Likely not...but yet you choose to believe they were right about Earth’s shape? Even though we’ve more than proven today that it’s not flat? Why do you so easily ignore modern science, that currently uses the Globe model in pretty much every applied science? You don’t think you’re being a tad biased and willfully ignorant of more than a few things yourself?
Point is, why is it so hard to consider that ancient cultures were likely wrong about a great many things? Either way, you can really only speculate...and that’s the problem. Seems you’d rather follow speculations, over verifiable evidence. You don’t really know how or what the pyramids are built for, you’ve likely just watched a bit to much ancient alien on TV, who romanticized the culture, and now you have a strong appreciation that’s formed into a bias...but it seems like a selective bias, cause as I pointed out, you’re not about to sacrifice a ram to Sobek to increase your fertility, now are you? Just saying.
All any of us can really do is speculate about ancient cultures, they’re fascinating sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re right about everything...simply because they’re old.
The reality is that Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science today...that shouldn’t be ignored so easily, especially over speculations. I prefer to stick to things I can verify for certain right here in the present time. Much of ancient culture is largely embellished and romanticized, lies to sell tourists. Why should I chase ancient speculations, when I could instead learn to navigate...and test Earth’s geometry for myself? And I have, sextant navigation isn’t difficult to learn. You wanna know Earth’s shape, no better way than learning navigation. I’ll trust what I’m able to confirm myself, over romanticized old cultures, any day.
1
-
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 I didn’t say they weren’t an advanced culture, only that this alone doesn’t mean we just assume they’re right about everything. You’re committing what’s known as an appeal to antiquity fallacy, it’s a lot like an appeal to authority fallacy, just assuming a culture is right because of the legends that surround them. Point is, I’m not going to ignore my own first hand knowledge and observation and basic geometry, because an ancient culture stacked some rocks once. And you’re not going to strong arm me with your speculations and assumptions either.
Evidence is what matters to me, empirical scientific evidence, things I can verify for certain myself, in the present day. The pyramids existing, doesn’t change the fact that pilots and sailors navigate the Earth with the knowledge of a spherical geometry, lines of latitude that are equal for two hemispheres. I don’t really care what an ancient culture may have believed, if they are easily proven to be wrong, by just simple observation alone, then I’m not going to ignore that, simply because some people don’t want to believe they were wrong. As another simple example, the Southern rotation of stars doesn’t just go away, because you don’t trust the mainstream.
I thought you wanted to discuss some hard science, but it seems you’re only interested in speculative and unfalsifiable opinions.
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 And no, I wasn’t assuming you believe everything the Egyptians do, I was asking you why you pick and choose what they believed, there’s a difference. It’s a good question I feel, because a big part of your argument relies on me agreeing that I should ignore modern science, in favour of what an ancient culture believed. I’m simply pointing out that they clearly weren’t right about everything...so what makes you so certain they were right about the Earth’s shape? My argument is simple, I don’t care what they believed, if it’s objectively proven wrong today...then I’m not going to ignore that, simply because they’re old and were great at stacking some rocks.
You’re making an argument that the Earth is flat, because an ancient culture believed it was and we should believe them on that without question, simply because they built stuff like an advanced civilization would. So what? We built castles, colosseums, temples, bridges, skyscrapers, whole cities, for centuries with and without knowing the true shape of things...for most structures you really don’t require that knowledge. It’s not hard to align a few stars to a point on a pyramid, even without the knowledge of Earth’s true geometry. I’m not kidding, it’s really not as hard as you’re assuming it is. Just pay attention to the annual positions of the stars, measure their angles to the horizon, plot the centre position, and work from there. You don’t need to know the Earth is spherical to plot out a few thousand square meters, just like you don’t require that knowledge to build a skyscraper today. That geometry will have basically no effect on our buildings, because of how large the Earth is.
That knowledge would not be required in building the pyramids, so the Egyptians could easily align their structures to the stars, without knowing for certain. It would change effectively nothing. Your argument is just based from pure assumptions, basically, it’s an argument from ignorance...and THAT is why people are questioning you. :/
1
-
1
-
@solofourohsixgaming They only appear bigger, but they actually are not, it’s called the Ebinghaus illusion aka relative size illusion…it’s just an optical illusion. It works like this, when the Sun or Moon is high in the sky, it’s in a big empty open space which makes it appear smaller, while at horizon it’s close to objects your brain recognizes, like trees, buildings, houses, cliffs…so it can now make comparisons, causing it to appear larger than it actually is. But it’s just an optical illusion, it actually hasn’t changed size at all, and you can verify that pretty simply, by filming it throughout a day, with a solar filter lens and locked exposure to remove all glare and extreme brightness, which reveals the Suns true shape.
