Youtube comments of MrSirhcsellor (@MrSirhcsellor).
-
14
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
Well…there is a Sun in space, so not sure I fully understand your question with how you phrased it. But I’ll assume you meant to ask why space isn’t lit up like the day time hours here on Earth are. Because for light to be seen, it’s either coming direct to your eye from the light source, or it requires matter to be reflected off of. That’s actually how you see anything, it’s just light reflecting off of molecules of matter, and then that light comes to your eye. Space is dark because it’s a vacuum, there’s nothing in most of space to reflect light back to your eye, so you only see direct light sources, like stars or planets reflecting light from their suns. We see a blue sky during the day, because light from our Sun is hitting our atmosphere, which scatters the light through all the molecules of air that make up our atmosphere. Space is mostly empty, so nothing to illuminate, so it’s dark.
Hope that information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. Take care.
9
-
@seektruth1215 You can’t have a magnetic that HOLDS a magnetic charge, in a hot liquid state, that’s true, but Earth is generating an ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, that’s a bit different. We’re pretty good at generating electromagnetic fields, we know quite a lot about it, and Earth’s core meets the criteria perfectly. A massive amount of hot swirling iron and nickel, rotating around a solid inner iron core, generating a huge amount of friction from the pressure, to generate energy. It’s perfect conditions to create an electromagnet with.
Learn the difference between a magnet that merely HOLDS a charge, and an electromagnet that GENERATES a charge. They are quite different from each other.
So how exactly does flat Earth generate this field exactly? Got any clues? 🧐
9
-
Did every flat Earther fail physics class? It’s always the exact same terrible arguments, repeated over and over again, that they never realize is just revealing their own lack of knowledge and understanding, of how reality actually works. Since when did personal misunderstandings count as argument? 🤷♂️ Crazy times we live in.
Have any of you ever even heard of the law of conservation of momentum? Do you have any idea what it is and how it works? Any of you? This is physics 101…the laws of motion are one of the first things you learn in science classes, because it’s so simple to demonstrate, verify, and understand. Kids understand this stuff….but it seems to have gone right over every single flat Earthers head, cause they wouldn’t make these poor arguments if they understood the laws of motion.
A helicopter moves WITH the Earth, a plane moves WITH the Earth. They conserve that momentum at all times, so they don’t struggle to keep up and they don’t fall behind, they’re already moving with the Earth, at the same velocity, moving with rotation just adds velocity, moving against rotation subtracts velocity. It’s the same physics that allows you to walk around the cabin of a plane at 500 mph, and any direction, and it’ll be effortless, never will you go crashing to the back, because motion is conserved. Not convincing enough, try tossing a paper airplane (or anything really) gently from rear to front while on a flight, and watch as it glides effortlessly to the front. Can you throw anything at 500 mph? No…obviously not. So how did the object you threw out pace the jet? Because it’s already moving at the same velocity as the jet, and that momentum is conserved, so you’re just adding more velocity…it’s a law of physics. Try tossing it from front to back, and same thing, it will glide effortlessly to the back, it won’t go smashing into the back the moment you release. In this case you’re subtracting velocity, but it’s still moving with the jet at the same relative rate of motion, conserving that momentum. One of many simple experiments you can do…conservation of momentum is probably thee most tested law in all of physics, because of how easy it is to test.
The atmosphere, same thing, it moves WITH the Earth, it’s created at surface, so it’s moving with the surface, conserving its momentum indefinitely. So you’re never gonna get 1000 mph winds, because of conservation of momentum. Gravity helps here too, as does fluid dynamics.
Basic physics…easily tested, easily verified. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is not an argument, it’s just sad. Sad that the education system failed some people…but it’s not entirely their fault, learning is a two person activity, teacher and student. If you didn’t learn this back in school, it’s not just the teachers fault.
Onto your other points. Pilots have an easier job today, because the nav systems they use make the calculations for them…but every single one of them is required to learn how to plot navigation routes on paper charts, doing the calculations themselves, using geodesy. They wouldn’t have to include variables for a curvature, for geodesy…if there was no curvature. On top of that, every nav system today uses the same model, the WGS87, a globe with lines of longitude and latitude designed for 2 equal hemispheres. So your argument is extremely ignorant.
Are you an engineer? Do you actually know anything about designing any structure? I’ve talked with several civil engineers who have told me their jobs are made much harder, because they have to factor Earth curvature, or they will find their zones losing area over time, that will become a problem for builders down the road, if it’s not accounted for in advance. A builder working a few hundred square meters doesn’t have to worry so much about curvature, because it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth…so how many degrees of curvature you think are in a few hundred square meters? Also, ever heard of a geodetic surveyor? Guess what they do.
And bridge designers absolutely have to calculate arc length of surface, or they will design the bridge segments too short, which will create problems when they go to connect them all. They will come up short, if they don’t include a little extra to each segment, to account for arc length. It’s a calculation they cannot skip…because the Earth is spherical. So yet another ignorant argument from you.
Not sure who told you this nonsense, but it’s both extremely untrue and very ignorant.
9
-
9
-
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
-
9
-
9
-
Firstly, no, Polaris has not always been the north star. 3000 years ago it was actually Thuban…that is what’s actually documented. So right off the bat, your knowledge of basic astronomy has got some holes in it.
The stars move…any amateur astronomer could tell you that…it’s a big part of what astronomers do, is record the position of stars each year, and track their shifts. They’ve been doing this for centuries, it’s long been confirmed, the stars are moving…including Polaris. The reason it takes so long from our perspective is for several reasons, the main reason being because of parallax effect. Distance has a profound effect on motion…it’s why planes in the sky moving at 500 mph, barely appear to crawl across the sky. And that’s just at 3 miles away, imagine what trillions upon trillions of miles would do. Here’s another way of looking at it, the Sun moves at what, about 500k mph? It’s diameter is about 950k miles, roughly? Okay, so in 1 hour, it moves about half of its diameter….wow…it’s really moving alright. Put that into perspective now. Stand straight, now move slowly forward over the course of an hour, until you’re half a foot further…feel like you’re goin very fast? Velocity is relative, a mile is significant only to the microscopic life living on this spec of dust we cal Earth. Now at that rate of travel, if the closest person was in say China, how long would it take to close that distance ya think? And that’s only IF they were standing still…
So you’re not quite putting your full attention on this I feel. But does that thought experiment help a bit? And we do actually record a noticeable shift in stars as we orbit around the Sun, it’s called stellar parallax and it’s a big part of the evidence that actually started the heliocentric model, and it’s used still today to measure the distances to stars.
Second, you’re close when it comes to celestial navigation, but it’s not 69 miles to horizon…it’s 69 miles to each major latitude line, yes, but geometrically you measure line of sight to horizon, which is only a few miles from the deck of a ship, 15 miles max. You don’t have to see 69 miles for this to work…you’re just measuring the angle from horizon, which can be any distance from you…it’s just your guide angle to the star, the point is that the surface curvature changes your angle relative to the star. Of course this would occur on a flat surface as well, with Polaris on centre, the difference is that on a flat surface, the drop of Polaris wouldn’t be a consistent 1 degree drop every equal distance of 69 miles. The fact that we do measure a consistent 1 degree drop every 69 miles, is actually more evidence that Earth is spherical. That’s what we’d expect to happen upon a consistently curving surface. Seriously…what made you think you have to see 69 miles? 🤷♂️ You’re just measuring the angle of the surface in relation to the star…that’s how this works. If Earth was flat, latitudes wouldn’t be consistent.
So again…you’re almost right, but you’ve got some information twisted.
Onto your Venus question, night actually begins on the side of Earth, not completely on the opposite side of Earth. So this still gives you quite a wide view of that portion of space, where the Sun has been blocked by surface, but the portion of space beside it, is still quite visible. And Venus isn’t always directly in front or behind the Sun, it orbits too, so much of that orbit is spent way outside of the Suns line of sight. So why wouldn’t we be able to see Venus for a few hours after the Sun becomes blocked? 🤷♂️ Now if we still saw Venus in the middle of the night, when we are directly facing away from the Sun, then that would be odd…but we don’t. We only see Venus a few hours after sunset, or a few hours before sunrise…as we’d expect we would, upon a spherical Earth, with its orbit between us and the Sun. This is actually more evidence that helped astronomers determine the orbital positions of planets. So another swing a miss really.
These really aren’t BIG problems…like you seem to think. Maybe 500 years ago they were, before we had all the data and evidence we do today, but these are pretty easy to answer today, it’s basic astronomy knowledge today. You just have some major holes in your information currently…that’s the real problem here.
You know it’s funny…you say everyone else is just listening blindly to what they’re taught, but I’d be willing to bet you got most (if not all) of this bad information, from a Flat Earth channel, that you blindly listened too and didn’t really question. To be fair though, these were good questions a long time ago…today though, they’re a bit trivial. Don’t be so quick to assume it’s everybody else who’s wrong…true intelligence I feel is typically marked by ones self awareness, of their own limitations.
You are being lied too though…but not by who you think.
9
-
9
-
9
-
@brianbond6960 Ya we get it, but understand that the way you worded it implies a change over billions of years that you seem to think mankind somehow witnessed the entirety of. So yes, we’re trolling you a bit, but maybe word your arguments better and that won’t happen.
At its core though, it’s still an argument from both personal incredulity and ignorance, so still a bad argument. Incredulity because big numbers seem hard to grasp for you but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, and ignorance because you don’t seem to be aware that the stars have changed, they’re constantly changing, it’s just a very slow process, because of the parallax effect. Any amateur astronomer who actually spends there nights watching and recording the stars every night will tell you that, it’s one of the first things they learn about the night sky and then confirm for themselves.
Maybe learn more about astronomy before you go reaching conclusions from ignorance. Start with stellar parallax and the star chart record.
9
-
It doesn’t…it’s physically impossible for light of any kind to make anything colder…that’s just basic physics. All light in existence, is basically a bundle of energy, energy is what produces ALL the thermal heat in the entire universe. When you don’t have energy, you have cold…cold is just the absence of energy…energy is never cold. So if energy always creates heat, and if light is just basically energy…how exactly does it make anything colder? What you’re claiming breaks simple laws of thermal dynamics physics.
Ever considered that maybe something else is occurring? That maybe there are variables that heavily biased Flat Earthers might have overlooked? Maybe these people aren’t scientists…and don’t have a clue how to conduct a proper experiment, one with proper controls? Do these questions ever come to mind? This is exactly why we have peer review and recreation of experiments.
Here’s a fellow who thought to include a proper control to the Cold Moon Light experiments that FE likes to peddle around https://youtu.be/zLsZwp4RWWg. If you’re not aware of what a control experiment is, it’s basically just running a parallel experiment in more neutral conditions, to eliminate and account for any hidden variables. The control this guy thought to conduct, was performing the same experiment on a night when the Moon wasn’t out, like during a New Moon cycle, where it casts no light. If this control yields the same results, then you cannot conclude it’s the Moon light causing the temperature difference, it’s likely something else.
If you watch that experiment, you’ll notice he gets the exact same temperature drop, even when the Moon isn’t casting light. So this adds conclusive evidence, verifying what any physicist could already tell you….light is not cold in any form. The more likely cause of this effect, is radiative cooling. Basically, all objects shed a little bit of thermal energy, and so an object under cover is closer to surfaces and objects shedding this thermal energy, making it slightly warmer. More experiments could be done to make that conclusion more conclusive (and they have…this is old science at this point), but bottom line is, the Moon LIGHT does not cool anything. The Moon does cause gravitational effects that can effect air pressure, that can effect temperatures, so if agriculture classes are teaching this as you claim, then I’d assume this is more the cause of such fluctuations…but I’m not a biologist or an agriculture student, so I don’t know for certain.
What I do know for certain from what I’ve seen, Flat Earthers are not very good at doing experiments. Even from their chosen title, they admit their biased stance to any conclusions. Do you see actual scientists calling themselves Globe Earthers? Is there an accredited class for becoming a Globe Earth scientist? No…because that implies a bias, so they’d never do that. They instead use neutral titles, like physicist, biologist, chemist, etc.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. If you feel I’m wrong, go ahead and share a source from any agricultural department that claims Moonlight is cold, I’d be interested to see who exactly is peddling that nonsense, if they actually are.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@xcvsumextra By scientific method, I assume you mean a tested and peer reviewed experiment that helps verify the theory. And there’s actually plenty, from the Cavendish experiment, to the lesser known Schiehallion Experiment, to the larger model of relativity tested first with the Eddington experiment of 1919, etc. It’s actually one of the most scientifically tested concepts in all of physics…the knowledge and data from each now used in thousands of practical applications, from simply calculating weight (W=mg), to determining buoyancy force (Fb=Vpg), to calculating a planes thrust to weight ratio (ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g), etc. We can put satellites into orbit with this knowledge, predict the orbital paths of any celestial objects, including comets, and we can detect the exact location of massive gravitational events in space (like black holes, supernova events, etc) before even switching on the telescopes to take a look. And currently, we’re using our understanding of gravity to recreate the same nuclear fusion reactions that fuels the Sun…which could someday solve our energy problems if we get it right.
So I’m sorry…but I’m certainly not about to listen to some numpty’s online make empty claims about something they don’t seem to know anything about.
Also, level is one of those tricky words in the English language that has multiple definitions, depending on the context. Level does not only mean flat…in geometry, you can actually use it for the surface of a sphere as well, because a spheres surface is all at the same LEVEL from centre…which is how the word is being applied in “sea level”.
Stay in school kids…otherwise you risk falling for online cons like flat Earth. 👋
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@seektruth1215 You read somewhere that a magnet doesn’t hold a charge if it’s melted down…so why is the knowledge you acquired in a text book more relevant, than anyone else’s knowledge acquired through reading something, especially when anyone can test it? 🧐 You’re just mad cause you can’t use that argument anymore, so you’re just coming up with excuses now. 😄
You can build your own electromagnet with simple tools, and learn how they work, you can verify for yourself that they’re very different from a charged magnet. The main ingredients for any electromagnet are energy, spiralling through a highly conductive metal alloy, like iron or nickel…the two most abundant metals found on and inside Earth. Every volcanic eruption spews out tons of the stuff…hot liquid iron and nickel. So we already know it’s hot down there, so lots of energy being generated, and iron and nickel is pretty abundant, and we have seismic data going back hundreds of years now that has more than verified Earth’s inner composition, confirming a hot liquid metal outer core swirling around a solid iron inner core. And we definitely know we have an electromagnetic field surrounding us…so it’s not hard after all that to deduce how it’s being created. 😄
You don’t have to be an ignorant pleb forever you know…you can actually learn some things for a change if you actually learned some real science. Pull your dumb face away from your computer screen, and take a real science class…one where you won’t just read things, you’ll actually TEST them for yourself.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
1. The Bible has a track record of inaccurate information that doesn’t fit reality and is not scientific in the slightest. So it’s really no substitute for actual science.
2. These observations really only occur when conditions are favourable for high refraction. So no, not impossible in the slightest, you’re just not considering all the variables.
3. Show me one example of a flight that doesn’t make sense, and we’ll discuss it if you’d like.
4. So you’ve been to Antarctica to confirm this? Something tells me you haven’t, you just listened blindly to some schmuck online who told you it was…and for some reason you believed them.
5. No, Flat Earthers took the AE globe projection map of Earth, and claimed it as their own. But that map is just a projection of the globe. Do you know what a projection map is? Here’s a video that can help you understand https://youtu.be/9Wq3GiJT2wQ. The UN uses that projection as their logo, for a similar reason Flat Earthers took it as their own, because of all the projection maps, it’s the most balanced in terms of its layout. So it’s pleasing to the eye, in creative design, it’s known as a triad composition. Humans are drawn to symmetry and balance, so it was a no brainer. The UN represents every nation, so it needed a logo that represents every nation. Since you can’t depict all of a globe on a flat 2D flag, a projection map was the obvious choice. It’s simple creative design.
