Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Big Think"
channel.
-
@Hebrew816 Ok, I've searched it, found no photos verifying what you're claiming. Found a couple memes making the same claim you are, but no photos from that distance that can so far verify the claim. So from our perspective, it's an empty claim, with no supporting evidence. Tell me why anyone should just agree with an empty claim?
We're asking YOU to provide the images, because that's how the process of review works. YOU make the claim, it is then YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF to provide the evidence. Otherwise, don't even bother making a claim. We're not just going to believe empty claims blindly and without question, it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence for a claim. That's pretty standard practice.
I understand it's difficult to share links on YouTube these days, but you could still provide names to a specific site or video. Something we could use for a search.
3
-
@Hebrew816 So the math you're using is 8 inches per mile? So if we draw that on an XY grid, a straight slope with no curve at all. That's even more inaccurate than the 8 inches per mile SQUARED equation that Flat Earthers use. Which is a basic parabola equation, that does not represent line of sight, does not calculate what is hidden from line of sight, has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc.
8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math. Pretty basic rule of thumb in mathematics and science, use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion. So if that's the math you've been using this whole time, then that's your error. sooooo....ya, no wonder your math is not fitting with observation, tends to do that when you don't use the correct math for the job.
Here's the correct formula:
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
d= Distance from you to target
r= Earth radius
h= Height of observer
The rest is basic trig, so I hope you know what a cosine (cos) and an arc cosine (acos) are.
I will mention, even that equation is only purely geometric. No variable for refraction included here and that does matter as well, but it's a good start and FAR more accurate than a basic parabolic arc equation.
3
-
3
-
kunal amratlal You’re confusing suction with vacuum. The vacuum of space does not work like a vacuum cleaner, it does not generate a suction force, so that’s a misunderstanding Flat Earth has about space and that’s where a lot of the confusion on this topic stems from.
Space is just the absence of matter, that’s it, it’s not sucking on anything...it physically can’t do that. When a balloon that enters space bursts, it’s not because the space around it is pulling on it like a suction, it’s because the gas pressure inside is trying to get out. Without a gas pressure on the outside pushing on the exterior of a balloon, helping it maintain structural integrity, the pressure inside expands until the walls of the balloon can’t take it anymore, so it bursts.
I used a balloon as an example instead of a space suit because I have heard of no incident where a space suit popped in a vacuum...because space suits are lined with sturdy materials like kevlar...so if they rip, they’re more then likely just going to leak air, not burst. So not sure where you got that from, a space suit bursting. Feel free to share a source or link to where you learned that from.
Main point is, space is not sucking on anything...space is just emptiness, a place void of matter, so vacuum when used in this context just means emptiness or void. I hope that helps clear up some misunderstanding.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Earth’s rotation and its orbit are very gradual changes over long periods of time, so we would experience them as basically linear motions. The fastest rotational velocity we experience, with the fastest change over time is Earths rotation around its axis, and we do observe and measure a Coriolis drift, as we would expect if Earth was rotating. There’s several great experiments conducted for Coriolis drift, you can find a few of them pretty easily here on YouTube if you try. Plenty of information from professional marksmen discussing Coriolis drift as well, so what explanation does Flat Earth have for this drift?
You’re reaching a lot of conclusions on assumptions…and then calling it empirical science. You barely have enough for a hypothesis in many of these inquiries, yet you draw conclusions anyway. I think that’s why you’ll find a lot of pushback here. Do you believe Flat Earth is somehow above the burden of proof? Because I sure don’t. I’m sure you’ve seen some experiments and observations that have convinced you of your current position, but you’re not doing a very great job of relaying that information to help prove your conclusions.
Also, you can determine a lot about the surface geometry of an object, by how that surface can effect your orientation to your surroundings, such as the sky. So it’s vital information you shouldn’t cast aside and ignore so easily. The Sun is observed 24 hours a day on Earth, it’s always visible somewhere but yet it’s also observed to set, sinking under the horizon. This is not something we’d expect to see everyday, if the Sun circled above a flat plane. Another observation is the second hemisphere sky, there exists a second sky, with different stars, and a second rotation around a different pole star (Sigma Octantis). Again, not a geometry we’d expect to observe on a flat Earth, it is however exactly what we’d expect to observe on a globe.