The Sun and Moon do not actually change size throughout a day, you’re brain and naked eye are just not very great measuring tools. It’s just an optical illusion…I’m sure you’re aware of optical illusions.
1
-
1
-
@stevem437 You don’t think the number of pilots, sailors, surveyors, geographers, scientists, etc, is in the millions of people? 🧐 Point is, a lie gets much harder to keep the more people you have in on the lie. The shape of the Earth is vital information to have for millions of people working in many various fields of expertise…so hiding that information from so many people would be impossible, and even more impossible for millions of people to keep up a lie of that magnitude, without any problems. It’s pretty nonsensical to play devils advocate on that one…and it really shouldn’t be to difficult to understand why.
It’s just that your argument is pretty ignorant is all. Would only take a single hour introductions course in navigation, to learn that accurate knowledge of the surface you’re navigating is pretty darn important information to have, if you want any hope of navigating that surface with any proficiency. If you think a pilot just goes from A to B without much thought or effort or working knowledge of surface shape and scale…then you seriously could benefit from a slap upside the head. :/
Of course planes can exist on a flat Earth, but it’s the system of navigation that’s the real argument here. Their argument is that navigation requires accurate knowledge of surface…and that’s true. Anyone who would argue otherwise, is doing so because they’re a bit ignorant of navigation…and maybe basic geometry as well.
But no…satellite’s could not exist on a flat Earth. Satellites orbit the Earth…an orbital trajectory doesn’t work if there’s no centre of gravity to orbit. Flat Earth has no centre of mass, they don’t even believe in gravity…and that’s a pretty important part of a satellites functionality. They essentially use gravity, to fall around the planet…that requires the Earth be spherical and there be a centre of gravity they can continue to fall around indefinitely. So satellite’s can only exist if Earth is spherical, with a force of gravity as we currently understand it.
So their arguments are actually pretty good…you’re just a bit ignorant to much of the knowledge required to understand how they’re good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WilsonFox123 Of course it would, but level to centre of gravity. Here’s the problem with your argument, it takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on an Earth that’s 25,000 miles circumference…how many degrees do you expect to see in a small swimming pool? 🤷♂️ Not even close to 1 degree, you certainly wouldn’t be able to eyeball it, it would appear perfectly flat to you. So how could you determine anything from such a small area of observation? The globe states that water is kept at equipotential to the field of force of gravity, meaning its surface is equal distance from centre of gravity…it is at the same LEVEL from centre.
So your argument doesn’t disprove that, it just misunderstands the context in which the word level is being applied here. I’m sure you understand that words in the English language often have many definitions depending on the context, right? Well, level is one of those words. In geometry it can be used to describe a round or spherical surface, that is all at equal distance from centre…at the same LEVEL from centre.
So you’re really just telling us all how little you understand about basic concepts like geometry, gravity physics, and the English language. Good job. 👏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XxlightxX Well, you’ve certainly not verified that, you’ve just stated it’s so and then called it a day. Doesn’t work like that I’m afraid…as you even agreed when you said “you must prove all things”. So alright, let’s look at the physics…well, the definitions really, because it’s the terminology you’re butchering first and foremost.
Density isn’t a force, it’s just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a volume. It has no mechanism to cause motion…and that’s what you’re missing. See you’re getting lost in the terminology really, Flat Earth has twisted and butchered the words we use in physics. Density is already defined in physics, it’s a scaler…has nothing to do with motion…has no means of causing motion. When you drop something, it’s clearly being put into motion…you didn’t cause that motion, it occurs on its own the moment you release it. So this is a physical phenomenon of nature…a motion that is caused by the laws of nature…a force. Since density is nit a force, you can not use that word.
Pressure didn’t cause this, because it happens in vacuum as well, in fact it happens better in vacuum. Everything falls in vacuum, even gases that used to rise. So falling towards surface is the motion all things with mass have in common, always in the same direction.
