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