You shouldn’t ignore these observations so easily, it’s not difficult to understand how a surface structure can change your angle and orientation to your surroundings. The fact you do ignore basic geometric fundamentals, implies a strong bias, confirmation bias through intentional ignorance.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 It takes 69 miles for Earth to arc 1 degree, it rotates that distance in roughly 7.5 minutes. 1 degree, every 7 and a half minutes…and you think a drift would be immediate? But there us a drift, it’s well documented and understood. Coriolis drift for snipers at 1000 yards is roughly about 8-9 inches firing North or South, look it up, it’s pretty common practice in long range firing to account for Coriolis drift. It is a consistent drift…and it’s different from barrel drift, which is also factored. And planes do actually account for Coriolis, but it’s a lot easier to adjust for…because unlike a bullet, planes have engines, wing rutters, pilots…it can adjust mid flight pretty easily, thanks to these things.
Coriolis drift occurs because of your forward motion over a surface moving at various velocities. The Equator moves faster than the poles, so since motion is conserved, as you move through the latitudes, you’re either moving slightly faster or slower than the surface beneath you…that’s how Coriolis drift occurs. So a helicopter hovering in place doesn’t really have to worry, because it’s not in any forward motion, so it just conserves Earth’s motion…but besides that, just like the plane in flight, a helicopter has a pilot, engines, rutters, mechanical moving parts that can easily adjust in real time, and counter Coriolis. So you’re not really thinking this through very well.
The burden of proof isn’t surpassed just because you conduct experiments. Your experiments could be in error, so they must undergo peer review, the experiments must be repeatable, if the results can’t be repeated upon multiple attempts, then the experiment is likely in error. From what I’ve seen so far (and I’ve been following Flat Earth for roughly 6 years now), the experiments presented so far are deeply flawed at worst, or extremely inconclusive at best. I’ve reviewed many…and it’s just reaffirmed the importance of peer review for me.
The biggest problem for your position is the lack of a working scientific model. And Flat Earth came first…how much more time does it need? The globe model is applied science today, from navigation, engineering and infrastructure, it’s the model we use. Navigation being the biggest problem for you…millions of pilots and sailors are verifying the Earth is spherical, every single day, with every successful voyage, that applies the globe model for navigation. If you think they’re lying…well, I’d urge you to learn how to navigate, and then I’d urge you to put it to the test for yourself. It’s not hard to learn, and you’ll learn pretty quickly how important it is in navigation, to know for certain the shape and scale of the surface you’re navigating.
Perspective does not fit what we observe with the Sun and stars. You have to ignore several fundamental rules of perspective, to slot that answer in as your conclusion for why sunsets occur. Some fundamentals you’d have to ignore; the apparent size of the Sun would change drastically, that’s how vanishing point occurs, a convergence until it’s so small in apparent angular size that you can not render it visible any longer. Its apparent rate of travel through the sky would also shift, speeding up as it got closer and slowing down as it got further. It’s not observed to do either, you can prove that by simply tracking it throughout a full day, with a solar filter lens. Many have done this, it does not change size, nor does it change its rate of travel, it’s a steady 15 degrees per hour, all day, every day. Another fundamental you have to ignore is eye level, it’s well understood in art fundamentals (I’m actually an artist for a living so this is something I’d consider myself an expert on), that everything converges at eye level in perspective, that’s where the vanishing point occurs. But if something is above your eye level, then it can not go below it, and vice versa for anything below eye level, it can not go above it. This is a problem for your conclusion, because the Sun is clearly observed to dip into and under horizon…so it goes well below eye level. It would not do that if it was circling above a flat plane. So your explanation is a biased, ad hoc, hypothesis at best…one that’s easily falsified with just a few simple observations, and a little knowledge of basic perspective fundamentals. Hence why peer review is so vital to science, to catch human errors such as confirmation bias. That’s the big problem with Flat Earth as I see it, you’re forcing conclusions without proper peer review…you’re just assuming your conclusions are without error, and you’re not allowing any review, you just jump straight to conclusion. That’s bad science…typical of pseudoscience. I believe it’s a perfect example of the danger of confirmation bias.
The globe model however, answers for a sunset with absolute ease, and it fits with every detail and measurement. I’d urge you to visit the Jos Leys channel, he’s a mathematician who’s made many models of the Suns positions and angles around the world, using real world data, it’s pretty damning evidence for Flat Earth. Just one of many users putting the flat Earth claims and arguments to task, rather than just agreeing to the conclusions blindly and without question.