6. They’re not hitting anything, they’re being despun with a mechanism known as a yo-yo despin. It’s basic rocket science, that putting a rocket into a controlled spin is the easiest way to maintain a stable trajectory. Trouble is, eventually you’re going to want it to stop spinning, especially if you have cameras on the exterior, otherwise what’s the point of having the cameras? So they design them with ways to stop the spin mid flight, a yo-yo despin is the most common mechanism used for that purpose, because it’s simple and cheap. It’s used in satellites too, look it up sometime.
I wouldn’t call you dumb, just not very knowledgeable in things like science and engineering…and that’s why you’re reaching so many false conclusions.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@xcvsumextra Not really, I’ve actually watched the interview you feel disagrees with me here, and he’s actually in agreement with everything I said. We know that gravity exists, we know how it works (to a point) and we’ve measured and quantified its effects, what’s not currently known is WHAT exactly creates it, what particle or non particle gives matter mass in the first place, to cause space to bend. That’s pretty typical in physics, there’s always going to be further questions, we solve one problem, it opens the door to 10 more. So we may never solve everything, that’s just the reality. Doesn’t mean we can’t be certain about many things though, and doesn’t mean we can’t make use of the knowledge we currently have.
We can predict the orbit of every motion in the cosmos down to a mathematical certainty today, using our current knowledge of gravity…do you really think we should toss all that knowledge out, simply because you say so? Or because we don’t quite know everything about gravity yet? Every equation we have with gravity in it, works when applied…so what reason do we have to just ignore knowledge that’s been very useful? Not very smart if you ask me.
If you paid attention, I basically just paraphrased that interview with Neil. So we actually agree on quite a bit here.
8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation, it does not represent line of sight, or Earths curvature, or distance to horizon, or what’s obscured by horizon, etc. So it’s the wrong equation to use, for what Flat Earth uses it for. Use the wrong math, and then it’s pretty simple to see why your figures won’t match what you observe in reality. Flat Earth taught a lot of people the wrong math…that should be your first red flag that they’re not very good at this whole science and math thing. So maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to agree to the claims they’re making.
You can find the correct equations at either the Walter Bislin curvature blog (which also has many great observations and in depth experiments for curvature), or at Mick Wests metabunk forum under his curvature thread, he’s beat that topic to death and derived the math in multiple better ways.
7
-
7
-
7
-
I’ve never seen Dubay engage with any accredited expert in a debate of any kind…and not from lack of trying, he’s been called to many debates, and has so far accepted none, to my knowledge. Why would you expect Sabine to be any different? Aside from that though, Dubay’s claims are pretty simple to falsify with just a basic understanding of physics and geometry. They’re not new ideas or questions, they’re about 500+ years behind modern science, they’re old questions, long since answered…intriguing only to those who know very little about science, which is why he’s only been able to convince layman. So I’m sure he wouldn’t be convincing her of much, but many would love to debate him…he just never does, at least not to my current knowledge.
I would also pay attention if I was you, too his rhetoric…it’s very monotone and endlessly suggestive, very similar to hypnotic suggestion tactics, and I don’t think that’s just a coincidence. You’ll also notice he never shares any data or tangible evidence to support much of anything he says, maybe a few quick diagrams or blurry images here and there, but no sources are shared, no data…he just makes a lot of empty claims, with very little actual proof.
I understand if you’ve come to admire the guy…but I really don’t see why. He lies like breathing, it’s effortless for him, and it’s not hard to spot those lies if you try. Which implies sociopathic behaviour, and narcissistic tendencies. I suggest you try really dissecting a couple of his claims, check his research a bit more thoroughly sometime…you may find he makes a lot of it up as he goes, while providing only half truths, intentionally leaving out many key details.
Many have identified Dubay as a conman…and I think that’s a valid assessment. Just try questioning him on his channel sometime, I guarantee he’ll block you. Not exactly the behaviour of an open minded individual with the apparent truth on his side.
7
-
7
-
7
-
Oh boy. 🤦♂️That math has nothing to do with trigonometry...it’s a basic graph equation, that plots a parabola...it does not represent a sphere, let alone our spherical surface. If you’re using that equation to make line of sight observations...then that’s your problem right there, because it’s not the correct math. Pretty basic rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong formula for the job and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. So did ya ever once stop to consider that might be your problem? Have you ever bothered to learn anything more about that equation, or did you just believe it was accurate from the first time you heard it?
One of many examples of how misinformation campaigns, like Flat Earth, successfully con people. Most people have no idea how to derive their own equations, so most people simply are not capable of recognizing when an equation is wrongfully applied. I feel the real perpetrators of FE know this...and they do it intentionally, using peoples mathematical and scientific illiteracy against them.
8 inches per mile squared plots a parabola, which is not representative of line of sight...which is what you’re trying to discern in long distance observations. It can’t be used here, because it’s missing variables required here, variables like height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, arc length, tilt angles, surface hump, etc. It’s simply not going to give you an accurate figure, for what you’re using it for, so it’s essentially useless here. If you’re curious to know the correct formulas you should be using, here’s a link that can help you out https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
Also, the point of this video was not to prove or disprove either position, she was just analyzing the ideology of FE, providing an experts opinion for why she feels the spread of misinformation is rising within the general populace and what should be done about it. It’s mostly an opinion piece...so why would you expect she’d discuss any actual science in an opinion piece?
I think you should consider the very real possibility, that you are being conned by misinformation movements like flat Earth. At the very least, look into the math a little closer, and try actually challenging it a bit, rather than blindly agreeing it’s accurate, without checking first.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@YouTw1tFace Flat Earth already did, when they sent their own weather balloons up to “find the curve”. If you pay attention to these videos, they demonstrate our atmosphere next to vacuum in several ways. The balloon eventually pops due to being within vacuum conditions, and it shows a pure black space around our Sun, which is what we’d expect to see from a vacuum with nothing in it, nothing for the Sun to illuminate. It’s measured...atmosphere gets thinner the higher you go, until there is nothing, that’s all space is, the absence of matter. Flat Earth has measured this too without even realizing it...but guess what they’ve never found? A container.
Thermodynamics has more to do with energy, not matter, that’s where your misunderstanding comes from. For example, when a cup of coffee cools to match its environment temperature, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy that left? Matter tags along sometimes, but it can and will be contained by attracting forces, slowing its entropy greatly. Gravity is the container...no barrier required, science has verified this many many times and so has Flat Earth in their attempts to further confirm their bias.
You should pay better attention to your own user icon...it’s all the proof you need of atmosphere next to a vacuum.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@enkigilgamesh Of course you also have to realize that your assertion of the globe having no evidence isn’t true. What about sunsets? How exactly can a sunset occur, if the Sun occupies the same visual sky for everyone, everywhere on Earth? The geometry doesn’t add up...how exactly is our line of sight to the Sun blocked? What about the entire southern hemisphere, namely the different stars, the second celestial rotation around a second pole star, the 24 hour sun in Antarctica and the lines of latitude that are equal distances to the North? All of this we’d expect to see on a Globe, but doesn’t add up on any flat Earth model proposed so far. What about solar and lunar eclipses, not just that they occur but that they’re predicted decades in advance, down to the second and square mile, using the heliocentric model to do that? What about the fact that all world navigation uses the globe model as their foundation? Pilots and sailors all use the globe to find their destinations, that’s millions of people that aren’t getting lost everyday. I can keep going too...that’s just a small sample.
So you’re being very unreasonable when you say there’s no proof of a globe....there’s lots actually, and you likely know it too, you’re just being ignorant and bias. At the very least, you should acknowledge that maybe there’s actually good reasons for why people are here challenging your claims. I’m not saying you have to outright agree, but you could at the very least hear us out and consider the possibility that you might just be missing some information.
7
-
7
-
7
-
She’s not really debunking much of anything or even attempting too here, rather just offering an opinion on the psychology and philosophy of a group of people. It’s an interesting insight, as she’s actually an accredited physicist, with actual working experience in the field, which is very different from the usual people you see on YouTube talking on the subject. “Debunking” (or falsification as its known in science), requires a specific point with scientific evidence that refutes it or renders the original conclusion inconclusive...did you see her share any data, figures, or experiments? Neither did I...and neither does Dubay in his video. That’s because this wasn’t a debunk video, and really, neither is Dubay’s response really. So don’t let Dubay or anyone frame it as if she was really trying, she’s clearly just providing some quick commentary on the movement, as seen from her personal perspective, not much more.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Rogue Comet: It's a very complex system, but with enough time over billions of years, nature and the physics of our universe can lead to these outcomes, through attractive and reactive forces that occur naturally. There have even been experiments performed in labs today recreating the conditions needed for simple chemical compounds to bond and form amino acid chains, the building blocks of DNA, all by themselves through Chemistry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNijmxsKGbc
So it's a very slow step by step process, but I don't think you quite understand just how long billions of years is. I think that's where most Creationists get caught up...that and most of you can't accept that we may not be so special after all.
DNA doesn't always replicate itself perfectly, that's how we get mutations.
Cells don't think, plan or have any intelligence to create more complex life, but they don't have too be. There are so many cells and with enough time and enough changes made through natural selection, eventually more complex life will occur through an endless stream of trial and error, and the stronger traits being passed on for future generations. For millions of years, life was just simple single celled organisms, mostly bacteria. These bacteria fed on each other, constantly evolving to stay ahead on the food chain. Scientists have theorized that after enough time, eventually one such single celled organism consumed another, but by chance the bacteria that was consumed did not die, but instead formed a symbiotic relationship with the other bacteria, forming the very first multi celled organism. It is a theory of course, but it is plausible. From there, cells continued to advance in this way, mutations and errors causing chance moments to occur, that would give some cells more of an edge over others, an endless chaotic war of survival. It is a VERY slow process, not something that could ever occur over a 5000 year period or even a 100,000 year period. It's not easy to picture in your mind, because it is such a slow complex system, but it's not impossible and we are figuring it out.
Plants and animals are very advanced forms of life, but there are observable stepping stones of life in nature today that we can study and catalog to make the connections. In your mind it probably goes from single celled to multi celled to Banana....of course that doesn't make sense, but you're missing the millions of other steps of life between the multi celled organism to Banana.
Sexual reproduction is actually a pretty simple form of reproduction, it's beginnings starting way down in the evolutionary chain. Even in the microscopic world there are simple forms of life that produce sexually. It had it's advantages for survival, so it was carried on...otherwise it wouldn't exist today.
Not sure what you mean by "fast enough time", because it wasn't fast at all, and it wasn't forgiving. Life either adjusts and evolves to it's environment, or it dies. Sometimes life has very latent advantages it's not even aware of until something changes in it's environment to make use of those features. Picture a multi celled organism that does pretty well in it's current environment, but has also mutated the capability to consume and process larger amounts of CO2 than it's competing neighbors. Now picture the environment around it suddenly changing with a sudden uptick in CO2 levels. What happens is, the multi celled organisms that can't process the higher levels of CO2 will die off, while the organisms that can will now thrive and take over. This is how bio diversity works and it's how life finds a way to survive in almost any environmental condition.
DNA is just bonds of Amino Acids, which is just basic chemistry. Molecules bonding together to form more complex chains. It is impressive how they've formed together to create blue prints for life, but again, through billions of years of trial and error, they've forged bonds that work and that get passed on to the next generation.
Protections for the DNA weren't always coded into the DNA, even this had to be evolved. Again, there are Billions of little steps that had to happen over Billions of years to get us where we are today. None of it just happened over night.
If you look down the line of species, some species don't have lungs, some don't have circulatory systems, some don't even make use of any organs...like the Jellyfish, which is basically just one living organ on it's own. Simpler forms of life don't have everything that we do. When I was in high school, we took biology classes and we took a little time to study the circulatory systems of different animals. Humans have a 4 chambered heart, which is far more efficient than the 3 chambered heart of most reptiles, but the 3 chambered heart is still more efficient than the 2 chambered heart of most amphibians. So you see, it's not about what came first, the heart, the lungs or the brain...you're looking at it the wrong way, when the heart first developed in species, it wasn't even close to how a heart is today...these things start out very simple and evolve themselves to become more complex and efficient over time. The Eye is a perfect example, and here's a video you probably won't watch (but I highly recommend it if you wanna understand how this works a little better) of Richard Dawkins explaining the gradual evolution of the Eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0
Just like the evolution of our bodies and our genetics, knowledge takes a very long time to "evolve" as well. Yes, we were just as smart back then as we are now, but we lacked the knowledge we have today. Knowledge is a gradual thing that takes time to build...a very long time. We were just as smart 200 years ago...but why didn't we have Iphones back then? That's basically the same idea your asking with your question...do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Our earliest ancestors were more concerned with surviving than they were with discovery. But over time we did discover a great many things, such as how to produce our own fire, how to build our own shelters, how to craft our own tools...and eventually, after enough time, we were finally in a position where we had a lot more time on our hands to discover and create more abstract things such as language and writing. It's simple for you and me nowadays to imagine writing, but you have to put yourself in the shoes of a person with absolutely no prior knowledge of such a thing...do you really think you would have been smart enough to invent a language or symbols for writing? Creating even the most basic of symbols on cave walls would have been a MAJOR discovery back then....compared to today, it seems so trivial....but you didn't create your language did you? No, it was taught to you, it was passed down to you. This in itself is a form of evolution.
I'm not sure there is any cases where a T-Rex soft tissue was preserved over millions of years. If you're referring to that famous claw found in New Zealand not to long ago...it was proven to be a large bird species that was only around a few hundred years old and well preserved do to the conditions it was found in. I'm assuming you read some fake click bait article explaining it to be a T-Rex claw...and then never looked any deeper into it.
Evolution doesn't work that way...a new species doesn't just pop into existence one day. It's a very gradual change...doesn't happen over night. But, sometimes what does happen in nature, is that when an environment changes suddenly, one species that's not fit for the new shift will die off, perhaps even going extinct, while another species that is better suited for the change will begin to thrive and take over. This has occurred in our observable time frame...even without us noticing. It happens all the time in nature.
Further more, you didn't ask this question but I see it asked a lot by Creationists, a cat doesn't just magically turn into a dog...that's also not how evolution works. But look at it this way...we've been tampering with dogs for 100's of years, at what point will we have created a completely new species? The chihuahua is related to the wolf...but it's more like a rat than a wolf wouldn't you say? In just a few hundred years, we've taken a wolf and bred him down to the size of a rat or ginnea pig...this is similar in nature. The cat and the dog share a common ancestor...that's how evolution works. At some point in the evolutionary chain, there was a land mammal, that was separated in nature and had to evolve different traits to survive. One side of the genetic family eventually forming cats, the other forming dogs...probably took a couple millions years, but eventually, they split to form 2 very different species...but make no mistake, they have a common ancestor somewhere down the line. The same goes with us and say a Banana. How is that possible...well, our common ancestor in that case, is probably on the microscopic level going back a billion years. But at some point, a mulit cell organism was separated by it's environment and one side evolved over billions of years to form us and the other evolved over billions of years to form what we call the banana...do you see how that works yet? No...evolution doesn't say we're going to magically turn into a banana someday...thinking that's what we mean...is not understanding how this system works at all. :/
Evolution does work and it does make sense, that is why we study it and teach it. It works in nature on so many levels...not just the biological either, but as I said, the passing down of knowledge as well. That in itself is a form of evolution. The dominate genes will be passed on for the future generations, just like the dominate ways of thinking will be passed on for future generations.
That being said, your questions are legitimate questions, you're not wrong to ask them, far from it. We asked these very questions at some point, but now we have answers.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@LJ...69. Ya…neither of those are from 100 miles distance, so you lied. Why would anyone take you seriously if you’re going to lie about the details right off the bat? 🤷♂️
The first observation ignores atmospheric refraction (shocker 🙄), do the correct math including a standard refraction, you get a hidden of 734 feet. Looking up a list of Chicago’s tallest buildings, you get roughly 30 buildings tall enough just by their height alone…but of course the downtown area isn’t at the water table, it’s also several feet in elevation (probably about 50-100 feet or so) above the lake. So more like 50 buildings…but that’s with standard refraction and refraction index is always higher over large bodies of water, so that number still goes up. Even if we ignored refraction, there’s still roughly 20 or so towers tall enough to be seen from that distance, at that observation height (the geometric calculation is 867 feet, there are about 7 buildings that are over 1000 feet tall). Do you see the streets? No…you only see the tops of buildings…as you’d expect, if they were being blocked by surface curvature.