First law of motion states that a FORCE is required for motion, nothing is put into motion without it. Falling is a motion, so this implies a force causing that motion. Density is not a force, it’s already defined in science as a ratio between mass and volume…so it’s already defined, cannot use it twice, it’s not a force, it’s that simple.
But the falling happens, it’s undeniable, so that motion needs a name…so when we’re discussing it, we know what’s being referred. If buoyancy is the upward force, then gravity is the downward. If we can give a name to the upward force, why can’t we also give one for the downward force? 🤷♂️ We can and we have…we called it gravity. See, your real problem is in misunderstanding what defines a force. A force is just something that causes motion, falling is a motion, so we need to figure out the force that’s causing that motion, and to better keep track of it, we need to give it a name...one that's not already used and defined, like density.
Flat Earth thinks by denying a word, they can then get to reshape physics. But it doesn’t work that way. The falling motion happens, it’s undeniable. Can’t call it density, because density is already defined in science, it’s not a force, so if we use that word again then everything just gets confusing. Science is all about accurately defining variables…it needs to do this, because math equations require definite variables. If we have a single word (density), with two different definitions (force and scaler ratio), then how the fuck do we know which one is which in an equation? 🤷♂️ I know you people think math is useless…but every modern technology you enjoy today, is thanks to science, identifying variables, that can then be used in math equations, in applied science…that’s the end goal of all science, to define variables for applied science purposes…so it’s pretty important we define our variables accurately.
Let’s look at the formula for weight, for example; W=mg. Pretty simple equation, that explains how weight works. Mass is included and gravity, we have a scaler and a motion. Math is a language, a mathematician can look at that formula and understand what’s being said. In this case, he can interpret that simple formula as a mass in motion towards surface at the rate of 9.8m/s^2. Multiply the mass by the downward acceleration of gravity, you can then calculate its weight, pretty simple. But now let’s replace the formula with density; W=md. Well now it’s just confusing as all hell and doesn’t work…you can’t determine weight with two scalers…mass is basically density, they’re both the same thing, the only difference being that density gives a bit more information, it’s how much mass occupies a volume…so mass is basically in the equation twice now, so it’s redundant. The formula is now broken…it doesn’t work, you can not calculate a weight now.
See how this works yet? See the problem here yet? You’ve taken a formula that worked…and have now broken it, all because you think density can also be a force.
Flat Earth has taught you some bullshit…and they knew you’d happily go along, because you people don’t really know anything about science, but you do resent it. So if someone promises that you can be a thorn in the eye of science, you will gladly accept any bullshit they feed you to help yourselves sound smarter, so you can stick it to the egg heads.
That’s the reality of what’s actually happening here, as I see it…it’s the scientifically illiterate, playing pretend, so they can be an annoyance to an authority they no longer trust, and have likely always resented.
Now I could go deeper and explain the physics of buoyancy, demonstrating how we know that gravity actually causes buoyancy, that it doesn’t exist without gravity, but I don’t wanna lose ya just yet. Absorb that lesson on terminology and definitions first, then maybe we’ll discuss further the physics of both gravity and buoyancy.
Just know that density explains nothing…you’re not answering for the motion, you’re just taking an already well defined term in science, and using it again, redefining it…without understanding what that then does. You’re butchering terminology, to fool yourselves into believing you know physics better than actual scientists.
1
-
@XxlightxX Now I can shift gears into a more civil tone, then maybe we can have a conversation, but you’ll have to drop the attitude and accept that we’re not just indoctrinated plebs, we actually do understand what we’re talking about. I don’t mind keeping an open mind and discussing a different side of things, but to have a conversation like that first requires mutual respect. I’ll respect that you see things differently and it makes better sense to you, if you can respect that I’m no slouch on the topic of physics and the current consensus is what I understand best. I don’t claim to know everything, but what I do know I understand quite well. Perhaps I can fill some gaps, and perhaps you can help me better understand your point of view. I don’t mind having a more rational discussion of ideas, I don’t mind listening to a different side of things, because I can respect that you’re thinking for yourself.
I just find all this dick waving is quite counter productive, perhaps you’d agree. If you have a point, forcing it down my throat isn’t going to achieve much and vice versa. I’ll drop the attitude if you will, then maybe we can have a conversation. What do you say?
You don’t talk down to me and I’ll extend you the same respect.