It’s actually better in science to focus on falsification, because if you only focus on proving something, then you’re more at risk to fall into confirmation bias. It’s much better science practice to form hypothesis, then do everything you can to falsify it…the hypothesis that holds up to all review and attempts at falsification, is the likeliest conclusion. Many in science feel it’s the best way to remain objective, and I agree.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Okay, like I said, I see the logic you’re inferring…your conclusion though is basically “the Military absolutely does manipulate gps to fool people into thinking the Earth is spherical”. That’s the speculation, your conclusion is a speculation. Military keeping secrets, does not equal Flat Earth…that’s a leap in logic fallacy, it’s also a black and white fallacy (thinking in absolutes, in this case, governments lie, therefore they lie absolutely). You’re jumping to a conclusion…just because you don’t trust them. Your bias there is formed from a deep distrust in authority, I get it, I have the same bias, most people do…but it’s not hard to learn how to navigate, and not difficult to test it either. You don’t require gps, sailors have navigated the Earth for centuries without it…so if you feel so strongly about this, then go ahead and try navigating across any ocean, without the globe model to help you do it. Go ahead…there’s a limit to what the military can hide from you…YOU can test navigation whenever you want. The stars drop a consistent 1 degree, every 69 miles…that’s not something that would occur on a flat Earth. It is however exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe. Go ahead and test it.
Yes, math simplification is a whole field of work in mathematics. Simpler equations mean more people can solve them easier and then more people can work with them easier, which increases productivity. Very few people are absolute math geniuses…and even those geniuses don’t want to be struggling every single time they want to do something. So mathematicians are constantly looking for simpler forms to derive an equation. There’s many different ways to derive a working equation, some variables are redundant, or they straight up don’t matter for what they’re being used for…so those variables can be omitted. When you do that, you have to state very clearly what variables are being omitted or assumed, so the reader knows. They’re not making a literal statement…they’re just simplifying the model. Sometimes, they’re even purely hypothetical, there’s various kinds of mathematical models. In this case, they’re for simulation purposes…not for actual real world application. What we have here, is a classic case of layman cherry picking…Flat Earthers focused on a set of words they liked, and then ignored the context of where they got them from.
If you don’t believe me, here’s a thought…each one of those documents has an author. Why haven’t any of you guys tracked one down to ask them directly? 🤷♂️ If you care so much about the truth, as Flat Earthers often claim, then wouldn’t that be the obvious first step to remaining objective? Yes, it would be.
Everyone has bias, the only way you combat yours, is by first accepting that fact, and then identifying and admitting yours. It’s not easy, but scientists do actively practice this…where as most layman, do not. Science learned a long time ago, that mankind has a real problem with confirmation bias…those who think they don’t have any biases, are the most likely to fall into the traps of confirmation bias. That’s why peer review was added to the scientific method, it helps to weed out errors due to bias.
You’re religious (from what I can tell), so you look at the world through that lens, whether you realize it or not, that’s a bias you have. Another is your distrust in authority. These biases lead your conclusions…more than you realize. The Bible makes reference to Flat Earth (or so some believe), so I bet the moment you came to believe the Earth was flat, your faith was restored like never before…am I right? Now tell me honestly if you think you really have much desire to lose that faith again…I’ll be willing to bet you don’t. That desire is a powerful drive…which makes it a bias. Couple that with a growing distrust in government authorities, you now got a clear villain to defeat as well…so guess what that is? Another powerful drive, another bias. You have bias…don’t pretend you don’t.
Just cause you were convinced of something once, doesn’t mean you still have an open mind. I’ve been sharing information with Flat Earthers for years now…you guys sure shut those minds tight pretty quickly, the moment counter evidence, or explanation is shared.
Never said you could see the oblateness of the Earth, I said you could see Saturns. Please don’t misread my words.
There is deviation…marksmen do account for Coriolis drift, as do pilots, you can look it up at anytime. There wouldn’t be deviation for a hovering helicopter, because it’s not moving forward within the reference frame of Earth. Coriolis drift occurs when something moves forward through the relative reference frame of Earth. But again, even if there was a drift from just hovering, a helicopter can easily account for this.
Think you better look that up again, there’s three frames of reference in special relativity. I think you’re misunderstanding Einsteins equivalency principal, but that’s just my assumption for now, still not on entirely on the same page with how you feel Coriolis contradicts relativity. You’re being quite vague on that point, so please elaborate further or I just risk assuming your position on that too much.
In my experience, pseudoscience loves to butcher physics, they think they can hide bullshit in science jargon. Doesn’t work on some I’m afraid, so feel free to explain further if you’d like.