So ya…the observation fits the globe just fine…you’re just not doing the correct math, or factoring every variable important for the observation.
Your second observation is clearly done from several feet up in elevation (probably from that sand dune I mentioned, cause it’s pretty common)….I’m sure you’re aware that the higher you go in elevation, the further you can see. Ever wondered why that is? Because you’re looking over a curvature…it’s like looking over a hill, the higher up you go, the more you can see over that hill. The real trouble here, is that he doesn’t share any details beyond how far he is….you don’t think elevation matters to these observations, or what? 🤷♂️ So his lack of information makes it a very inconclusive observation…do you know what inconclusive means? Details matter…if you don’t think they do, then you should stay far away from science. :/
See this is what I’m talking about….you’re conducting very poor research, sloppy observations, not scientific in the slightest. These observations do not falsify the globe, you’re just not doing enough to reach a conclusive conclusion. Don’t just stop once your bias is confirmed…you have to do better.
6
-
6
-
@ZighyBlue Refraction effects are always present within our atmosphere, especially over large bodies of water, even at night. You’re right to conclude that they do fluctuate, but you picked an observation that does fit within the realm of possible still. It’s right on the boundary’s of what’s possible, but that’s every observation flat Earthers make. You seek out observations right on the edge of possible, then claim it’s impossible with 100% certainty…when even just a brief analysis disputes that.
No…100 km would have been impossible, 200 km at a 6 foot viewing height, that would be impossible. 37.5 km, in a warmer climate, over a large ocean, with a light house 83 meters off sea level…that’s right on the edge of possible and even you have to know that. So you’ll have to do better than that.
Ask yourself why there’s not observations that are much further? If Earth was flat, then wouldn’t we expect to see even further? The answer is yes, we would. There would of course still be limits due to atmospheric density, but seeing a light house 100 km out from sea level observations, this would be a regular occurrence all around the world…if the Earth was flat.
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
-
6
-
Yes, we have pondered these things (some anyway, some of these are just stupid), except when we did, we figured out the answers…and it didn’t take much effort.
1) They have changed, it’s well documented and any actual astronomer (you know, people who actually watch and record the stars) will tell you that. 500k mph doesn’t mean much, when you got trillions of miles to travel before making any noticeable shifts from our perspective. Parallax effect…look it up sometime, distance has a profound effect on perceived motion.
2) Nope, doesn’t happen, you’ve been conned by blurry videos with a lot of glare. Try viewing with a solar filter lens, or at least lock the exposure and put the camera in focus. 😄
3) Distance isn’t the only thing that can cause a shift in temperature, the angle at which energy arrives upon a surface can also effect temperature. Pretty basic physics, focused energy versus scattered energy…surface angle will effect how focused the Suns solar energy is. That’s why the Equator is hotter…it faces the Sun, the poles do not…pretty simple stuff.
4) Horizon indicators also include another mechanism called pendulous vanes. Their function is to correct the gyro from any drift, caused by gyroscopic precession, extreme maneuvers, and Earth curvature. Maybe look them up sometime.
5) Well…ya, the Moon blocks the Sun during solar eclipse…sooooo, ya, it’s gonna be in the sky at the same time as the Sun…that’s how it works. 😄
6) Oh boy 🤦♂️….do you think the Sun orbits Earth? 😅 Holy crap, well no wonder you’re so confused. Earth orbits the Sun dummy…and the Moon orbits Earth…so it’s going to come between the Sun and Earth during its orbit around Earth…thus making it visible during the day. This is kindergarten stuff. Here, I think you need to see how Moon phases work https://youtu.be/wz01pTvuMa0.
7) Who told you that, and why’d you believe them? 😄 Go ahead and share the evidence of this claim, cause I’m searching and nothing comes up. I’ve actually been roughly 23 degrees South latitude (I’ve travelled quite a lot), and as an amateur astronomer I’ve made observations of the night sky while I was there…I’ve never seen the North Star anywhere in the South. You can see the Big Dipper for awhile, until about 26 degrees South latitude…is that what you meant? North star isn’t part of the Big Dipper, it’s in the little dipper constellation. I think you got your claims all scrambled bud.
8) Maybe learn to focus a camera, and try again. 🤦♂️
9) Did you know none of them thought to include a control for the experiment? Try conducting the same experiment during a new Moon phase, when it’s not casting any light, and you’ll get the same result…which means it’s not the Moon causing this effect, it’s radiative cooling. Just stop and think for a moment please…however difficult that may be for you. Light is basically just energy, energy is never cold…it’s the source of all thermal heat in the entire universe. So if you think light is cold, then you’re breaking thermodynamics laws to make that claim. The reality is that flatties are just terrible at conducting experiments…shocker.
10) Well, you all just love to whine on about gravity just being “density and buoyancy”…even though density is not a force and buoyancy actually can’t occur without gravity. Derive for me a new working equation for calculating weight, without using gravity as a variable…go right ahead, if you think you can. 😄 Here’s the current formula; W=mg. Mass is already a variable…soooo, how does taking out a force vector, and replacing it with another scaler variable, equal weight? 🤷♂️
Or how about “horizon always rises to eye level” which it actually doesn’t, none of you thought to try actually measuring it with a levelling rig or theodolite.
Or how about “the curvature math 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t work”…ya, no shit, that tends to happen when you use the wrong math. 😄
You guys just continue to piss into the wind with EVERY argument you make…and it’s quite the train wreck to watch. 😄
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
From what I’ve gathered, neither Neil or Dubay knew about any debate beforehand, Joe just penciled them in without asking first, and was probably too fuckin high to realize or understand why that’s not very professional, or good of him to do. Would you accept a debate you didn’t agree too beforehand? Probably not…so why should Neil? 🧐
2nd, Neil has made it pretty clear in many public interviews that he doesn’t do debates. Debating is a skill, and not every scientist is interested or well practiced in public debating. It’s a sad reality that you don’t have to be right to win a debate, you just have to be a better talker/bullshitter. This is a skill one can acquire, if it’s an interest they have. So he (like most scientists) doesn’t see it as very productive to engage layman, with no background or experience in science, in debates where endless speculation and bullshitting can win an audience over, better than actual data and research ever could. Takes years to grasp the data and information obtained through a lifetime of scientific research…it’s very difficult to shorten that for an audience of layman in a 1 hour debate, but a conman can sure lie and bullshit endlessly to captivate an audience into believing falsehoods. Most people have the attention span of a newt these days…what do you think is gonna grab their attention more? The huxter sensationalizing a grand conspiracy…or the scientist walking them through a bunch of boring numbers and data? If even just 10 out of a hundred people are swayed though, the huxter gains potential customers. See how this grift works yet?
For this reason, scientists actually have to be very careful with who they interact with. Conmen often try to bait scientists into debates, because they know it’s free advertising for their bullshit. They don’t have to convince everyone, the goal is just to get in front of as many people as possible, debating celebrity scientists is free marketing.
So Neil is smart not to get into a public debate, with a known conman, over a massive channel with millions of listeners….especially when he didn’t agree to any debate beforehand. He gains nothing, while the huxter who baited him gains a massive marketing opportunity. Not very smart.
In any case, Dubay has been called to debate by many fellow YouTubers over the years…and he’s accepted none of them so far. Not one debate so far, out of probably hundreds of calls…so if we use your logic, what’s he so afraid of? 🧐
In my opinion, 1-2 hour public debates don’t settle science, and we should never give the impression to the general public that they do. It just opens the flood gates for an endless stream of conmen and pseudo intellectuals, pushing bullshit on the under educated masses…giving them the free marketing platforms they’ve longed for since science was established.
6
-
6
-
That is an average orbital speed, the Earth increases speed and decreases at Perihelion and Aphelion in its orbit...so that's not a set in stone number, nor is it very accurate. You chose to make it 666 because you're programmed to seek out that number, so you bent that number to fit your criteria of a pattern you look for. In math we round up, so the real average is about 67,000. Same goes for your tilt, the real average tilt is 23.5 degrees, fluctuating from 23.4 - 23.6...but you CHOSE to make it 23.4 because it helps you find your number again. And the theory of gravity wasn't published until 1687...so you straight up lied on that one...like are you for real?
You are looking for patterns that are not there my friend...in this case you're bending things toward that number even lying about it, that's not logic that leads you, it's paranoia and confirmation bias. What about the 450,000 mph motion of our movement through space? Didn't pay any attention to that number, because it doesn't meet your criteria. Like seriously...get fucked.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
No, you’re just getting your information from bad sources. The math FE has provided for you, and claimed was accurate, is actually incorrect. Use the wrong math and you will reach false conclusions, it’s pretty simple. Here’s where you can find the correct math https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
Bringing a boat back into focus only brings it back from the vanishing point, which is an effect of perspective and your eyes physical limits. So if you’re bringing an object back into focus, then it’s not gone over the horizon yet, you’re really just bringing it back from vanishing point. https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc
The real liars are those in Flat Earth, misleading you with half truths, speculations, and misinformation. It is a scam, exploiting people’s general lack of knowledge and our growing distrust in authority. You don’t have to agree, but at the very least don’t just listen blindly to what FE claims.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Hundreds of thousands of people per year visit Antarctica…and they have a base directly at the South pole, it’s called the Amundsen Scott South Pole Station. Look it up sometime, plenty of video footage from visitors of this base. A common observation made there is the 24 hour Sun in Antarctic Summer. An occurrence that’s not possible on a flat Earth.
There exists a treaty among nations of the world, that was signed mainly to keep Antarctica neutral. It’s basically just a peace treaty, stating that no single nation is allowed to lay claim to Antarctica, no private industry is allowed to exploit its minerals, and no military is allowed to operate there. It is to be shared by every nation as strictly a place for scientific research. At the time it was signed, the world was just coming out of WW2, and into the Cold War…the US was already scouting Antarctica for potential bases. The UN felt it best to avoid future conflicts over Antarctica, to just establish it as neutral…it clearly worked.
You can look up the treaty anytime, it’s not a long read. It doesn’t say anything about people not being allowed to go there…many people do each year. It’s just a peace agreement, keeps us from fighting over it. The terms of the agreement will expire soon, and then like all treaty’s it will be reevaluated.
6
-
It wasn't so much an argument, as it was a diagnosis of the real societal problem at the core of the issue, from the perspective of someone within the scientific community. She briefly touched on a few points, sure, but she's not really making an argument, she's just giving her opinion on why she feels Flat Earth has had a resurgence of late. It's more an analysis of the ideology, not so much the arguments.
As for your "15 NASA government documents admitting the earth is flat", I think you should learn what a mathematical simplification model is. They're not literally stating the Earth is flat in any of those documents, they are simplifying variables for math equations...that's it. If you knew anything about how to read or interpret those documents, you'd know that. You might notice in most if not all of those models, they use the word ASSUME somewhere in the wording for the variables of the summary sections. They do that, to let the reader know which variables are being omitted for the math simplifications sections to follow...they are math simplifications. Because math is complicated, but if they can omit any redundant variables that don't really effect what the equations will be used for, say wind resistance capabilities of the vehicle, where Earths shape and motion do not effect anything, then they will do everything they can to simplify the math, by removing those variables......that's what those papers are doing. It just makes an engineers job a lot easier....math simplification is actually an entire field of work you can do, as a mathematician. :/
David Weiss is a conman, he knows a lot of people have NO IDEA how a mathematical model is written or interpreted in those kinds of mathematical papers. He was counting on it....that's how he sells his grift, by taking advantage of peoples general lack of scientific and mathematical literacy.
Get a better bullshit filter....stop falling for every online hoax that comes your way. Do some research on mathematical models and how they are written, then you'll understand how David Weiss has fucked you.
6
-
@vohannes If I’m chatting with you here, best not to assume I’ve never looked at flat Earth and researched it myself. I’ve chatted with hundreds of flat Earthers at this point, over 4 years of researching it, I know your arguments probably better than you do at this point. I’m just sayin, even in the more distilled core of flat Earth, you people have a hard tine agreeing on much, so it’s hard to pin down because you don’t have a unified working model. And any time something is without a doubt proven false, you hack it off like a dead limb and call it part of the psy op against you...rather than allow yourself to consider the other very real possibility, that flat Earth could just be bullshit. Leaning on the paranoia that got you here, not a very great method for allowing objective reasoning to kick in.
Sabine gave a quick opinion, she doesn’t have time to argue with the village idiots...when your day job involves working directly with people who are actively developing and putting satellites and spacecraft into orbit...you don’t really have much care for petty arguments online amongst the layman, that you know are settled arguments beyond any shadow of a doubt.
6
-
@vohannes The next part to tackle is gravity. I’ll make this a bit shorter.
Gravity holds everything to surface, the only difference the ocean has with living creatures and mechanical vehicles, is that water is not alive (or has no engine) and thus creates no energy to resist gravity. You are only able to stand and walk around, because your body is burning carbs, it converts to energy, that your muscles use to keep you standing. When you die though what happens? You fall to Earth and remain there...just like water does...are we understanding the role LIFE plays in resisting gravity yet? Gravity is always effecting you, you just have a means to always be resisting it, because gravity isn’t very strong on Earth, but it is however constant, it never shuts off and it sucks up energy like a sponge. You can resist it with energy, but stop producing energy and gravity wins.
Weight is created by gravity, you don’t have weight in freefall or in space, what you always have is mass...but weight, that is created by three things. Your mass, the force of gravity and the surface of Earth which stops you from falling any further towards center of gravity, this creates inertia on your body, that inertia is what you know as weight.
Why is this important to understand? Because flat Earth grossly misunderstands how gravity works...for some reason, I’ve noticed they seem to think it effects things differently, simply because some things are heavier by weight. What they misunderstand, is that It’s not gravity that effects that difference, it’s mass and density. Gravity effects EVERYTHING the same, it’s an objects density that determines how heavy it’s going to be. Ocean has a lot of mass, water is fairly dense, so it’s heavy. A butterfly (a counter example I hear a lot from FE) has very little mass, so it’s much lighter....gravity doesn’t change, it’s not effecting everything differently, that’s one of the biggest misconceptions flat Earthers have. Since a butterfly has less mass, it’s actually easier to resist gravity, because it requires less energy to move its much smaller mass.
I realize you didn’t directly make the “how can butterflies fly if gravity holds oceans” argument, but I do feel you were maybe implying it. Either way, it’s important to dispel this misconception of gravity, to better understand the last part of your question.
6
-
@vohannes Yup, as I figured, completely over your head. You’re too deep to help now, but I did already know that, just bored I guess, I enjoy the challenge of trying. What’s funny is you actually think I haven’t heard your counter arguments before either, you say I’m regurgitating science, but you’re just repeating the same script I’ve heard a thousand times from flat Earth. So we’re really not much different...except my conclusions are verified with actual tested science and are actually used in the real world for practical applications, but hey, who needs working science when you can just ignore reality and make up your own without any real effort. xD
I do hope you stop to actually listen and absorb the lessons I’ve attempted to share here today...but I won’t hold my breath. Just sad that paranoia, delusion and confirmation bias have gotten this bad, but gladly you’re infliction is far from a majority and has been dying down a lot the last couple years, so not really much of a concern anymore,.
6
-
6
-
Cartoon characters do not exist, Earth appearing flat at first glance however, that’s very real. So you’re making a false comparison. The reason I feel people are entertaining flat Earth today, is because trust has been eroding in the public for systems of authority, helped in large part by social media making a paradise for con artists to spread misinformation and stir doubt, increase paranoia, rob people of their better reasoning. It’s easy to stir up doubt, because most people form opinion around group structures they trust, not objective reality...that’s much harder to do. So, just get them to lose trust, by lying and spreading conspiracies, mankind’s base instincts will do the rest...it’s brainwashing 101, start by telling people they’ve been lied too, then claim you have the answers.
