Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Big Think" channel.

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3.  @Poweruser75  Ah, good rebuttal, such science…much evidence….I’ll certainly be thinking about that one for awhile. 🙄
    8
  4. Well considering how large the planet is, with just your naked eye, the tracks will converge at a vanishing point long before horizon.
    8
  5. So you’ve been around since the dawn of time then? When was the last time you ever even looked at a night sky, let alone spent any time charting it? Talk to any actual astronomer...you know, the people who actually do track and record the stars night after night, they’ll all tell you, the stars are constantly changing. Polaris for example was not the north star 3000 years ago, it was Thuban. And constellations were not the same then either...star charts confirm this. Your comment is extremely ignorant...if you actually knew anything about the stars, you’d know how inaccurate it is.
    8
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Simulations are not reality, and those variables do not effect flight, so they are simplified. What those documents are stating are assumptions for a math simplification…which is pretty common in mathematical models. They’re not making a literal statement about Earth’s shape…it is a math simplification, for simulation purposes only. You should pay closer attention, many of those documents also assume a “perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass”. Both are impossible variables in reality, when you have vehicles with moving parts and hollow hulls, and gas that depletes over time…meaning they’re not perfectly rigid, and they don’t maintain constant mass over time. This is only 100% proof that you are mathematically illiterate, and are also prone to cherry picking information to confirm a bias.
    6
  9. No, level is one of those words in the English language that has many different definitions, depending on the context. So it doesn’t just mean flat I’m afraid. In the context of “sea level”, it’s talking about a surface that’s all equal distance from centre of gravity (centre of Earth), at the same LEVEL from centre. A bowling balls surface can be defined as level in the same context, a surface with every point at the same level from centre…helps to understand the context, to know the proper definitions being applied. I’m sure you’ve been speaking English long enough to understand how it works? Don’t have to be a rocket scientist…but it’d be nice if people were at least a little less dumb…that’s all I want for Xmas. 😔
    6
  10.  @FlattyMcTruth  I’m just pointing out that level doesn’t just mean flat…it has many different definitions depending on the context. Your argument is that Earth is flat, because of a word…as if words we created, have any actual effect on physical reality. Twist it however you like, doesn’t change the fact your argument is stupid.
    6
  11.  @unprovengravity  And yet the pendulum rotates, and at the rate it should given its latitude. You not understanding the physics, is not an argument against it, no matter how much you whine about it.
    6
  12. Well, Bill is actually a mechanical engineer, which requires a great deal of scientific knowledge to achieve, with years of experience in actual science labs conducting experiments, so he’s still far more qualified to speak on these things than any Flattie is. I’m not to familiar with David Weiss and his background or credentials, but Eric is a yoga teacher, who plagiarized the work of a grifter/conman of the 1800s...an equally as confused layman, who also had no scientific background or experience. So if you think credentials are so important in Bills case...why are you so quick to follow the words of someone with zero credentials in the topic they claim to be an expert of? A person who has also never made any contribution to technology or scientific advancement through applied science. Seems pretty odd to me your reasoning here...almost like it’s bias.
    6
  13. 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
  14.  @paulstir  If you know this...then why would you say it’s undeniable proof? :/ You guys want people to take you seriously...but then you lie. Then you wonder why people don’t take FE very seriously.
    6
  15.  @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
  16. Meh, it’s pretty overrated I’d say. More of a Lord of the Rings kinda guy myself, far better fantasy novel series.
    6
  17. Smooth talkers and bullshitters win debates, it is a skill like any other, which is why science is not settled through debate alone. Science is settled through peer review, recreation of experiments and consensus, we follow the objective data, not silver tongues. Debates are for the simpletons of the world, who think truth is obtained through fights. Fraid reality doesn’t care who thinks they’re right the most. If you’re wrong, it becomes pretty apparent the moment your “truth” isn’t useful for anything. FE isn’t used in ANY applied science today....that’s for a good reason.
    5
  18. Tell that to Galileo and his colleagues...who were tried for sedition by the church for saying Earth orbited the Sun and was not the centre of the universe. He got 10 years house arrest, some of his colleagues weren’t so lucky. Your logic is extremely flawed, it’s black and white thinking, creating a false dichotomy...fraid reality isn’t that black and white. Learn some science history, scientists have struggled for centuries to get us where we are today...they lost a lot, but the truth prevailed.
    5
  19. 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
  20.  @FlattyMcTruth  Look it up champ; Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, definitions for Level, entry’s 1a and 5, under Adjectives. Entry 1 a: having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface. Entry 5: being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : EQUIPOTENTIAL. That’s how the word is being applied in the context of “sea level”. It’s not my problem if you don’t understand basic English.
    5
  21. Shocker…another Flat Earther who doesn’t know anything about conservation of momentum, the laws of motion, or relative motion (physics 101), but thinks he’s stumbled on something millions of experts somehow overlooked. 🙄
    5
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24.  @kylestoyko9031  Question things all you want, but leave your biases out of that inquiry. Fact is, we do not feel motion itself, we feel changes in motion and none of Earth’s motions are changing rapidly enough for us to feel or detect. If you bothered to look at the physics that verifies this, rather than just assume it’s all impossible, you’d realize your argument is nothing but an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity.