Links are temperamental, sometimes they work other times they’re blocked. So I wouldn’t share, I can search key words and names though.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 You have a pretty warped understanding of relativity…tell my how your personal misunderstanding of physics counts as an argument exactly? 🧐 The equivalence principle wasn’t stating that “relativity calls for no motion”, it just makes it difficult to detect motion, while in a system of motion, because inertial systems of motion behave as if stationary, so you can’t tell the difference, your senses can not feel it. That’s all it’s saying…it’s not stating that there is no motion, it’s saying that relativity makes it very difficult to tell the difference between motion and non motion. But that’s only if the motion is constant, and not going through any rapid change. Any rapid change in forward motion will create noticeable effects…like Coriolis…relativity doesn’t negate Coriolis, it directly causes it. But those effects become harder to detect (and even become basically moot), the more gradual they are…like our orbit around the Sun, which for all intents and purposes is basically perceived by us as a straight forward motion, because the angular change is far too gradual, so won’t cause any noticeable effects. Same with the orbit around galactic centre, they’re basically null. The only angular velocity fast enough to create noticeable effects, is Earth’s rotation…and we do measure and observe a drift, which verifies Earth is in motion.
You’re just misunderstanding relativity…it’s a desperate attempt to grasp at straws.
The gyrocompass uses a mechanical gyros natural precession, setting its rate of precession to match Earth’s rate of rotation, and then aligns it with Earths axis of rotation, thus using its rotation to function and point to true North. You can find the engineering specs, it explains it in great detail. What does Aether or Magnetism have to do with anything? 🤷♂️ If Earth wasn’t rotating, then these devices would actually be a lot easier to make…you’d basically just use a regular gyro, and add pendulous vanes to keep it from precessing out of alignment with North. So you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about…just doing all that you can to ram a square peg into a round hole.
This is what Flat Earth does, can’t figure out how something works, so the excuses start flying; “ oh it must be Aether, or magnetism, or heavenly energies or something”…nope, it’s pretty simple, the gyrocompass is designed to precess at the same 15 degrees per hour that the Earth rotates. If Earth was stationary…then they wouldn’t need to do that, a much simpler gyro would be all that you’d need. Has nothing to do with magnetism or Aether…the Aether has to do with light, when has it ever been hypothesized to have any effect on a mechanical gyroscope? 🤷♂️ It doesn’t…you’re just deflecting, making excuses, so you don’t have to consider you could be wrong.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Oh boy, round and round we go…it’s like you just intentionally don’t listen. 🤦♂️ We’ve been over this, Pilots do account for Coriolis and it’s not difficult for them to do, because unlike a bullet in flight with no mechanical moving parts to change its trajectory, planes have engines, wings and rutters, pilots…moving parts it can use to help it adjust its trajectory mid flight. Doesn’t take much to adjust for Coriolis, it’s a very slow drift, it would be as simple as it is for you driving down a highway, barely conscious of all the tiny adjustments you constantly make to stay on the road. Helicopters are no different, they’re just as capable…and Balloons drift quite a bit actually, so your argument there is just scraping the bottom of the barrel. So just more arguments from ignorance from you. Look up a user named Wolfie6020, he’s a pilot from Australia who does a whole video on Coriolis and how planes and pilots account for it. He’s got lots of information on this topic actually, from a pilots perspective. So stop trying to bullshit me with these ignorant arguments, because I know exactly how you’re wrong.
While your looking him up, look up some marksmen explaining Coriolis drift…you’ll find tons if information. It’s very much a thing they have to factor. Barrel drift is what you’re referring too, and it is always in one direction, because all gun barrels have the same spiral…that drift is too the right. Coriolis drift changes direction depending on what direction you’re firing…so it’s not barrel drift causing that…and it’s no coincidence that the Earth’s rate of rotation works in the drift calculations. You can find military documents with Coriolis drift charts, they’re not hard to find if you bothered to look.
Earth’s magnetic field is dipolar, and runs through both poles…not the equator, one being positively charged, the other negative. Compasses aren’t pointing East and West…they align with Earth’s poles, so it’s pretty simple to detect. Like come on…you can’t just reach conclusions from made up science man…and why would you even bother arguing with something you clearly just made up? You really think that helps you appear non biased here? 🤦♂️
Gyros precess over time, that’s a basic fact about mechanical gyroscopes. You can look this up at any time. The gyros used in horizon indicators use pendulous vanes to overcome gyro precession and Earth curvature…you can also look that up at any time.
The gyrocompass is designed to make use of Earth’s rotation as part of its function…that is a fact, not an opinion. You can look that up and find demonstrations whenever you’re ready to wake up.