It works very well, because most people are not well versed in modern science or mathematics, they have very little first hand experience, so filling the gaps of their knowledge is easy. Just gain their trust and then you can feed them just about any bullshit you want, if you tailor it just right, full of half truths and clever misdirections they don’t have the prior knowledge to counter (8 inches per mile squared for example, or false gravity physics).
Flat Earth is in that sweet spot of conspiracy, in that Earth appears flat at first glance, so it has a base that’s rooted in our day to day that’s easy to agree on. It’s a question that was not easy for mankind to deduce, and most people have never asked themselves how science deduced Earth was spherical. So, it was actually pretty fertile ground for opportunists to seed, just get them curious in the science they’ve largely ignored their whole lives, get them asking the same questions scientists hundreds of years ago once asked, but pretend like the questions have never been asked before, simply because they’re not asked anymore today. Pretty easy to burst that damn really.
Anyway, just because people are talking about something, does not make it true by default. Don’t make decisions around a group...I thought that was the core tenant of flat Earth to begin with? Con artists exist, this a fact, today they have the best platform ever created to spread misinformation with, the internet. People with zero oversight, are more likely to lie too you, because they know that nobody is there to stop them. Ask questions all you want...but you know, don’t be lazy about it, don’t just trust something blindly simply because it’s not associated with the authority structures you no longer trust. Regular people online can and will lie to you, so remember to keep questioning, even the sources you’ve come to trust.
6
-
Oh boy. 🤦♂️ A theory in science is very different from a regular theory used in layman vernacular. In science, hypothesis takes the place of theory in the regular use of the word. Hypothesis are unproven concepts yet to be tested, while theories are the conclusions, that have been tested and peer reviewed and are backed by evidence. Nothing graduates to the level of a theory in science, until it’s been basically proven…though science doesn’t like to use that word, because science isn’t about proving things (despite what many believe), it’s just about gathering data and information, used to falsify hypothesis with…the hypothesis that survives all attempts to be falsified, go on to become (or support) either a theory or a law. Laws only describe WHAT is happening, theories go deeper into explaining HOW the phenomenon works. Since you will always have more power and control over a concept, when you understand HOW it works, not just WHAT it does, for that reason scientific theories are actually technically above scientific laws. Nothing goes beyond theory in science.
Electromagnetism is also “just a theory”, but you’re most likely using that knowledge right now to access a wifi connection, to send and receive your internet data, to read this comment. GPS satellites have to deal with time dilation, so they verify relativistic effects every single day. Nuclear Fusion reactors are only possible because of our understanding of relativity and gravity. Relativity science is still the best model we have of gravity, because it’s been rigorously tested and verified beyond any doubt. To say it hasn’t been proven because it’s “just a theory”, is extremely ignorant to say.
I get that a large portion of people failed science class cause they weren’t paying attention, but please learn the basics at least. Scientific theory is very different from a regular theory. It’s difficult to have a conversation to help people understand some higher concepts of physics, if we’re not even speaking the same language.
6
-
6
-
Well, I’d ask how much do you actually know about what the Mayans or other ancient cultures actually had recorded? Or did you just watch a bunch of Ancient Aliens over the years, believed every word of it or misinterpreted what was actually being said, and now form an opinion on misinformation or half truths? No disrespect, we all have bits of knowledge that’s probably flawed or faulty to some degree, but I think it’s good to be honest with ourselves.
The oldest known surviving star chart to my knowledge, is from an ancient temple in Japan, dating back about 400 BC, at least by some estimates. Nearly 2500 years ago and the stars are not as they are today on this record, they’re actually very different. The Egyptians, Greeks and Babylonians also kept records, but the only records that still survived that period are from the copies made by a Greek astronomer known as Hipparchus around 129 BC. These are the oldest known records that are more substantial and complete…at least for their region. The Chinese also kept pretty good records, but the surviving records from that region are from about 30 BC.
The Mayans may have recorded the stars too, but to my knowledge, none of those records exist today. The Calendars they created that do exist, were cycles of the seasons and eclipses, they followed the Sun and Moon pretty closely, but the stars are not really included much in Mayan artifacts or tablets, certainly none that accurately charted the stars for their time.
So you’re asking a question that really requires a question to answer it before hand. How much do you actually know about ancient astronomy records? Are you an astronomy historian, or even an astronomer? Any actual astronomer will tell you, that the ancient star charts we do have records of, depict stars that are actually very different from what we see today. Which fits with the geometry of our solar system and the scale of the galaxy. With a galaxy of our size, it would take hundreds to thousands of years to make any noticeable changes. Any astronomer would also tell you, that the stars do shift constantly, we measure shifts in positions over just a few decades of observing, some shift even faster, like for example Barnards star, which anybody can track for around a 5 year period and notice it shifting quite a bit in that time. Which is why that’s a popular star for amateur astronomers to begin tracking, feel free to look it up sometime, it’s an interesting star.
Fact is, the stars are shifting, quite a lot in fact, it just doesn’t happen very quickly. And that’s due to parallax. I’m sure you know what parallax effect is, the further something is from you, the slower it will appear to move. That’s why a passenger jet in the sky, moving at 500 mph, will appear to barely crawl across the sky, it’s distance from you having a pretty big effect on its rate of travel. The stars are moving very quickly, but you have to also understand that they’re also very far away, we’re talking trillions of miles away. That distance will greatly effect that perceived motion.
Anyway, I hope that helps provide a little further insight. I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
There’s plenty of examples of objects in the distance reaching a point where no amount of zoom brings the haul back into focus. The vanishing point is a real thing that occurs, but we’re not talking about the vanishing point…eventually, things begin to sink into horizon, and it won’t matter how powerful your telescope is, you won’t be able to bring it back. So perspective doesn’t answer for this observation. And it’s not just that objects become obscured, they are also dropping. In art fundamentals, you learn this about perspective; vanishing point converges AT EYE LEVEL, meaning anything above your eye level can’t go below it, and anything below it can’t go above it, from perspective alone. Yet we observe ships hauls clearly dropping below eye level…perspective can’t do that, you have to ignore that fundamental rule of perspective, if that’s the answer you’re going to go with. 😳 A curvature however, does answer for that observation…so we have really no reason to conclude that’s not what’s happening.
You must have a very low opinion of science, if you honestly believe they never once thought to use a telescopic lens at the beach. Or if you think they never once thought to consider perspective as a cause for this observation. Flat Earthers think they’re on the precipice of something new….dude, you’re about 500 years behind. None of this is new…it’s just new to you. I’m all for people finally taking an interest in science…but please catch up.
6
-
Criticism is free speech too, free speech goes both ways. Just as people are free to question science, science is free to question the people attempting to falsify science. That’s how it works, the truest conclusion can hold up to all criticism. By whining about NDT criticizing flat Earth, you’re basically saying he is not free to do so...so you’re denying his freedom of speech. It goes both ways, so you’ll just have to accept that. Criticism is free speech...we have just as much reason to question flat Earth, so don’t pretend like we don’t.
Flat Earth has no working scientific model and is not used in any applied science today, from engineering, navigation, communication and infrastructure...the model that’s used is the Globe model and it works. If it was wrong, then it wouldn’t work...it’s that simple. Junk science doesn’t work, that’s kind of the nice thing about it...it reveals itself by how useless it is. So it shouldn’t be so easily ignored that Flat Earth is not a working scientific model. We have every reason to question FE and defend the model that actually does work. That’s all people like NDT are doing, exorcising their right to free speech.
6
-
6
-
@elfalte No, the stars in the South actually rotate around their own polar star, Sigma Octantis. This is basic astronomy knowledge, there is a second rotation in the South. So how’s that possible if Earth is flat, with only one sky? 🤷♂️
The stars are shifting, this is also basic astronomy. They take a long time to do it, but they are moving. The reason it takes so long is due to parallax effect. The distances between each star are in the trillions of miles, light years, moving at the rate they’re going compared to those distances, they’re not gonna appear to shift very quickly. Distance has a profound affect on perceived motion…that’s why a passenger jet in the sky, moving at 500 mph, appears to barely crawl across the sky. And that’s just at a few miles…what do you think trillions of miles would do?
If this subject truly interests you, then you shouldn’t ignore the Southern Hemisphere observations.
6
-
6
-
@yestervue4697 Ok, keeping on your moon topic, what happens when we plot the angles of the Moon in relation to the horizon on your FE map? https://youtu.be/dEa0q5MWEvM Oh, goodness...seems your map can’t even pinpoint the Moon. How exactly is the moon in so many places all at once? Oh ya...cause the Earth isn’t flat, that’s why. This data works perfectly on the Globe...doesn’t make a whole lotta sense on your model though.
The data used here is from time and date dot com, but I’m sure you can figure out how a sextant works, then get 2 or 3 friends from various spread out locations, to measure the angles of the Moon at the same time, from their location. Then just plot the data on both models, see which one it fits. Pretty simple observation to make, taking only a bit of prep and planning.
A similar experiment can be ran for the Sun as well. Here’s a group, consisting of people from all around the world, collecting data and observations for the Suns angles during the Equinox.
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=906
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The ignorance is all theirs…because every physicist and engineer in the world knows, that gravity is what directly causes buoyancy…it doesn’t occur without it. That’s why it’s included as a variable in the formula for determining buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Notice that little ‘g’ in the formula? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8m/s^2. Remove that variable, and engineers designing ballast tanks for ships and submarines are gonna have a real hard time doing their jobs.
So no…it’s them who are ignorant to a LOT of science….this is basic physics, thoroughly tested and proven in dozens of experiments concerning buoyancy. Buoyancy is not a fundamental force on its own, it’s part of a chain reaction of motion…that begins with gravity. While gravity occurs, regardless of the surrounding matter.
They’re just denying anything that’s not very convenient for their core arguments…that’s what’s really happening here. It’s just classic denialism, masked with pseudoscientific jargon. Gravity is a real problem for them, and they know it, so they make it go away by pretending it doesn’t exist. But jump off a building sometime…let us know if you think there’s no downward force putting your body in an accelerated motion towards the ground. :/
These are con men, not scientists…who SOMEHOW convinced some people that gravity doesn’t exist. What a world we live in…where strangers online, with zero credentials and zero scientific experience or training, and zero accomplishments, are considered the real experts now. Yikes…
No offence, but if you actually think they have any real scientific grounds, then I suggest you get a better bullshit filter…and maybe brush up on some actual physics.
6
-
6
-
None of that’s accurate at all. It’s not 60 cm…the radiation on average can barely penetrate 6 mm, at its highest 40 mm of aluminum. So not sure where you’re getting that figure of yours. The Van Allen Belt is harmful, but only for prolonged exposure…like several days. It’s a common misconception, but it’s really not as harmful as people assume, and by 1969 they were aware of how harmful it really was, which is not very. A lot of the radiation couldn’t even penetrate the hull, let alone the space suits as well. So they were fine.
They passed through in just a few hours. The first trek they passed through both inner and outer belts a total of 40 minutes, the second was around 60 minutes…so not even two hours of exposure. And as Daddy pointed out, they plotted a trajectory through the weakest portions, waiting to launch at a time when the belt was tilted to ecliptic, enough so they’d only enter a small fraction of it upon both coming and going.
So it was pretty simple…you’re blowing the facts way out of proportion.
6
-
@user-Rockstar1 My apologies, I thought you were asking about military laser targeting, I misread. Either way, that’s quite the claim, I don’t suppose you’d be willing to share this laser experiment to support your claim? I’ve seen none so far conducted from that distance, so feel free.
Lasers are a bit of a troubled topic however, most people really seem to assume that lasers stay perfectly tangent to starting location, but that’s actually not true, it’s a common misconception. Lasers shot within atmosphere will always be affected by both refraction (deflection causing it to bend) and diffraction (scattering). There is no way to overcome these atmospheric effects, it’s basic physics of light and lasers. So if you seen a perfect pinpoint laser hitting a target at 50 miles distance, then I’m afraid to tell you, but you’ve been conned. You’d probably have a good chance of seeing the light, as it’s bending due to refraction, scattering due to diffraction and skipping off the water layer, but hitting a target with the laser light still a pinpoint of light, no, I’d say you fell for some sleight of hand trickery. Wouldn’t be hard to fake, a closer laser that’s off camera, super simple trick to pull.
Here’s a simple demonstration of laser refraction https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=274. And laser diffraction https://youtu.be/ysSp7G5UWT0. The simple fact is, lasers within atmosphere will not remain perfectly tangent at distances, nor would they remain a pinpoint of light, it’s a common misconception that people believe they would.
This is why peer review is crucial in science, and replication of experiments as well. We do not settle scientific research on single observations or experiments, peer review must occur before any real conclusions can be made. So has the experiment you’re referring too been properly peer reviewed? My guess is no, because I’ve seen several, and none so far were submitted for any peer review process.
You should also be very careful with information you receive online. It’s not hard to lie and fake observations online. With no peer review system in place to check the work and make sure it’s accurate, then people are free to fabricate information all they like…and they will, you best believe that. The modern online world is a con artists paradise.
But again, feel free to share the experiment you’re referring too, I wouldn’t mind taking a look to be sure of the details. I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
6
-
6
-
It was meant more as a joke. The experiment is flawed, because it ignores gravity…so it’s an inconclusive experiment. You can’t determine Earth’s surface shape with a simple carpenters level, it doesn’t work that way. Gravity is what causes the buoyancy effect in the tube of liquid, it’s a device that is really determining centre of gravity, that’s its true function, and gravity vectors shift with your position on surface. So gravity renders the tool useless in this experiment.
He only conducted it as a gag, because Flat Earthers do it…and they actually believe it’s conclusive evidence. It really just points out their lack of understanding in basic physics. So it fits the theme of his video quite well, because he’s trying to determine why people come to believe the Earth is flat. That experiment they conduct reveals something in common many of them share…scientific illiteracy. They’re not necessarily stupid…just not very well educated in science and science practices.
With even a basic understanding in physics, a person can understand why that experiment is inconclusive and doesn’t really achieve anything…his point here is that some people can’t identify how it’s flawed right away (or at all in many Flat Earthers cases). That is part of the reason why they slip down the rabbit hole of Flat Earth, because they were ill equipped in scientific knowledge and understanding, enough to counter the claims being made.
Anyway, hope that helps.
6
-
6
-
No, paranoia and bias and lack of scientific literacy among the general public, allowed a few con men online to spread a hoax, exploiting people’s growing loss of trust in the system. Objective science has verified Earth to be a globe, many many times over, and that model is what’s currently used in every applied science today, from transportation, to communication, to engineering and infrastructure....with great success I’ll add, as I’m sure you’ve lived and experienced the modern world for awhile now. The fact that the model works in all these industries and applied sciences, is proof positive the main conclusion of a Globe is accurate. Stop letting huxters feed you bullshit science and come back to reality.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
That said, I’ll humour your challenge here.
1. Yup, this observation would not occur unless surface was curving https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk?si=WJXhsyMa3mWs6quU&t=222. No math is required here, just some simple reasoning…how exactly is this tower sinking into and under horizon (and below eye level), by hundreds of feet, if the surface isn’t curving? He zooms right up to the tower upon each observation, no amount of zooming in brings the bottom back.
2. The Apollo missions took hundreds of photos of Earth decades before CGI, photoshop, software or satellites capable of making composites with. They’re well archived, should be simple enough to find if you actually try. So how exactly did they fake those photos before the technology existed to do it? And if you do think they still faked them, can you demonstrate how they did it? Can you actually prove they did, or are you just assuming they did?
3. Well let’s actually look at the figures. It’s a curvature, so a plane would arc by degrees to compensate. Takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on Earth’s surface, a passenger jet flying at 500 mph covers that distance in roughly 8 minutes. Do you really think you’d notice a difference of 1 degree that takes 8 minutes to complete? Not likely. Do they compensate for this? Absolutely they do, pilots are constantly making tiny adjustments of pitch, yaw, and roll, all adding up to equal slight changes of position over time. It’s not a nose dive like you seem to think it would be though, Earth is massive compared to us, a change of 1 degree every 8 minutes is far too gradual of an angle shift over time, for any person to notice.
