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