You’re intentionally misunderstanding and butchering relativity physics, to confirm your bias. It’s not an argument.
Stop wasting your time. You’re not falsifying anything with empty claims and arguments from ignorance. Everything I’ve pointed out, you can search and verify, the evidence is all there when you’re ready to stop pretending.
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 The moving parts get it where it’s going, yes, but they also make it so that overcoming a small Coriolis drift is easily doable. So your argument is just an empty claim, that’s why it’s pointless…you’re just stating that Coriolis doesn’t exist, without doing anything to prove that claim. That’s why this conversation is a bit pointless…round and round we go, you’ll just keep throwing empty claim after empty claim at me.
Evidence is what matters, so instead of expecting me to agree to empty claims and misunderstood physics, can you present me with any experiments that help verify your conclusion? There are experiments that verify Coriolis, you can look them up anytime and repeat them. The Veritasium and Smarter Everyday channels got together not to long ago, and conducted a great experiment in both hemispheres to test it, search the experiment sometime. If you think it’s wrong, then try repeating it….I’m not arguing with you on this anymore. Either share evidence in support of your conclusions, or don’t bother responding please.
Your claim against Wolfie is just another empty claim. You couldn’t dispute his evidence, so it must be fabricated. 🙄 Again, empty claims mean nothing…provide evidence, or don’t bother.
I did a quick 10 minutes of research on magnetic compasses, watching video footage from both poles, North and South, and I learned they’re basically useless past a certain latitude close to each pole…and it’s pretty far, like 70 degrees North and South parallel. Standard magnetic compasses become more and more unreliable, the closer to the poles you get. So it doesn’t work the way you’re just assuming they do…and you could learn this pretty easily with just a little research. They don’t just flip at magnetic North or South when you cross the centre…doesn’t work that way. They’ve already become unusable long before you ever reach magnetic North or South. So most explorers and researchers there use GPS compasses, not magnetic compasses, for that reason.
To give you an example of how poorly they operate in these regions, there’s a video (you can find pretty easily, it’s among the top results from searching ‘magnetic compass at the poles’) from a commercial pilot operating in the far North, who demonstrated two separate compasses on their nav equipment, pointed in two completely different directions, one was pointing West, the other was pointing Northeast…so they just don’t work in these regions, so you’re not going to see them flip past a point, they simply just don’t work at all. So you’re making erroneous assumptions.
Again…all mechanical gyros precess over time. So even if Earth wasn’t rotating, they would still drift. Learn some basic physics of gyros please. Precession is a thing they deal with.
Ring laser gyros have been used to detect Earth rotation, for decades now. It’s verified science. Look up the large area ring interferometer detecting Earth rotation…you’ll find lots of people repeating the experiment. Even Flat Earthers have repeated this experiment, and detected the drift, look up Bob Knodel’ ring laser experiment sometime. So your empty claims don’t mean anything to me.
A gyrocompass requires electric motors to keep the gyros spinning…that’s the motors only function. So your argument is just stupid. You’re not quite understanding this…Aether (doesn’t exist, but if it did…) effects light, these are mechanical gyros used in the gyrocompass…they don’t use light, so Aether (if it did exist ) would have no effect. Your just making excuses, so you can pretend you have an argument here. But saying Aether effects these devices, fundamentally misunderstands how they work in the first place. And again…it’s just another empty claim that you’re slotting in, so you can avoid the reality that you’re wrong here. Why do you think empty claims should sway anyone? They don’t…so please stop making them.
And you’re straight up lying, the gyrocompass does not use magnets…in fact they use metal alloys that aren’t magnetic, in the construction of these devices, to reduce any magnetic influence. The whole point of these gyros is to point towards true North…not magnetic North. To do that, they remove all influence of magnetism. So you’re just straight up lying now.
You know for a guy who probably considers himself an arbiter of truth…you sure lie a lot. And why? Why bother? Do you think people are stupid? That they’ll just agree with you eventually if you lie often enough and bury them in empty claim after empty claim repeatedly? Like who are you trying to convince here…us, or yourself? 🧐
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 The proposed Allias effect has many explanations, even some to conclude it has been solved…none of them having to do with Aether. When an eclipse occurs, it blocks light and thus solar energy, this has an immediate effect on barometric air pressure at surface. Researchers noticed that only the pendulums that didn’t have proper controls for air pressure, were found to have a slight deviation in precession during eclipses, while the pendulums with better controls had no changes. Because it’s actually pretty rare…and that’s why it’s difficult to study, some researchers claim to have recreated the effect, while most don’t measure any deviations. Barometric pressure differences seem to be a leading hypothesis, though more tests need to be done.