4. First of all, we are going back, look up the Artemis program sometime, the unmanned probe missions have already started, with manned missions happening within the next year or two. Secondly, funding was cut for further Moon projects, so nobody was developing and manufacturing new modules for deep space. Can’t exactly go into deep space unless you have a vehicle to take you…if nobody’s funding that production, then how exactly are we gonna go? 🤷♂️ You think space travel is easy or something? Can’t take the old the modules, they were decommissioned because they’re old and out dated…would you wanna go into space in a rusty broken down Model T? Probably not. Funding had to return before any further R&D and production could occur, but then every new system has to be tested and cleared for safety…we can’t just build a new ship without testing it first. The old ships were all analog systems which don’t break down in strong electromagnetic/radioactive fields, our modern computers however are a lot more susceptible to damage in that environment, so that presented an engineering hurtle…which was a little difficult to overcome if nobody is funding it.
NASA didn’t say we can never go back, only that we couldn’t at the time that interview had taken place. So you’re misinterpreting what was actually said. But that was then, now we are going back, very soon in fact.
It’s great that people are doing their own experiments and all…but that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily conducting these experiments without error. We have a system of peer review for a reason, because nobody is infallible, and confirmation bias is a real thing. Don’t be so quick to assume the conclusions of FE are without error.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@dick_richards Computers are pretty fast man...and it's just a parabolic arc equation...it's not like it's computing galaxy formation or sifting through quantum particle data...jesus. A good enough crew member with a simple calculator could figure out the drop rate of that projectile, without much effort. They've been doing it for centuries now, ever since they invented canons. Snipers do it in real time too. The fact of the matter is, projectiles IMMEDIATELY begin to drop the moment they leave the barrel of the weapon firing them AND they lose momentum which helps gravity more and more for every second they're in the air. It's forward momentum keeps it up for longer, but it will drop thanks to both gravity and air resistance...that's just basic physics. YOUR assumptions seem to ignore the drop rate of a projectile, as if it just fires straight forever...do you think it magically becomes free from gravity or air resistance somehow? Just because it's shot from an electromagnetic railgun and not a regular cannon, which is fired by kinetic energy. It's the same thing man...the fact that it's a railgun doesn't make it magically ignore gravity or air resistance.
But alright, feel free to share some calculations with me. This is not an aspect of the Flat Earth that I have run the numbers on yet, I just know the physics involved. I have however, done the math for curvature, many times....and have yet to find a legit claim from flat Earth that doesn't match globe Earth calculations. I'm not new to this discussion and I'm no slouch on the topic of physics, I've been looking at this mess for over 3 years now, I have yet to see a legit claim from Flat Earth that has stood up to review...they're always ignoring something.
6
-
@ralphricart3177 You people do not have a working model, so there’s really nothing to debate. 😅 Scientists and experts should never debate against potential con men, or crack pot ideologies that are objectively wrong. Because it just gives the wrong impression that these concepts have legitimacy, when they don’t, so we shouldn’t pretend they do. Also, It’s not Neil’s job to debate, that’s not what he does, he owes you people nothing, so why would he? It’s just a waste of his time and if the opponent is a con man, then he’s just giving him a wider audience to spread his bullshit. So Neil gains nothing, while the flattie gets all the attention they crave, plus free advertising on a major platform.
Whine all you want, they’re not going to debate an internet hoax that a few suckers fell for.
6
-
6
-
@ottom.3094 Ya, no, read the actual treaty…it says absolutely nothing about people not being allowed to go there. It is a demilitarization pact, the treaty states that no military is allowed on the continent…but anyone can go there, and hundreds of thousands of people do every year. You can even work there, don’t even to beca scientist. They have job postings for cooks, maintenance and cleaning staff, construction jobs, general labourers…the list goes on.
They chose that projection, probably for the same reason Flat Earthers chose it, because out of all the map projections of Earth, it’s the most pleasing to the eye, has the most symmetry. We’re creatures of habit, we’re all typically drawn to the same patterns and pleasing compositions. The AE projection also represents every nation of the world, without showing any favouritism, because the projection points starts in the North pole, which is an ocean. So it tics every box for a UN flag, it’s pleasing to the eye, has the most balanced symmetry, represents every nation, and starts from a neutral point.
Get a better bullshit filter…or at least learn what actually counts as evidence. You’re currently forming conclusions from pure speculation and misinformation.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@FLENTERTAINMENT1INC No, that’s not according to NASA, that’s according to the Flat Earthers who cherry picked from ONE technician, who was explaining how the 2002 Blue Marble composite of Earth was created. Composite images take many smaller photographs, taken from low Earth orbit satellites (100-400 miles distances) and stitch them together, this requires a photo editing software like photoshop. So only a composite image would require photoshop…and that’s all he was explaining. NASA is very transparent with their photos, they will always tell you when a photo is composite.
The part Flat Earthers conveniently leave out is that most photos from NASA are not composite; the very large majority are from geostationary weather satellites (roughly 25,000 miles distance), like Himawari, GOES, and DSCOVR, that they take a single frame photo of Earth, around the clock, every few minutes. So at this point, these satellites have taken probably millions of full photos of Earth, that are not composite and not photoshopped.
Aside from those photos, the Apollo missions took hundreds of photos of Earth, long before the days of CGI, photoshop, or even home computers. These photos are well archived, you could find them fairly easy with a search.
Then there’s the footage from the ISS, rocket launches, various probes…so there’s countless photos of Earth now, all showing a spherical Earth. So to say there isn’t…is just ignorant.
If you’re gonna claim they’re all fake, well that’s just an empty claim until you have some actual proof for the claim. And if that is your conclusion…then why bother asking for photos, or asking why they don’t take any? 🤷♂️ You don’t see that as a bit illogical? If you’ve already concluded they’re all just fake, then you already have your answer, and nothing anyone shows you will likely change your mind.
6
-
@FLENTERTAINMENT1INC Also, I think you might have misinterpreted what your friend and those pilots were actually saying. Of course maps are flat…a map by definition is 2 dimensional projection of a geographical surface. But the model that is used to make those PROJECTIONS, is the globe model. So they likely weren’t saying Earth is flat, only that maps are. Every pilot and sailor in the world uses the same geographic coordinate system, designed from the WGS84 globe model, feel free to look both those up sometime. Also look up what a projection map is…every flat map is merely a 2D interpretation of our globe Earth. These are facts, not opinions.
If you don’t believe me, then take a navigations course, or at the very least watch a navigation tutorial…would probably only take about an hour of your time. You learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth is in navigation…and why that knowledge is extremely important to have.
Fun fact, ancient sailors were actually some of the first people to realize the Earth was spherical. Look up the Greek geographer Ptolemy, he created the first spherical models for Earth nearly 2000 years ago. Sailors have used that information ever since….and it works, that’s when you know it’s accurate.
6
-
6
-
6
-
These people aren't interested in the truth...because you're absolutely right, if they were, they'd get off their asses, peel themselves away from their keyboards and actually go out into the world and make every effort to see what's actually true, remove their bias and look at the world objectively. But they don't, they look at things with a bias filter, only scratching the surface of things and then leaving it at that, seeking the information that supports their ideas and ignoring everything else. These people are exactly why peer review was added to the scientific method...because some people are deeply flawed, deeply bias in their reasoning, and aren't even aware of it.
You're right, if they really wanted to know the truth, they'd be making expeditions to Antarctica, they'd be going out to see if the 24 hour Sun is real or not, they'd go out to confirm if there really is military guarding the walls of this land mass. They'd be learning about world navigation and going out and talking to actual ship captains, pilots, rescue crew workers, military men and seeing how they actually do their jobs, maybe even planning expeditions with these people to see first hand how they do things. If they actually were serious about falsifying gravity, they would be conducting their research, do their own experimentation, collecting the data, compiling it into a thesis they could publish for review and then they would do just that...publish it for review.
These people are fucked though...they're not here for truth, they're here because they got tired of being labelled as the degenerates of society and so they found a way to fight back...by cranking their ignorance up to 11 and shouting at people on the internet, pretending that the institutions of science are all scams...while taking full advantage of the technological advances these "scams" have provided for everybody, including the very computers and internet they use to spread their bullshit claims against science. It's incredible.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Oh boy 🤦♂️...seriously, just stop and think about that for a few seconds longer than the FE guru you learned that from did. How exactly does density put matter into motion? How does it know which direction to always go? The air is thinner above...so why didn’t it fall up into the even less dense area? How exactly do we apply that explanation as well? Can you derive me new equations for things like calculating weight (W=mg), calculating buoyancy (Fb=Vpg), calculating a projectiles arc (sin(2θ)v2/g)? Notice the little ‘g’ in each one of those? That’s the acceleration of gravity; 9.8m/s^2. Take that variable away...you’ll have a pretty difficult time applying these formulas. The whole point of science is to deduce certainties of reality, measure phenomenon and understand how they work, so we can then APPLY that knowledge in applied sciences, like engineering. So...can you derive me new equations without gravity as a variable?
Density explains nothing...it is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it has no means of putting matter into motion. Falling is a motion...so density does very little to explain that motion. It’s PART of the physics, gravity physics already includes density and buoyancy...all Flat Earth is doing, is chopping out the bits it doesn’t like, anything that’s inconvenient for their core argument. It’s just plain ol’ denialism, for the sake of confirmation bias...it’s bullshit, to con scientifically illiterate suckers, like yourself.
6
-
No…the problem is some people not paying attention in school, and then reaching a great many erroneous conclusions, from misunderstandings that could have been avoided had they listened. 🤦♂️ It’s a common misconception, but theories never become laws in science, or vice versa…they are two different forms of a conclusion. One does not become the other, and neither is higher than the other. Laws describe WHAT is occurring, theories explain HOW and WHY they occur…that is their difference. Both are backed by facts and evidence, both are conclusions, but in a different form. Some concepts are both a law and a theory (gravity), others are just a law (thermodynamics, motion), others are just a theory (evolution). Theory does not imply it’s unproven, nothing graduates past hypothesis and into a theory until it has been thoroughly tested and reviewed. The same is true for laws of science…they’re considered equal in science.
Theories are not below laws, and they do not become laws…they are completely separate. Had you listened in any general science class growing up, you would have learned this…but unfortunately a lot of people didn’t it seems, because this misconception is quite common…unfortunately.
Tough to take the rest of your comment seriously, when you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding in the basic terminology of science.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@TheOricine I’ve reviewed many long distance observations from flat Earthers making many claims, in each, they always make at least one of these three errors. 1) using the wrong math, and never bothering to check it for accuracy (8inches per mile squared being the worst offender, but there are others); 2) Getting the details wrong or straight up lying about them (observation heights, distances, misidentifying the objects being observed, etc.); 3) ignoring important variables such as height of observer or refraction...in many cases, not even understanding why they’re important.
If I were to give a fourth error, never considering the possibility that they made an error...which is why their figures aren’t working.
I’m not new to this discussion, so you can save me the rhetoric of “research it yourself”, been doing that for years now, so far, every claim has been falsified or inconclusive. You’ve made a claim, I’m here to review it. I always offer a fair objective review of an observation, but I need details before I could even begin. Your claim is lacking information, so it’s barely a start towards what you’d need to provide, to even begin claiming it as a conclusive observation of no curvature. Peer review is an important step in the process of science, so I’m offering that review. So feel free.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Motion does not occur without a force to cause it, physics 101. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is. Okay…then force confirmed, it’s really that simple. What does science tend to do when it identifies a force or phenomenon of nature? They name it…so everyone is on the same page when discussing it, they called that downward motion gravity. They did the same for the upward motion, called it buoyancy force. Mass is not a force, it’s just a property of matter…it’s already defined in physics, it has its place already, it does not cause motion, it’s just a scaler variable.
Flat Earthers are a sad group of scientifically illiterate people. If you just understood the basics of physics, you wouldn’t fall into this mess. 🤦♂️
6
-
Train tracks are parallel as well, but appear to converge if you look directly down the track. I’d say Perspective is what causes Crepuscular rays, it’s an optical illusion. Ever seen light shine through trees? Can look like the Sun is directly behind the trees at times, but we all know it’s not actually…perspective is just a tricky bugger sometimes.
The Moon is not actually perfectly the same size as the Sun, during Annular eclipses, it appears smaller by a noticeable degree. That’s what Flookd was pointing out; the angular size (the apparent size of an object due to perspective) of the Moon is slightly similar to the Sun, it’s not exactly the same angular size. And coincidences do occur, it’s just probability, so science should never throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a coincidence. We may even learn someday (or maybe we already have), that it’s not actually a coincidence at all.
I think you’re perhaps misinterpreting that quote. Of course it would be easier to explain the non existence of something…if we didn’t have a Moon, what reason would we have to explain it? 🤷♂️ We typically do more work to explain the things that exist, than we do things that don’t. Also, just because something is difficult to explain, doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Seems you really don’t like coincidences. That’s fine really, in deductive reasoning coincidences do typically mean somethings not right, but the law of probability does exist, so I wouldn’t let that bias lead you too much.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
No, that’s a real conman working his scam on people. Eric Dubay is good at selling half truths, spinning actual science and history, with a few cleverly placed lies here and there, to help convince people he’s onto something. For example, roughly one minute in and he makes the claim that buoyancy (more specifically Archimedes principal) and gravity, are treated as different in science, that they’re not taught together in physics, acting as if buoyancy isn’t even taught in physics….and that’s not true at all. It’s well known in physics that gravity is the direct cause of buoyancy, you do not have buoyancy effect without gravity. That’s what every scientist, engineer and expert agrees upon, thanks to the heaps of evidence that points to that conclusion. Plenty of experiments verify this, from density columns put in zero g environments, to vacuum chamber experiments negating buoyant effect, to the simple push pull demonstration with balloons of varying gases, showing how motion and fluid density together are what cause them to travel upwards. Motion like the downward acceleration of gravity.
So that’s what is taught in every physics class today, that buoyancy and gravity are basically the same force, they’re directly linked. It’s even in the math for buoyancy force. Here’s the equation for calculating an objects buoyancy in a medium; Fb=Vpg. That translates too, fluid volume, times fluid density, times downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2), equals buoyancy force. Without gravity, that equation is useless…because gravity causes the displacement of matter by density, which causes buoyancy. Gravity is the start of density displacement, without it, matter has no clue which way to begin orientating itself and ordering by density.
That equation I shared above, is the actual equation REAL engineers and experts use when designing the ballast tanks for ships, submarines, basically any kind of sea vessel/submersible. That’s the equation REAL ship and docking crews use, when determining how much weight a vessel can hold, before it’s buoyancy force becomes overwhelmed and it capsizes.
Does Dubay design ballast tanks for sea vessels? Does he have any experiencing loading a cargo ship to capacity without capsizing it?
Eric Dubay PRETENDS to know science better than actual experts…but you know how you know for certain when you someone is preaching pseudoscience? When they have NOTHING to show for all that “superior” scientific understanding. Real science is actually useful…junk science is not, it’s that simple.
You just go ahead and let me know how many WORKING inventions and engineering patents are under Eric Dubay’s belt. Until then…it’s very safe to assume he’s a modern day snake oil seller.
Learn some real physics…stop falling for the lies of conmen online.
5
-
@yestervue4697 Exactly, it doesn’t, you’re stawmanning the argument. I didn’t say the Sun shrinks, in reality it doesn’t...that’s the problem. On your model it would be much closer and smaller, so at 2k miles, it should appear to shrink in apparent size. YOU’RE claiming a sunset occurs because of vanishing point...but for that too occur, it would have to begin shrinking long before it reached horizon, which would be easily noticeable. Vanishing point causes a convergence from EVERY angle towards centre...it doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first, doesn’t work that way. And vanishing point is a complete convergence...which is what causes the vanishing effect. There would be no dropping into horizon. If what you’re saying were true, it would begin shrinking long before reaching horizon and then vanish completely before meeting...but as the model I shared shows as well, it wouldn’t even come close to horizon, if we assume the model most widely accepted by FE, the AE model.