    5
  25. Pretty sure I can observe a sunset, and understand pretty quickly and easily how impossible that is, geometrically speaking, if line of sight is never physically blocked. One of many very simple observations anyone can make, no phone or Internet required. You don’t have proofs, you have speculations, empty claims, misinformation, sloppy science. You have confirmation bias, you’re looking at things with tunnel vision. It’s nothing new…you’re not the first group of paranoid crackpots going against mainstream knowledge just to feel special.
    5
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28.  @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
  29. 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
  30. Can confirm, I was blocked on Erics channel from the very first question I asked there. Didn’t even get a reply, just blocked. All I asked was just a simple question. I’ve since been blocked on several prominent Flat Earth channels, just for asking questions, so they’re hypocrites.
    5
  31.  @patrickhickman8723  If I had a propellant of some kind, I could move around just fine…using the third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basic physics. Your personal ignorance does not change that.
    5
  32.  @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
  33. No, people are being hypnotized by conmen…you’ve actually never been more asleep.
    5
  34. Flat Earthers are hardly Galileo...and modern science is far from the biased church of old. You’re really making a false equivalence here. Flat Earthers are free to ask questions...they’re not being prosecuted and imprisoned. They’re just wrong...so people are pointing that out. Questioning goes both ways, the same standards of review apply to them. That’s just common sense.
    5
  35. Oh good job, you've falsified all of what we know about gravity with one simple misunderstood observation. I'll get on notifying the scientific community, you want your Nobel of science mailed out to you, or would you rather pick it up in person?
    5
  36. From my knowledge, nobody has ever done the “force the line” experiment you’re mentioning here. So it’s not proof of anything yet, until it’s actually been performed. Even then, an experiment has to be repeated and reviewed, before it’s viable evidence. So until it’s been conducted and reviewed, you don’t have an argument here I’m afraid. If you’re aware of anyone who’s conducted this experiment, feel free to share, but I’m currently not aware of any.
    5
  37.  @kaingmc0  The pictures of the oil rigs just proves that atmospheric refraction is real and has to be factored into any long distance observations, it can’t be ignored. Many have taken pictures of those same three oil rigs on days with much lower refraction, and they disappear at horizon, bottoms first, no amount of zoom capable of bringing them back. It’s not a “black swan” it’s just cherry picking a single example of extreme refraction and then blowing it out of proportion and sensationalizing it, to get suckers like you to ignore the rest of the details. You’re being conned…that’s all the “black swan” is, keep your eye on what they want you to see, and never question it, it’s basically akin to a sleight of hand trick…and you fell for it. Good job. 👏
    5
  38. Lol, meanwhile every applied science in the world uses the heliocentric model...and it works. You just let us all know when you have a working model that’s actually useful. 😂
    5
  39.  @patrickhickman8723  And as I’ve described to you many times now, rockets do not require air for thrust, lift, or propulsion. They use the third law of motion, action reaction. So I’m not lying to you, YOU just aren’t listening or understanding.
    5
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. They’re not actually past the horizon, what they’re demonstrating is the vanishing point, which occurs due to perspective. You’re being conned.
    5
  43. Might as well sight Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings dude, means about as much to someone who doesn’t subscribe to your particular imaginary friend.
    5
  44. There are actually several proofs of Earth rotation, so right out of the gate you’re not being very honest. To list a few examples off the top of my head; Foucault Pendulums, Ring Laser Interferometers, Coriolis and Eötvös effect, measuring centrifugal force at the Equator, Gyro Compass. All are examples of experiments, real world phenomenon and technology that verify Earth rotation. So maybe it’s time to stop lying to people...at the very least, get yourself a better filter and stop getting your information from con men and grifters.
    5
  45. If you can bring a ship back into full focus after it’s gone out of view, then it’s not reached horizon yet. Try bringing something back that has gone past horizon…good luck with that. What Flat Earth has done here is basically akin to a sleight of hand trick. They know most people aren’t aware of the vanishing point due to perspective, so they will claim the ships they’re bringing back into focus have gone past horizon…when they haven’t. Horizon and vanishing point are two different things. Also, you’re an idiot if you honestly think scientists never thought to use a telescopic lens in their observations. 🤦‍♂️
    5
  46. When did he ever believe it was flat? 🤷‍♂️ Now you’re just making shit up.
    5
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. When has Neil ever scheduled a debate with a Flat Earther, discussing Earth’s geometry? I’m sure plenty of flatties have penciled him in for debates, fabricating a lie that he’s agreed upon a debate...but to my knowledge, he’s never scheduled any. Neil has made it very clear that he does not debate topics that are proven today as objectively wrong. He’s had a few Twitter scuffles with flatties, but these are hardly debates...and to my knowledge he’s never once scheduled any official debates with anyone within FE. But feel free to point me to any proof of your claim that he has, but I’ve never come across any.
    5
  50. 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