That’s one proposed hypothesis for the occurrence, another is that the Moons gravity is in a period of perfect balance with the Earth during an eclipse, but I personally don’t think this would be the case seeing as it doesn’t effect every pendulum or gravimeter. In short, best not to jump to conclusions solely to support your bias…we certainly don’t toss out centuries of (working) science, because of a single anomaly yet to be fully understood…doesn’t work that way.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then, because I’ve seen many gyro experiments as well, both demonstrating gyroscopic precession and Foucault gyroscope experiments demonstrating Earth rotation. So you’re either blind…or not really trying.
No, mathematicians often look to simplify mathematical models…it’s actually an entire field of mathematics. These flight dynamics models are for simulations…so they only require a few variables, for the simulations these models are used for. They’re not to be taken literally…..that’s why they use wording like ASSUMED VARIABLES, that’s why these simplifications are only found in the summary sections and not the conclusions.
Read them a little closer sometime, take the most used one for example; NASA document 1207, derivations for linear flight dynamics. The document also clearly states these variables “a rigid vehicle of constant mass”, says those exact words right before it says “a flat non rotating Earth”. If you’d look at these words without your biased goggles on, you’d know that a vehicle with moving parts can’t be perfectly rigid, and with crew members and fuel that depletes over time it can’t maintain a constant mass. So these are impossible variables in reality, so they are very clearly being assumed, they are not real variables…..why doesn’t Flat Earth zero in on those words? Because it doesn’t fit your bias, so they can be ignored. Stuff like this reveals that you are in fact following confirmation bias in your conclusions…because this is a clear case of cherry picking.
These are math simulation models…so they simplify math equations, to remove variables that don’t effect the simulation they’re used for. They’re not stating facts of reality…that’s not what these models are for. If any of you were actually mathematicians, you’d know this…you’d recognize what these documents really are. But you’re not mathematicians…none of you are. I’ve never met a single flat Earther that was actually an expert in a field relevant to the discussion…gee I wonder why…
Coriolis is an example of an effect we would notice in a relative frame of motion, it’s a clue that hints at a rotation. This doesn’t break any relativity physics…you’re just reaching for arguments that aren’t there, by intentionally misunderstanding the physics.
Don’t twist my words. We can’t readily see curve with our naked eye on the horizontal (x axis) until a certain elevation, but seeing it in the distance in front of us (z axis), absolutely we can, and we have. We see it on the z axis, by how much objects drop below our eye level, and how much they become obscured by horizon. Look up the Turning Torso tower observations sometime…just one of many many many examples.
Nope, some surveyors are plane surveyors, others are geodetic…this is a real job title, and their job is to measure Earth curvature specifically. Your denial doesn’t change this.
Refraction is a real thing, easily proven, you observe it all the time in any body of water, from a small glass to a lake, refraction can and does shift the positions of physical objects, distorting what you see. For a very clear demonstration of atmospheric refraction, look up the Rainy Lake atmospheric refraction observation sometime. It’s a time lapse over several hours in a day, across a frozen lake with markers down the length of it for about 10 km. As refraction index increases throughout the day, the distant markers are clearly seen rising up by several feet. So I don’t really care about your ignorant conclusions, I’ve seen the evidence that directly refutes them. Atmospheric refraction is a thing, it can and does cause distant objects to rise up, so it can not be ignored.
“All those sky observations have explanations…”
Then explain them, cause “could” is not an explanation, it’s not even a hypothesis. The globe model meanwhile, accounts for every single observation, they fit the model perfectly, down to a mathematical certainty. So again, I’m sorry…but I’m not about to toss out a working model of reality, on a “could”.
You’ve steadily deflected our explanations and evidence with unflinching ignorance…your stubborn devotion to your biases is impressive, sure, but it doesn’t do much. You’re only fooling yourself.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@T-REX72 It’s happened many times in history, nazism, kkk, religious cults, etc. More recently, organizations like Antifa or Proud Boys. Like minded idiots, with a shared delusion, causing harm or damage to others, so over confident in that delusion...never realizing how stupid they really are, until it’s too late and the damage is done. Even happens for brief moments, like when riots break out over a sports team losing a game, or in politics like the most recent storming of the capital. Idiots...who were riled up by lies, propaganda and misinformation, getting together in larger numbers, and causing harm. Happens all the time. So I was speaking generally.