Here’s the facts, we do not observe a Sun shrinking into a vanishing point, we observe it being blocked, bottom first. Perspective converges towards centre of object, shrinking it equally, before reaching vanishing point. So it’s not perspective causing a sunset, because that explanation doesn’t match with what we observe in reality. That’s reality...modelling the geometry and scales for both models, demonstrates that the Globe matches with what we observe in reality. Everything from the apparent size, to the path it takes through the sky, to the rate at which it travels, to the simplest observation of it being blocked by horizon...which would not occur on your model, if you were to actually model it.
So you can’t just slot in “vanishing point due to perspective”, then call your work done...fraid it doesn’t work that way. That is what’s known as an ad hoc response, slotting in an explanation, without ever testing or confirming it.
But I’ll give you a chance...what evidence do you have, to confirm your hypothesis for vanishing point? Go ahead...I’ll wait. Provide me some real world data and experimentation. I will then do the same for our model.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@billnyethesciencedenier1516 “If I dive into a pool with a basketball and let the ball go when I’m at the bottom, the ball will move upward until it gets to the top of the water.”
Ya, buoyancy force is a thing…but why didn’t it keep going up? You claim there has to be a physical barrier to act as containment, yet there’s no physical container present in your example. There’s nothing between the top of the water, and the bottom of atmosphere. Sooooo…you basically just proved our point with your example, that forces are more than enough to contain matter, no physical container required.
“Why didn’t gravity hold the ball down?”
It did…it’s not shooting up through atmosphere is it? No, it sits on the water, held down by gravity. Buoyancy force is why it went upwards in the water, and buoyancy is actually caused by gravity…that’s physics 101. Without gravity, buoyancy does not occur, proven in countless zero G drop tests. That’s why gravity is included as a variable in the equation for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. See that little ‘g’ there? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity. Without that motion, buoyancy does not occur. Buoyancy is not actually a force on its own, it is actually the end result of a chain reaction of events, that starts with gravity.
Here, I’ll give you the physics lesson you should have learned a long time ago. It works like this; all matter has mass, the more mass something has the more inertia it has. Inertia is basically just how resistant something is to being moved, more inertia something has means more energy required to move it, and vice versa. Meaning if there’s an object of greater mass (with more inertia) occupying a space, then an object of less mass will not be able to occupy that position, it is pushed away by the inertial forces of the molecules of that object. So now picture a 3 dimensional system of zero motion, with a bunch of mixed matter of various masses inside that space. Without any forces to cause them to be put into motion in any particular direction, what happens? Nothing, they just sit there, a mixed system of various molecules, no ordering by density, just a chaotic mixed system. But now let’s introduce a force into that system, that attracts all matter equally, and will put all matter into motion in a specific vector direction, now what happens? Well, the molecules of greater mass and density will occupy lowest potential energy state first, closest to the source of this attraction, and since less dense matter can not occupy that same space, guess what happens…it’s pushed out of its way, in the opposite direction of the attracting force. We observe that as buoyancy. It will continue to be pushed away from the attracting force, by more dense matter, until it reaches a point where it has the dominant mass and the most inertia.
That’s buoyancy force in a nutshell…it actually requires gravity for it to occur.
That is what is understood by every engineer and scientist today. Buoyancy force is caused by gravity. You people need to seriously take a physics class…you’re just demonstrating your own scientific illiteracy. Catch up please…for all our sakes.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The Saros cycle is based off of recorded observation, paying close attention to the patterns, refining the system slowly over a few centuries of continuous observation. Our solar system is pretty constant in all its motions, so it’s going to behave almost like clock work for that reason, really wouldn’t take much to pay attention, and log the patterns and create a rough timeline for future celestial events.
What the Saros cycle can not do however, is tell you an EXACT time down to the second, and the EXACT location of shadows totality, down to the square mile. Using Earth’s known geometry and scale and all its known motions through our solar system in careful calculations, can however predict every future eclipse, with incredible accuracy, down to the last detail. That’s not just a coincidence, it’s for a good reason...because Earth is a sphere and it’s in orbit around our Sun.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
You’re talking about the Saros cycle of eclipses, which is just a pattern of ecliptic events resetting roughly every 18 years, but little known fact, it doesn’t happen in the same locations every 18 years, it shifts to a new location, takes more like 75 years to circle back to a similar location from prior events. But ya, surprise surprise, with all the geometry and motions involved remaining constant, of course you’d expect patterns to repeat…what you’ve said does not invalidate the Globe model in anyway, it’s just a red herring.
Fact still remains that you can use the globe model to calculate and predict these events, down to the second and square mile…can’t say the same for the Flat Earth models. Gee, I wonder why. 🙄 The Saros cycle isn’t a mathematical prediction, it doesn’t use any geometry or formulas…it’s just paying attention to patterns and then recording them, until you have every event catalogued. Would only take a couple hundred years for any culture to track and record these patterns….humans are pretty good at spotting patterns. One century to record them all, another to confirm them…no math involved.
You’re also being pretty ignorant and selective aren’t you…paying attention to the Selenelion eclipse, but then completely ignoring things like the Southern rotation of stars. Seems rather biased, don’t you think? Fact is the Globe model can account for a Selenelion eclipse, while the Flat Earth still has no valid answers for the entire Souther Hemisphere and many observations made there. So why would you prefer to cling to a bottom of the barrel phenomenon, that the Globe model does account for, over a model that can’t even explain why there’s a second rotation of stars in the South? You really think the FE model is perfect? If so, then you’re not being very honest with yourself.
Isn’t it odd to you that Selenelion lunar eclipses only occur at terminator lines of night and day? Or that they only occur in locations where humidity is high and so standard refraction index is higher? Pretty odd that they do seem to correlate with refraction index, don’t you think? You also can’t predict Selenelion eclipses with much accuracy, best you can do is give locations where it’s plausible it could occur and be seen.
So I think you’re being quite intentionally ignorant and biased. Eclipses make perfect sense on a globe and that geometry can mathematically predict them, far better than the Saros cycle can. You’re really just fooling yourself.
5
-
5
-
@dubrulphilippe3815 Water is inert, and conforms to whatever forces are acting upon it, including gravity. Gravity creates a field of force around a centre of attraction, this forms all matter into a sphere around that centre, holding liquid at equipotential distance, from centre. A bubble is another example of a liquid surface held at equipotential distance, if you’re wondering what that term means. It basically just means a sphere created by a force.
Look up the Lake Pontchartrain power lines sometime, pretty clear observation of Earth curvature and water curving with it.
Also do a search of the Turning Torso Tower observations sometime, you should easily find an image (or even the video) depicting a tall tower being viewed from various distances across a body of water. As the observer gets further away, the tower clearly drops more and more, by hundreds of feet, below horizon and below the observers eye level. You can physically see it’s dropping, because the tower has very clear sections, each are roughly 20 meters in height…you can count them disappearing. The observer uses a telescopic zoom lens, he zooms right up to the tower on each observation, no amount of zooming brings the bottom of the tower back into view.
So that begs the question, if Earth isn’t curving, then why is that tower dropping behind horizon and below eye level, by hundreds of feet? 🤷♂️ Look it up sometime, it’s a great observation of Earth curvature, one of many I could share.
For me though, navigation is the best evidence against Flat Earth. Do you honestly believe millions of pilots and sailors could successfully navigate the surface every day, with pinpoint precision, without knowing for certain the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating? 🧐 If you honestly think that’s possible…then you might need a bit of a slap upside the head. No offence.
5
-
It’s a good question, so I don’t mind answering. It’s just the limitations of photography really, a camera sets an exposure rate for an image (or a photographer does it manually), the trouble is that when you take a picture of the Earth from space, you have to lower exposure so that the image renders clear. If a camera or photographer didn’t adjust the exposure lower, then the final image would just be a white blur, which kinda makes it pointless, you want to have the clearest image possible. So they lower exposure to capture an image of Earth with all its features. Exposure basically just limits the amount of light coming into the shutter and onto the film. But the stars are not as bright as the Earth from space, so when exposure is lowered, anything not bright enough to make it onto the film won’t be seen. So, since the stars are not very bright, their light doesn’t make it onto the exposure. Hence why you won’t see them in most photos of Earth.
But you should look up the photos taken of Earth while on the night side of the planet. These photos require a higher exposure, so you’ll see lots of stars in those photos. Just look up the ISS videos taken during their night pass. You can find them on YouTube, the exposure is increased in these images, allowing a lot more light into the shutter.
Your eyes kind of work the same way, I’m sure you’ve noticed when you spend a good while in the dark, your eyes adjust to allow more light in, giving you a sort of weak night vision. Cameras work very similar to your eyes, they adjust for light.
Anyway, let me know if that helps. Do some further research on camera exposure and light settings to learn more.
5
-
Refraction is a very well known and understood concept in physics, and it absolutely does effect what we see at distances, while making observations through our atmosphere. Simple demonstration for you here https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. So it's a variable that is well known in science, not outside the precepts of scientific knowledge at all. So it can not be ignored in these observations, it must be included as a variable. Science must factor every known variable, it can not ignore important variables, or it will reach a false conclusion. It's that simple.
Rowbotham did not include this and many other variables in his experiment. In fact his experiment was very sloppy, making only one observation, using only one marker, collecting only one data set, using the wrong math that skipped variables important to the observation...so his version is deemed inconclusive and his conclusion is biased.
Upon all peer review and recreation of this experiment, it is found to fit in support of the globe. Here you can find a link to one of the more recent recreations that I am aware of https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. The report has a whole section on refraction. This is exactly why we conduct peer review in science, to weed out errors due to things such as bias.
Johnny may have only briefly touched on the topic, that's true, but he was not wrong. Rowbotham's experiment upon review was indeed found to be in error, likely due to his extreme biased position on the subject. He ignored important variables, and basically only looked long enough to confirm his bias, then he stopped looking, stopped experimenting. That's not how you conduct a proper experiment, it takes a lot more work and effort than that, to reach anything conclusive.
5
-
5
-
5
-
1. Okay, well you do realize that statement applies to you as well then, right? 🧐
2. Lol…then you follow it up with something YOU think you know…maybe you should take your own advise. The comedy writes itself. 😄
3. Alright, let’s do that…but let’s a go a bit beyond the arguments from ignorance and red herrings you’re expecting us to agree too without question.
a) Space isn’t a vacuum in the sense that it sucks on our atmosphere, it’s a vacuum as in “a space entirely void of matter”, that’s all, it’s just an empty space. You’re trying really hard to make it sound as if it’s something that should be pulling on our atmosphere, but that’s pretty ignorant. And our oceans aren’t in a vacuum…the pressure at surface is 14.7 psi, soooo…not gonna boil….you’re acting like the vacuum of space is directly next to our oceans, but even you know that’s not true. So you’re making an extremely bad red herring argument…just cause our atmosphere is thin relative to the planet itself, doesn’t change the fact that there is a measurable pressure difference from surface to the Karman line…so that’s why our ocean doesn’t boil, it’s resides in a 14.7 psi environment, not vacuum. Thin atmosphere though it may be…it still has pressure.
If you think our atmosphere shouldn’t exist…well then you’re ignoring gravity and the effect it has on all matter with mass. Gases are not free from gravity. You know even Flat Earthers have verified the vacuum of space, have you ever seen the footage from the many high altitude weather balloons they’ve sent up themselves? If you watch this footage, you’ll notice the balloons always eventually pop…as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flatties have detected the vacuum that exists above us, but you know what they’ve never found? A container.
b) 1000 mph is a linear velocity, which has basically nothing to do with centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is causes by the acceleration of a rotational velocity, so what matters here is the angular velocity change per second, which is best understood with the proper rotational units, like revolutions per minute (rpm’s). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, that’s roughly 0.000694 rpm’s, exactly 2 times slower than the hour hand of a clock. Would you expect the hour hand of your clock to have a lot of centrifugal force? 🧐 Probably not…so why would you assume our surface should? 🤷♂️
This argument stems from a deep misunderstanding of centripetal forces…I get that you think you know everything that everyone does, but these arguments you’re making here clearly demonstrate that you actually don’t, and that’s the problem. Maybe refer back to your very first point…the irony here is palpable. 😅
c) Distance has a profound effect on perceived motion…it’s called the parallax effect. It’s why a passenger jet appears to an observer on the ground as if it’s barely crawling across the sky, even though it’s moving at about 500mph…and that’s just 3-5 miles distance from an observer, what do you think trillions of miles away would do? 🧐 Now, of course that doesn’t prove those distances…but it does however falsify your argument against them.
Consider for a moment how celestial navigation actually works…have you ever bothered to learn? Celestial navigation is only possible because we know the Earth’s shape…without that knowledge, it becomes pretty useless to measure an angle to Polaris, to triangulate our position…you kind of need to have an accurate model of your surface geometry, before you can triangulate a position on any map that uses that geometry…pretty common sense. The lines of latitude used in the modern geographic coordinate system, are determined by the 1 degree drop of Polaris to horizon, every 60 nautical miles travelling directly South. That consistent drop is something we’d only expect measure…with a consistently curving surface. Your a math teacher (or so you claim)…I’m sure you understand how the angles of a triangle work. If Earth was flat, then celestial navigation would use a right angle triangle from North pole, and the interior angles would be your navigation angles (your latitudes). When does the interior angle of a triangle ever reach 0 degrees? Oh that’s right…never. Polaris is known to reach 0 degrees at the Equator…can’t happen if Earth’s surface is flat. And then a completely new set of stars rise up in the South…at the same 1 degree every 60 nautical miles…exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe.
Funny how flatties never go into the actual details of celestial navigation, they conveniently leave out the part about how surface geometry plays a huge role, in making navigation possible in the first place. :/
My fortune cookie once said I’d make a new friend, and then I did…so I guess fortune cookies are just as mystical and powerful at predicting the future as the Bible is? 🧐 Nope…they just keep the predictions vague and general, then the reader fills in the rest. It’s how religious texts do it too…they’re nit really predicting anything, they’re just playing off of humans tendency to find patterns and connect dots, patterns that often aren’t really there.
There’s a very good reason we scoff at the deeply religious…and your arguments above are an example of the reasons.
5
-
5
-
This assumes the word level only means "a flat plane", but words in the English language have many different meanings given the context. When used in topography, level is defined as "being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : EQUIPOTENTIAL" Equipotential means basically, maintaining an equal distance from center, for example the surface of a spherical bubble is an equipotential surface, a surface that is all equal distance from a center point, which creates a sphere. You'll find that definition here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level in the third entry as an adjective, definition 5.
So no, it's not as simple as just concluding "well sea is level, level means flat...so Earth is flat". Words have many different definitions, in topography and geometry, level takes on a completely different meaning and that's the definition they use for sea level.
Hope that helps answer your question.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@yestervue4697 Well, you’re sure making a lot of guesses and empty claims and then expecting us to agree without question...so that’s a bit hypocritical I’d say. Science was very wise to file its conclusions under theory, because they know the true nature of information gathering is not simple in the slightest. We do not know everything, we likely never will, and new data/information always has the potential to change old data/information. That’s the reality of our situation, for this reason it becomes very difficult to reach definite conclusions on anything, so science chose not to think and operate in absolutes, it chose to operate in percentages of certainty. The theory with the most evidence, that has not been falsified, and that does not contradict any other part of the theory, goes on to become the accepted conclusion. We’re all free to challenge these conclusions...but science does not just roll over and accept blind claims made, you will have to go to great effort to falsify their conclusions. That’s just the way it is.
I can tell ya now...comments on a YouTube thread...aren’t going to make any dents in established science. But, it is a good and fun exorcise, so not entirely a waste of time.
Let me see if I got this clear, you’re claiming the force that attracts us to the surface is electromagnetism? Ok...do you have any experiments, data or information you can share that verifies this claim? Feel free to share the information that helped lead you to that conclusion, I don’t mind taking a look...but we’re not just going to agree blindly to every flattie that comes shouting at us. You want a conversation, you have to cool your jets and treat us as people and don’t insult our intelligence, you might find we’ll return that sentiment in kind, then you might actually get yourself a good civil conversation, where you can get your perspective across.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@scotthadley92 Yes, I’ve seen the 200 proofs from Eric Dubay. But I have to disagree with you on there being any good points. Maybe it’s because I’ve had a life long interest in science, and so I’ve acquired a lot of general science and mathematics knowledge over the years before seeing his “proofs”, but I was stunned to learn people couldn’t see the 200 proofs for what it actually is…gish gallop. If you’re not familiar with the term, it’s a tactic used in arguments and in debate, that’s pretty common in general argument but that is greatly frowned upon in actual debates, because it’s a cheap dishonest tactic.