1
-
1
-
@XxlightxX Oh I have no doubt neither of us would be able to convince the other of anything, that’s not the point for the discussion invitation I was extending. Point is to learn more about the opposing perspective, to see if there’s anything we may have overlooked. It’s a great way to learn more, by challenging our perspectives with an open mind. Regardless of changing any minds, it’s still worth it I feel, I find I learn a lot from open conversations with a different perspective. Best way to keep us from the pitfalls of confirmation bias.
It’s fine though, if you don’t want too, I certainly can’t force you. But one of us was willing to be open minded here, while the other has no interest in seeing anything beyond what they already believe. So I mean to quote you from earlier, you said “don’t argue with fools. It’s like talking to a rock 🪨. They think they know it all and you’re mislead no matter what you say to them…”. Kettle, meet pot.
1
-
@XxlightxX Ok, but what about the applied sciences that use the Globe model in their framework? Such as navigation, which is a good example of an applied science anyone can test themselves, it also demonstrates an applied working knowledge of geometry, and why knowledge of geometry is important. Do you really think the millions of pilots and sailors who navigate the surface every day, could do that job with any proficiency or accuracy, if they didn’t really know the true geometry of the Earth they navigate?
We can speculate all day on satellites and NASA and what governments are doing, but wouldn’t you rather focus on information you can test directly, that you don’t have to speculate on? Anyone can learn to navigate, and I can tell you with confidence that knowledge of the surface dimensions, shape and scale is pretty important in navigation. I’m sure you’d agree that an accurate map is required to find a destination…so it’s a good question I feel, do you think pilots and sailors can navigate Earth successfully, without knowing its true shape? I can also say with confidence, because I do know how to navigate and I have tested it, and the entire system of current navigation is built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical.
Anyway, just curious what your thoughts are on that. Have you tested navigation yourself? Do you know how to navigate using only the stars, a compass and a sextant? It’s fine if you don’t, but it is one of the many ways I have personally confirmed Earths shape, and I do feel it’s good evidence that doesn’t really get addressed much be FE. They’ll point to some odd flight routes, and make speculations about flights they believe don’t exist, but I never really see them truly tackle the subject of navigation. Seems odd to me, as this is a discussion of surface geometry…what better way to determine surface geometry, than to test the methods used to navigate it?
And why close a door? What if you were wrong? What if FE is just a clever scam? You’d never know, if you never really challenge it. I’m fine with challenging the globe, it’s one of the things I actually admire about FE, challenging something that everyone else has largely moved on from, I think that’s a good thing, keeps us sharp. But you had to keep an open mind then, why shut it now?
1
-
@XxlightxX I just feel it’s disingenuous to say “there is no evidence for a globe”, when that’s simply not true. If there really wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be a discussion, this would be easily settled. I can accept that it’s very difficult to determine Earths shape from our tiny perspective, so I’m always willing to admit that there is evidence in support of Flat Earth, I think it would dishonest to deny it. It certainly appears flat at first glance, so it’s easy to see how that was the starting conclusion and the first model.
There is real evidence for a globe…but you’re less likely to find it, if you’re only working from within the bubble of Flat Earth. That’s why these chats are good, cause the same is true for me. In this way we can conduct a form of peer review, from two sides of the spectrum.
Anyway, just some food for thought, I won’t bother you further if it’s just white noise at this point. It’s Christmas soon, so tis the season for relaxing and being better towards others. Merry Christmas, to you and yours.
1
-
1
-
Perhaps you could use a lesson on some basic physics. A rocket does not require air to fly, it makes use of the third law of motion for its propulsion, action reaction. Essentially, the ignited gas pushes off the rocket, the rocket pushes off the ignited gas. Not much different than if you were to stand upright feet together, then toss a medicine ball with both hands from chest height, what happens? You fall backwards and the medicine ball flys forward, pushing off of each other, action reaction, simple physics of motion.
They actually move better within a vacuum, because there’s no drag to slow them or stop them, so they can propel forward indefinitely, under the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. There’s a reason why we don’t use planes or jets for space travel, we instead use rockets. Your point is ignorant, rockets are not planes, so they don’t work the same way…this should have been pretty obvious, but confirmation bias is a hell of thing. Stop looking at things with a biased filter, start looking at everything objectively.
1
-
1
-
1