I’ve talked to hundreds of Flat Earthers over the last 4 years...these people aren’t just misinformed, they’re angry and scared...not a good combination. How long before that mob grows and organizes? It can happen...so best not to underestimate it I feel. At the very least they could effect policy, they are legal voters. Creationists were just a joke once too....now they’re lobbying to rewrite text books and change curriculums...even though they have generally no actual knowledge or experience in biology. Misinformed idiots, collecting together like cancerous tumours of people, doing real damage to human advancement.
If it gets much worse for FE, it should be addressed. All I’m saying is that for now, best to keep an eye on it, rather than ignore it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You need to chill dude, you’re just lacking a bit of physics knowledge here. There’s nothing magical going on, and I think I can help with some simple thought experiments. Let’s start with your misunderstandings of centrifugal force, let’s get into some simpler centrifugal force physics…then maybe we’ll talk about gravity.
First of all, scale is important, so let’s not forget to scale the physics as we scale down the model. Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours. So when you wet your ball and rotate it, don’t forget to do things in scale, rotate it at 1 complete rotation every 24 hours….oh boy is that ever fast! No…but seriously, it’s really not, I hope you’d agree.
Centrifugal force is caused by the rate of angular velocity change per second…1000 mph is a LINEAR VELOCITY and doesn’t mean much in centrifugal forces. With angular velocity, we use rotational units to help us understand and gauge it better, like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Basic rule of thumb, the more RPM’s, the higher the centrifugal force. This rule stays consistent with any scale, whether it be a ball in your hand or the Earth.
Earth rotates at 0.000694 RPM’s, for comparison a Gravitron ride at your local fair rotates at a rate of roughly 24 RPM’s. That’s a HUGE difference, I hope you’d agree. Hence why we’re not flung off our Earth…at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, centrifugal force would only negate about 0.3% of gravity at our fastest rotation, the Equator. Fun fact, did you know things actually weigh slightly less at the Equator, for that reason?
You can understand the difference between linear velocity and angular velocity with this simple thought experiment. Picture yourself in a really fast car, going at 200 mph, around a perfect circle track that is only 1000 meters in circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact it would be very difficult to stay on the track. Now let’s do it again, same car, same 200 mph linear velocity, except now the perfect circle track is 1000 miles in circumference. Would you expect to feel the same amount of centrifugal force? Nope, not even close, in fact the track would now be curving so gradually, it would almost feel like you were driving down a straight road.
So the centrifugal force changed in both examples…but the linear velocity (the mph) was the same in both. So what does this tell us about linear velocity and centrifugal forces? That linear velocities, like miles per hour, mean very little to the output of centrifugal force. So if the linear velocity was the same, but centrifugal force was drastically different, then what REALLY affected the centrifugal force? Well, in the first example, the car would be completing several complete laps every minute. In the second, the car would only complete ONE lap, every 5 hours. So the major difference, and what really affected the centrifugal force, was the revolution rate…not the cars linear velocity.
So if rate of rotation is what increases centrifugal force, NOT a linear velocity like 1000 mph, then what does that mean for an Earth rotating at the rate of ONE complete rotation every 24 hours? Pretty simple…basically very very little centrifugal force, not nearly enough to trump gravity.
Anyway, hope that helps with understanding centrifugal force a bit better. Depending on your response, I’ll see about getting into gravity physics a bit.
3
-
@rodneyetheridge3676 Oh boy…I see I’m dealing with a true “entelectual” here. Gravity relies on the mass of the object, so it’s a nonsensical scaled down model to ask for, because you’ll never be able to build anything big enough to overpower the Earth’s gravity, and anything smaller than Earth will not be able to overcome Earth’s gravity. So anything you pour on the much smaller ball, is always going to fall to the much more powerful source of gravity, the Earth…so it affects the results. We can’t just shut off Earth’s gravity, so Earth’s gravity would always interfere with any scaled down experiment, like the one you’ve proposed. So it’s a terrible suggestion for an experiment. Doesn’t mean we can’t test gravity, we just have to be more clever. The Cavendish experiment was that experiment, and it’s been repeated many times over the centuries. Look it up sometime.
But you’re right…I “loos”, from the moment I thought to waste my time trying to help here. 😅 Have a good one.