Basically, it’s just dumping a number of weaker arguments on a person in rapid fire. It does two things, makes it very difficult to address each point one at a time, basically overloading a person’s capacity to really think on each point, and it makes the core argument appear more impressive, by the sheer quantity of points made, but it’s essentially quantity over quality. Debates do not allow this tactic, it’s recognized and stopped immediately in a moderated debate, but it’s pretty common in regular arguments, I’m sure you’ve even used it before without realizing, it’s quite effective. But it’s cheap, because if each point were allowed the time to be addressed one at a time, they’d be revealed for how weak they really are. Dumping them all together, is what fools people into thinking they’re stronger arguments.
So if he’s willing to use a deceitful tactic like gish gallop to sell his argument, then that should be a red flag for people I feel. If they really had a strong position, they wouldn’t need to resort to deceitful tactics, and it’s not just Dubay, they all do it, you’ll find lots of conspiracy docs are hours long, dumping tons of information all at once, it’s pretty common. That’s by design I feel.
Anyway, just always remember to slow your roll and question each point made one at a time. It takes longer, but it’s worth the effort to find out whether they’re really sound arguments, or just empty claims and dribble. Many have already done this, and they’re not all that difficult to find online, so worth checking out I’d say.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well, Polaris actually does shift by a few arc seconds throughout a single year, but you'd have a hard time measuring that with a pipe, but I digress. Parallax is the reason why Polaris does not appear to shift from our axis, so you should learn more about it.
I'm curious though, what exactly is so scary about an infinite universe? I don't feel small or insignificant, I'm amazed every day by the power and beauty of it all, I'm happy to be here. To me, that makes God far more impressive, having created something so extremely vast and seemingly infinite, and the endless potential of what we can achieve in this never ending sandbox excites me. Do you really want God doing everything for you? Or wouldn't you prefer achieving things on your own? If I were a God, I'd respect my creations a lot more, if they stood on their own, conquering every challenge put before them despite how incredibly impossible the odds were against them.
But, that's all wishful thinking, it's not an argument. What we want should never factor into scientific inquiry, it's irrelevant. Science has never set out with any intention to destroy the concept of a God, nor could it, so ya'll need to relax. It's just a tool like any other, it has about as much agenda as a hammer does. It's just a method of thought used to deduce the inner workings of how physical reality operates, and we've been doing science, ever since we figured out how to make fires, or widdled spears for hunting, or made clothes from furs to stay warmer...it's part of who we are. Science doesn't really care what shape the Earth turns out to be, it just needs to accurate in its conclusions. To do that, we can't follow what we want to be true, we have to remain objective, or else we achieve nothing....it's really that simple.
Can't do anything with false information, so I'm sorry if you think the universe is smaller, but the evidence says otherwise, so tough titty.
5
-
5
-
@Ty-Leo We’ve read these documents too, and we recognize what they are…mathematical simplification models. Even if you disagree, which I’m sure you do, can a conversation ever be had, where you actually listen and consider what we’re trying to explain here? Have you really considered what we’re saying, or is consideration not even an option?
One last question, has David Weiss, or anyone of FE, tried tracking down the publisher’s of these reports, to ask them directly what these papers are saying? Has he or anyone ever asked an actual mathematician what’s actually being said in these reports? If not, then that should be pretty suspect…cause if you’re really not just chasing confirmation bias, then you should demonstrate that by doing everything you can to challenge and check any conjectures or speculations you might be making.
5
-
@vohannes “Explain a balloon filled with helium rising against a force (gravity) that holds millions of tons of water to a 1000 mile per hour spinning ball.”
Lots to unpack here, this question covers several different misunderstood concepts of physics you’re having, I count at least 3, so I’ll tackle them in order as quick as I can.
Helium rises in atmosphere due to buoyancy, the same force that displaces oxygen in water causing bubbles to rise. Helium is less dense than the surrounding air, so it is displaced by the denser oxygen and forced upward. Buoyancy is an apparent force (meaning not technically a real force) that is directly dependent on the downward accelerating force of gravity. Take away gravity and buoyancy can not occur, proven time and again in simple density collumns put in zero G environments. https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=181
So helium actually does not rise in a vacuum, it drops. See, what’s happening is the downward force of gravity is what begins the displacement of matter by density, telling all matter which direction to fall and begin ordering by their density. Helium is a very light gas by density, so it can’t occupy the same column of density as heavier gases like oxygen or C02, so these heavier gases force helium upwards. Remove all other gases though (in a vacuum chamber), and helium actually drops, just like everything does. Helium isn’t visible to your naked eye, so the best way for you or anyone to test this is with another gas we know that commonly rises, that we can easily see, smoke. Here’s a common experiment done in many entry level physics classes, observing smoke in a vacuum chamber. https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=139 Notice how the smoke almost immediately falls to the bottom of the chamber, after the kinetic energy is spent that shot it up. Instead of the smoke rising (due to buoyancy) like we’re normally used too, remove the air and buoyancy can no longer occur, so it drops....just like all matter does on Earth due to gravity.
So it’s fine to have questions...but why does flat Earth just immediately assume there is no answer for their questions? You’re misunderstanding of helium and how it rises, begins with your lack of understanding of basic physics. Gravity is actually what helps cause helium to rise. It’s even quantified, the formula for buoyancy force requires gravity. Here’s the formula for buoyancy Fb=—pgV. Fb is buoyancy force, p is the density, V is the volume and notice the little g there? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8m/s^2. You can’t have buoyancy, without gravity, so helium rises due to gravity.
Basic physics, though I understand that it’s not common knowledge...but still, I don’t feel that’s an adequate excuse living in the information age, where this knowledge is just a few key strokes away, with simple experiments and equations that help to verify the conclusions.
Now, I get that flat Earth thinks they’ve answered for gravity by saying it’s just density and buoyancy, but all they’ve really done is taken the already established law of gravity, and removed the parts they don’t like. Namely the parts that describe the downward acceleration...so their explanation is basically just gravity, but denying that all things fall consistently in the same direction (toward surface) and at the same rate (9.8m/s^2). You know...the useful information described in both the law and the theory of gravity...that has practical use in actual formulas, used in actual applied sciences like engineering.
Anyway, so that’s one misconception down, hope it helps you a bit to understand buoyancy better. But like I said your question falls under many concepts of physics, so I’ll provide a bit more insight for you in another comment.
5
-
@vohannes So the last part of your question is a misunderstanding of the physics of motion, namely rotational motion. I won’t go into the physics of motion to much, though you should learn the laws of motion and relative motion to better understand this, but I’ll just focus on Centripetal force here.
1000 miles per hour is a linear velocity, we do not measure rotations in linear rates, it’s much easier to understand it in rotational velocity, or revolutions per minute (RPM’s), because this has the larger impact. Basically, you’re focusing on the wrong figure here, the linear speed doesn’t have as much to do with Centripetal force increase, as the rate of rotation does. Basic rule of thumb, the more revolutions per minute, the higher the Centripetal force (or Centrifugal force if you prefer).
Here’s a simple thought experiment to help you understand this better. Imagine yourself driving in a race car at 200 mph, going around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 meters in circumference. Would you expect there to be a lot of Centrifugal force in this example? Obviously yes, in fact the driver would probably have a heck of a time staying on the track, his body sucked to the door under all the Centrifugal force. Ok, now let’s make one change, let’s increase the size of the perfect circle track to 1000 miles, now going at the same 200 mph speed, would you expect the driver to experience the same Centrifugal force? Nope, not even close, in this example the driver likely wouldn’t notice any force at all, the track would probably feel almost like a straight highway with no turn at all. But hold on...the speed was the same, so why the decrease in force?
So what does this simple thought experiment teach us? That linear velocity itself has very little to do with what causes and increases Centripetal force, it’s the rate of rotation that matters most, because the rate of rotation is what has the larger impact on the rate of angular velocity change per second. The first car was making more complete circuits in a single minute, while the second car would only complete a single rotation every 5 hours...that’s all that changed, the revolutions per minute (RPM’s).
Now that we understand that, let’s look at the Earth rotation. What’s its RPM’s? Well, as we all know, a full day takes 24 hours. So that’s ONE complete rotation every 24 hours...which is an even slower rate of rotation than our second race track example above. So knowing this...why would you assume our Earth would create ANY noticeable Centrifugal force? It’s because you heard the larger figure (1000 mph), then put no further thought into it...you just jumped straight to your assumed conclusion, that this linear velocity would create a lot of force...your assumption is made worse in that you think it was also creating more force than the force of gravity on Earth. All just assumptions. If you understood the physics better, you’d recognize immediately where flat Earth is going wrong. There’s even more to it, but that’s the basics.
Truth is, Earths rotation does not generate enough centrifugal force to trump gravity, it doesn’t even generate enough for us to feel it. But it does generate some actually and that force is actually greatest at the Equator. Which is why you and everything actually weigh slightly less at the Equator, because there is more centrifugal force negating a little bit more gravity than anywhere else, which is actually a great proof of Earths rotation btw, because you can actually measure this yourself. Here’s a great experiment that you or anyone can repeat, that helps to verify this phenomenon https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
So your question is a very layered cake, but yes, science has accounted for every problem you’re having. These are good questions in all seriousness...the problem is that flat Earth thinks these questions are unanswered, because they assumed they can’t be answered. In reality, these are very old questions that science answered hundreds of years ago now...the trouble is that many flat Earthers seem to really have a hard time understanding the science, forming a lot of misconceptions and false conclusions. Form enough of these misunderstandings...you start to think the model isn’t accurate, instead of considering the other very real possibility, that maybe it’s YOU who is in error.
There is a bit more to your question, but that’s already a lot of explanation as it is, so I’ll leave it there. I’m sure it’s done very little to help you, as I’m sure at this point you’re not really interested in being persuaded anymore, you’ve probably made up your mind...but just know there are very valid reasons why many of us do not bat an eye at flat Earth claims, because we understand where they’ve gone wrong and we’re not just going to ignore that.
5
-
5
-
You’d think so, but the problem is that conmen are constantly trying to bait the scientific community into debates, because they know it would do more for them in the form of free marketing, than it would benefit the scientists to address nonsense. The reality of debates is that you can actually win them, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a better talker/bullshitter…which conmen typically are. Most people don’t really care about all the boring little details that led to a conclusion, they typically just care about the conclusion, so a quick witted conman can easily fool an audience, just by dazzling them claim after claim, in an entertaining presentation.
So…it’s actually better to just ignore the trap set by conmen, and instead just let them fizzle out on their own. Giving them a platform just gives them an audience, which just helps them spread their bullshit, and it sends the wrong impression that their positions have legitimacy to begin with. The scientific community typically ignores quacks and conmen for this reason, and they’re actual pretty wise to do so.
5
-
5
-
Well what observation in particular are you referring too? Do you have a video of this penny at the end of the hall observation, so it could be analyzed closer? Could be anything from a less than level floor, an out of focus lens, or centre of camera was placed slightly below the floor and not level with it, etc, etc. Lots of variables to consider, so why would you expect any scientist to just believe you at your word, without being able to analyze the observation that convinced you? 🧐
As for your “zooming in on cities upside down” argument. I think you have an extremely poor understanding of how telescopes work and what they’re designed for and what they’re actually capable of. You’ve seen too many spy movies, a satellite in LEO can really only view straight down to surface, they’re seeing through far less atmosphere that way. Angle that camera to their horizon, and they’re now looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere…it won’t be able to see through it even if they were designed to magnify that far, which they’re not.
People seem to have this misunderstanding that every satellite is equipped with a powerful telescopic lens, that can zoom right into an ant on the surface if it wanted too. This is an extreme misconception. Telescopes in space like the Hubble or the James Web, aren’t zooming in on ants…they’re observing galaxies that are millions of light years across….it’s a big difference. And most satellites are not the Hubble, they’re pretty basic by comparison, they’re cameras have limits. In fact most extreme close ups of cities you see sometimes in media, aren’t taken from satellites, they’re taken from aircraft, flying just a few miles off surface.
In any case…even if NASA or any space agency could get you this picture you want…you’d just say it’s fake anyway, so why even bother? 🤷♂️ Pretty pointless bothering with a group of people who just say everything is fake, without any evidence for that conclusion. They have millions of photos of Earth from space…that’s not good enough for you? 🧐
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
1) The original Bedford Level experiment conducted by Samual Robotham was deemed inconclusive by peer review. It was a sloppy experiment, with no controls, that took only 1 data entry using only one marker, used the wrong mathematical formulas, and ignored important variables like height of observer and atmospheric refraction. It was a mess, he basically just designed an experiment to confirm his bias, looking only long enough to get the result he wanted, then called it a day. It actually stands today as a perfect example of confirmation bias in action, it’s why peer review is so important to the scientific method, because people do make errors, nobody is infallible. Upon all proper recreation of this experiment, it was actually found to verify Earth curvature, not falsify it. The most recent in-depth recreation I’m aware of today, is the Rainy Lake experiment, you should give it a look sometime.
2) The human eye has a limit to its angular resolution, it’s called the vanishing point in art fundamentals, but we see everything by light coming into the lens of our eye, and light has no known limit to how far it travels. As far as we’re aware currently, it has no limit, it travels indefinitely…that’s why a telescope can extend our vision, because it focuses the light that our crappy eyes could not resolve. Perspective doesn’t answer for why objects are seen to sink into horizon and become obscured bottom first. Vanishing point converges inward equally from all angles, it doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first…an obstruction does that though. The bigger problem your argument has though is eye level, it’s a fundamental rule of perspective, that vanishing point converges at your eye level, not above or below it…yet ships, building’s, mountains, etc, are seen to clearly drop below eye level. That would not happen if the surface was flat, and perspective alone was causing this vanishing effect. Look up the Turning Torso Tower observation sometime, it’s a great example of what I’m talking about.
3) How exactly does a lunar eclipse occur at all, on the flat Earth model? 🧐
4) That’s your speculation.
5) You can use the Mercator, if you know how to properly use it. It’s greatly distorted at both poles, because it’s a projection map of the globe, so you have to make geodesic corrections if you’re going to use that map for navigation. Truth is though, nobody in professional navigation uses that map, they use the WGS84 model, the most accurate survey of the globe model to date. Ask any actual pilot or sailor…non of them will say the Earth is flat, because they all navigate using the globe model…that’s a fact, not an opinion. These people were among the first to prove the Earth is in fact spherical, going back as far as Ptolemy some 2000 years ago. So you wanna really know what shape the Earth is for certain…then just learn to navigate. You’ll learn pretty quickly which model is used in navigation.
6) Okay, but why would that be so if Earth was flat? You see further as you go higher, because you’re now seeing over the curvature…it’s basically like looking over a hill. But if Earth was flat, how would climbing higher change anything? 🧐 You should be able to use a telescope across an ocean, at sea level, and see for hundreds of miles without climbing higher. Why do you have to climb higher, to see beyond 3-5 miles? 🧐 Think about that please…
7) From your tiny perspective, sure. An undisturbed body of water in free fall however, forms into a sphere, I’m sure you’ve seen a raindrop before, but they even bigger examples in space on the ISS. Level does not just mean flat, it’s one of those words in the English language with multiple definitions, depending on the context. In the context of sea level, it’s defined as a surface with all points at equal distance from centre of gravity, centre of Earth, at the same LEVEL from centre. This is also known as an equipotential surface within a field of force emanating from a centre. Water doesn’t seek anything, it’s inert, it’s just subject to whatever force is present…in this case gravity.