3
-
3
-
@laynekurtchris4122 Ya…so I’d be willing to bet your research probably amounts to some kook on YouTube, with zero credentials or experience in science, who dug out a single report out of the thousands, that was in favour of what YOU want to believe, and you call that unbiased research. Good job, you sure did your research alright. 👏
I could bring up the science that verifies you have no idea what you’re talking about, but at this point, I need only look outside to draw my conclusions. I’ve been experiencing fires in my area, every summer season now, for the past 10 years or so, and they just keep getting increasingly worse, every single year. We never used to be so smoked out here, but now we expect it every year. I’ve lived here for almost 40 years. Temperatures shattered records this year, to where fish and other sea creatures were cooking on the coasts…that’s not normal. And it’s not just here, it’s everywhere. The world is on fire pal, you might be fine with ignoring that, but I’m sure not going too.
You can stay in your fantasy world if you want, but unless you got some solid evidence for your claim, you’re certainly not gonna get far pushing empty bullshit on me. “Objective truth that climate change doesn’t exist” what kind of bullshit is that? Tell that to the towns around the world that are burnt to the ground. Maybe peel your face away from your screen and look outside, experience it for a change, and pay attention.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Science should never debate anything that has no credibility anymore. We’re putting satellites in orbit, space stations, astronauts. All world communication, navigation, engineering and infrastructure, pretty much every applied science operates on the foundation of the Globe model...so there is no debate here anymore. Offering to debate it, just fools the public into thinking there is still an argument to be made here...and there isn’t, there is no debate, so it should not be debated by scientists. The only side that has anything to gain is flat Earth, because they’d get a platform to spread their message to a wider audience....it’s marketing 101, get yourself in front of as many people as possible, you don’t have to be right, you just need to get people aware your product or idea exists.
So they’re smart not to get suckered into a debate. These people are con men....it’s exactly what they want.
3
-
@judahmorn4035 It’s a figure of speech (also a logical fallacy), it means you think in absolutes, rather than consider all the nuance in things. It means you assume a lot, the example here being you assume that because I agree with scientific consensus on the shape of the planet, it must mean I agree with every other consensus as well, such as big bang. Science doesn’t claim to know everything, it doesn’t think in absolutes, it operates in percentages of certainty. Big Bang isn’t a certainty, it just has the most evidence currently supporting it...that’s all. But there is nothing in science more certain than the shape of the planet...it’s an applied science at this point, which means it’s accurate. Very simple to verify for yourself, just learn to navigate...or observe one sunset, then ask yourself how that’s possible if the Earth is flat?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@truth_tells501 I’m sure she gave them every chance to explain, but people within FE are so convinced they’re right, I’ve noticed it tends to consume their entire identity. At that point they just will not accept that someone disagrees and they certainly won’t listen to any counter arguments anymore. You either agree, or you’re brainwashed, that’s the choices FE gives people…even family. Then being right becomes more important, than their own flesh and blood…it’s sad.
You’re demonstrating that here in these comments I’ve noticed, doing a lot of talking at people, and not a whole lot of listening or discussing. You’re assuming because people disagree, it must be because they haven’t looked into it yet…instead of considering that people may actually have reasons for why they disagree. Whether you like it or not, there is a very real possibility that you’ve fallen for a cleverly crafted online con…so that should at least be considered.
I get that you’re passionate about this, but listening does go both ways. Ignorance is pretty prevalent in both sides of any argument, but I really don’t see much of any listening at all from FE, and I’m sure Angie didn’t either. I can certainly understand standing up to bullish behaviour, you should stand strong in an argument, but have some perspective as well…pay attention a little, or it’s just pointless, then it just gets toxic.
I don’t know Angie, but I do know Flat Earthers…and I agree, it just gets toxic trying to have a conversation. Because there is no conversation, just a recruitment session. That’s the impression I get…so maybe ease up a bit, try listening a bit more, maybe then others will do the same for you. I can only hope Angie’s parents and brother decide family is more important than some conspiracy.
3
-
3
-
@patrickhickman8723 Funny you should bring that up, they actually have done this…so they can get planes up into much higher altitudes than they could with regular jet propulsion engines. They’re actually called Rocket Planes, look them up sometime. Planes can only fly so high, for the reasons you already know. Rockets are used to take them higher, because rockets don’t require air for thrust, or propulsion.
No, rocket propulsion is not the same as aircraft propulsion…that’s what we’re trying to help you realize.
It’s just incredible to me how stupid the world is getting. I was just explaining basic high school physics to you, and basic rocket science. Are you now gonna tell me rockets aren’t real? What is wrong with people today. 🤦♂️ Whether you like it or not, rocket propulsion is very much possible in a vacuum. Aircraft require the air and air pressure to generate thrust and lift, rockets and other spacecraft do not. So your argument is just ignorant to basic physics. Call us stupid all you like, but you’re just embarrassing yourself.
3
-
3