Kansas is flat in terms of typography…which measures from centre. Here’s how typography works; if I place a bunch of 2 inch pins, exactly 1 inch deep into the surface of a styrofoam ball, scattering them all around the ball, what’s the elevation of each pin, from surface, to the top of each pin? 1 inch…every pin is 1 inch elevation from surface. That’s what they’re saying about Kansas…they’re not saying it’s literally flat, they’re saying it’s typography data, is all measured to be equal distance from centre. Meaning it’s all roughly at the same elevation, like those pins. Still curving…but the typography has a steady, and equal elevation. Understand it a bit better now?
9) “Looks CGI” isn’t a very great argument. As a photographer, I’m sure you’re aware of 4k and 8k digital photography. These photos don’t look natural either, because they’re crisp and clearer than our eyes can produce…are they CGI, because they look unnatural to us? No, they’re photographs…just really high definition. The cameras on most modern satellites are also really high definition…so ya, they’re gonna look a little unnatural to us. In any case, prove that they’re not real…it’s a dumb argument I feel, because you can really only speculate and saying it “looks CGI” doesn’t mean it is, that’s not evidence…it’s just an empty claim, a speculation.
Look up a video by Scott Manley sometime titled “Satellite photos show the true shape of the Earth”. It demonstrates pretty clearly just how oblate the Earth is. It’s such a tiny deviation, that your eyes won’t be able to see it. But Earth is not a perfect sphere…it is slightly wider at the Equator, so it is oblate. Scientists care about accuracy…it may look perfectly spherical to you, but your eyes are not measuring tools. Watch that video, see just how oblate the Earth is. Also, Tyson made a very poor comparison, he even realized it later in the discussion as he redacted the comment, calling the Earth Oblate. The example he gave though was meant as a visual aide…not to be taken literally. Most of us got that right away…but it seems Flat Earthers are only capable of thinking in absolutes, it’s something I’ve noticed…they don’t seem to grasp nuances and subtly very well, taking everything literally.
10) Good luck editing out all that water and distortion, and bubbles, and water shimmering, etc, in post…filming a space walk under water. It would be a film editors nightmare. There would be far better ways to do it…all using green screen. It’s just not logical to conclude they would film under water, then edit it out in a post production…and that would have been simply impossible 40 years ago, before modern CGI. Even today, it’s just a stupid way of doing things…they simply would not film it that way. That argument just demonstrates the general lack of knowledge and experience Flat Earthers have with most things…in this case video editing. They just assume things, based from their limited understandings and knowledge.
11) It’s fine to ask questions, but if you ask stupid questions, don’t be surprised when you get roasted for it. This is human nature…you been here long? Sometimes it does feel like you’re arguing more out of spite, than to actually raise good questions. That’s the feeling many of us get…that Flat Earth is a movement of spite, just trying desperately to put some sand in the eyes of scientists. And if that is the case, then why should we be respectful? 🤷♂️ If you’re all just trolling, why shouldn’t we troll you back in return?
Anyway, I personally do prefer a more civil dialogue myself, but I understand that condemnation has its purpose sometimes. In all honesty though, Flat Earthers do ask great questions (sometimes)…but they tend to hold those questions up as their evidence, rather than make any attempt at answering them. Questions do not equal evidence…people seem to have forgotten that. It can be frustrating, because many of us are all for answering questions, but it feels wasted when the intent was not really to seek an answer. But in any case, I hope this information is at the very least interesting, take care.
5
-
The angle is a consistent 1 degree every 69 miles, if the surface were flat, that angle would not be consistent every equal distance, it would lessen by each equal distance travelled away from the stars geographical location…that’s basic trigonometry, and that angle would never reach zero…like it does at the equator in reality. A consistent curvature however, would cause a consistent angle of 1 degree every equal distance of 69 miles, eventually reaching 0 degrees at equator. I would also remind you that we have TWO equal hemispheres, where the circumference of each line of latitude is roughly equal for each…45 degrees North latitude is equal distance around, as 45 degrees South latitude…as we’d expect on a globe. Don’t forget, there’s also two perfect circle rotations of stars for each hemisphere, as we’d expect to observe, on a globe, that rotates on its axis.
All of this is consistent with what we’d expect to observe on a globe….doesn’t quite work if Earth’s surface is flat. You have to ignore a lot to conclude a flat geometry makes better sense of these observations and measures. Which is basically all you’re doing, ignoring that the globe model fits all these observations…that’s flat Earth in a nutshell though, intentionally ignorant to confirm a bias. Either way, even if you could force your conclusion to fit somehow, twisting perspective to ram it through…it still doesn’t falsify the globe. It’s basically the equivalent of ramming a square peg into a round hole.
5
-
5
-
5
-
And you seem to have a very low opinion of the scientific community. You really think they’re not questioning things constantly? That’s quite literally their job…to ask questions and too solve them. You really think scientists just agree with everything they’re told? Their careers are made from challenging consensus. For example; Einstein is famous today for that very reason, he did not conform to the modern consensus of his time, he questioned it…he challenged the work of Newton for Christ sake…without a doubt the top dog as far as physics is concerned. Sure there are plenty of people in fields of science who don’t go outside the lines very much or at all, but they won’t achieve anything groundbreaking if they don’t ask questions and challenge consensus. Einstein did that, over and over again…the difference he has with Flat Earthers, is that he was able to prove his positions were correct, beyond any doubt. Atomic energy (both fission and fusion) would never have been possible, without his contributions. So you can argue all day long it’s inaccurate, it’s still an applied science…and nothing confirms scientific knowledge as accurate, better than working applications of the science.
I don’t know how your education was, but my science teacher didn’t just talk at us…he demonstrated the science, then encouraged us to ask questions. Did nobody ever demonstrate the science to you, that led to the conclusions they were teaching? You had a very bad teacher if all they did was talk at you without demonstrating how it was accurate.
You seem to think yourself superior and you’re not giving others enough credit. Many of us agree with the conclusions of modern science, because the evidence is quite substantial…it’s difficult to disagree with things that are basically undeniable at this point. You can claim we’re agreeing blindly too what we’re told, but that’s just a blind speculation…something you hope is true, so you can pretend it’s everyone else with a problem, instead of considering the very real possibility that you’re just ignorant and really don’t know as much as you seem to think you do.
In any case, all that really matters is evidence. You can claim to have a superior understanding all you wish, but if you have no evidence to support a position, and no working scientific models that can actually be applied…then you really don’t have much.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@elfalte Planes are bound to the same law of conservation of momentum, that we all are. Try this sometime, get on a bus, train, or passenger jet, any long corridor vehicle. Once it’s moving at a steady rate in one direction, start tossing a paper airplane back and forth between you and a buddy. You’ll notice it travels the same no matter which way you toss it, with the vehicle’s motion or against it, it won’t matter.
It’s the same physics, momentum is conserved at all times, the plane doesn’t just stop rotating with the Earth when it’s in flight. Basic physics of motion.
Eric Dubay, like all flat Earth con men, takes advantage of your lack of knowledge in things like astronomy and physics. It only makes sense to you, because you lack a basic understanding of many things, like physics.
5
-
5
-
Well, thanks to conservation of momentum and relative motion, it's really not that difficult. Ever tossed anything straight up while in a moving vehicle? What does it do? It goes straight up and then straight back down into your hand. But wait a second, lets say you're moving at 100 mph forward velocity, if all you did was toss the object straight up, how exactly did it keep pace with that forward velocity once it left your hand? Because momentum is conserved at all times, everything in motion stays in motion...this is basic physics of motion, the laws of motion. The science of orbital mechanics isn't much different, the rockets are traveling WITH the Earth, so it's already moving at those extreme velocities WITH Earth, moving relative to its velocity. So it's really not a problem, because rockets (and everything on Earth really) already have that velocity right from the start, what they need is just a little extra to get out of Earths gravity well, the rest is already in motion.
See the real problem, is people are generally pretty ignorant to a lot of physics and science, and so they reach a lot of false conclusions because of these current gaps in their knowledge. Flat Earth is just doing this to the extremes, these people are very scientifically illiterate. Doesn't mean they're stupid, far from it, they just lack a great deal of knowledge. You could have answered your questions of the moon landing, with just a little extra physics knowledge, then it wouldn't seem so impossible. Point is, just cause you don't know how something was achieved personally, doesn't make it impossible. People shouldn't be so quick to assume they have all the knowledge they need to solve a problem.
5
-
@geraldreusser8366 No it wouldn't, you toss a rock out of a moving vehicle within our atmosphere, it's now being stopped by the drag force, from the air that it's now smashing into. In vacuum, there is no air, nothing for the rocket to smash into and slow it down, so nothing to stop its forward velocity, so it will continue forward indefinitely until met with a resistance or unbalanced force of some kind. That's the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force. In your example, you've introduced an unbalanced force, in the form of drag force...a rocket does not have that problem, so it's a false equivalence.
Even that rock you toss out the window is going to remain traveling forward, it still conserves momentum, but it's reduced by the drag force effect caused by the air particles that are not moving relative to the cars velocity.
Again, every vehicle on Earth is moving WITH the Earth, and so is already matching every motion and great velocity the Earth is. That momentum is conserved...it's basic physics of motion. So a rocket does not need to work its way up to achieve the velocities of our Earths motions...it's already moving with the Earth, so it's already achieved those velocities. At that point, it's as easy as tossing a rock between you and another person, while inside a jet moving at 500 mph, it's effortless...it's basically the same physics. Can you toss a rock at 500 mph to keep up with the forward velocity of that passenger jet? No, of course not...but luckily you don't have too...because momentum is conserved. :/
There are literally thousands of different, easy to perform experiments, that verify the law of conservation of momentum and relative motion. You're ignorance to that science is not argument against any of it. So no, I'm sorry...but you're certainly not the one to falsify hundreds of years of established Newtonian physics, that we now apply in space travel and orbital mechanics, among many other fields of applied science. Because lets not mince words, what I've just explained to you is fundamental physics, that EVERY scientist and engineer around the world, understands and applies when dealing with the concept of motion in their work. It is far beyond an opinion, it is applied science.
5
-
@yestervue4697 Ok, but that goes both ways, do you ever look at the evidence others provide for you? You didn’t come off as very interested in a discussion, you came here guns blazing looking to force people to believe you...while providing no room for discussion, claiming victory before any review or rebuttal, using words like “inarguable”, and all while providing zero sources or evidence for your claims. This comes off as irrational behaviour...so how do you think people are going to react?
Some people are gonna be nasty no matter what, but some of us are more open and patient, and don’t mind discussing, it’s just frustrating when people demand so much...but don’t think they should be held to the same standards, for some reason. But I digress on that point for now.
You said you were going to share evidence, I was expecting something scientific. We can’t do much with scripture or ancient drawings, all we can do is speculate and make interpretations...but I don’t regard it as evidence of much, in a discussion of Earth science. Sure, it’s widely believed that the Egyptians believed the Earth to be flat, but Mesopotamians and Greeks are also ancient cultures, Hindus as well, and they all believed it was spherical. So it’s a tad bias to just look at one past culture, and not consider any others...but I can see why you have, you’re Christian, which has ties to Egyptian history. Point is though, if you’re going to bring up ancient cultures, then remain objective and don’t ignore the others.
Either way, it’s kind of irrelevant. I don’t much care about old cultures beliefs...many of them were simply just wrong, it’s as simple as that. They’re beliefs don’t matter much, when we’re putting satellites and astronauts into space on a regular basis. I care much more about tangible things I can observe and test right here, right now, in this present time. Not that studying old cultures is a waste of time mind you, it’s still interesting, and we can learn a lot still from the effort...but when pilots and sailors are navigating the planet, using the mapped scale and dimensions of a globe to help them do it...a few paintings on old walls don’t mean much.
I much prefer scientific evidence, not to interested in ancient relics. Sorry.
5
-
5
-
Many of us have looked into this subject, pretty thoroughly, and we reached the opposite conclusion. All we found was conmen and narcissists, exploiting people’s lack of first hand knowledge and their growing loss of trust in the system they once relied on for this information. You can call our conclusions anything you want, but we experienced liars from the other side of the fence, we saw that things weren’t adding up in the FE claims, and we’re not just going to ignore that. Certainly not because someone uses buzz words like “cognitive dissonance” in an attempt to rattle us, and make us feel as though we didn’t think for ourselves. Maybe it’s you who should consider the very real possibility, that you’re falling for an online hoax. It’s not hard to lie online, misinformation is rampant, the internet is a conman’s paradise.
Doesn’t really matter how smart you are (or think you are), if you lack the pieces to a puzzle or have been given the wrong pieces, then you won’t have much of a chance in solving it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Distance is not the only determining factor of temperature fluctuation, the angle at which energy arrives upon a surface, can change how focused or scattered that energy is upon a surface, which can cause a fluctuation in temperature as well. At Noon, the surface receives the most direct solar energy, making it more focused upon the surface, while in early morning and late afternoon, the light from the Sun would arrive upon the surface at more of an angle (because of the curvature), scattering the energy rather than focusing it, making it cooler. So your argument there is a bit ignorant of some thermodynamics physics, distance is not the only variable to consider in temperature fluctuations.
There’s lots of evidence of curvature, what I’ve noticed is a lot of people either ignoring that evidence, or not really seeking it to begin with. So they assert it doesn’t exist, because of their own inability to find it, for whatever reason. Look up the Rainy Lake experiment, or the Turning Torso Tower observation, or the many Lake Pontchartrain observations, and geodetic surveys. There’s plenty of evidence for curvature, you just haven’t really been looking.
Have you compared the discrepancies regarding the South hemisphere? The Gleason map works moderately well for the North hemisphere, but completely falls apart when trying to fit it for the South hemisphere past the equator. So no, it’s not accurate for all purposes, you are either lying, or you’re not yet aware of just how flawed it is actually is. For example, Australia in reality is measured to be equal distance across from North to South as it is East to West, being almost square. On the Gleason map however, Australia is almost twice as wide East to West, than it is North to South. So it doesn’t fit reality. The globe however fits perfectly. Another example is the distance around Antarctica, it would be a good 80,000 miles around on the Gleason map, in reality it’s circumnavigated to be a lot less. There’s a boat race that occurs every 4 years, called the Vendée Globe race. It’s roughly 24,000 nautical miles, going down from France through the Atlantic, until about the 60th parallel South latitude, where it circumnavigates the entire continent, returning to the Atlantic, then goes back up the Atlantic to France. If the Gleason were true, this race would be a LOT longer. So don’t overlook the South hemisphere, when comparing discrepancies of each map…the Gleason is not accurate at all, when it comes to the South hemisphere, it’s greatly distorted. The globe however, still fits with all recorded distances.
The Gleason map patent even states that it’s just a projection map of the globe, so that’s why it’s distorted…because all flat projection maps are. That’s what happens when you try to interpret a 3D globes surface, in just 2 dimensions…you lose a dimension, which means you lose distance, which creates distortions. That’s why we have so many different 2D maps, because the Earth is spherical, and every map is trying it’s best to interpret those dimensions in just 2 dimensions. So each one focuses on a specific area or purpose, to remove distortions for that specific purpose…but they’re all distorted in some way, no matter how hard they try, hence the discrepancies. If Earth was flat, we’d have only one map, and it would be accurate, with no distortions or discrepancies. Geography and cartography are much more difficult fields of work…because the Earth is spherical.
But the entire field of navigation today, uses the globe model for navigation. That is a fact not an opinion. If you believe otherwise, then go right ahead and take a navigation class sometime, see if I’m lying to you. Then if you still think it’s fabricated, you just go right ahead and try navigating across the pacific, from the North hemisphere to somewhere in the South hemisphere, without using the globe model…see how well you do. Point is, the Gleason map is not as accurate as you currently believe it to be, the globe model is.
5
-
No, they fall in vacuum regardless of the medium surrounding them, everything does. This falling is a motion, no motion occurs on its own without a force to cause it. So your conclusion of “buoyancy and density sorting it out” doesn’t answer for that downward motion, it just ignores it. Further problems are that density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a certain volume, so it can’t cause a motion on its own. And buoyancy doesn’t occur without gravity, the downward motion is what kicks off the density displacement, which causes buoyancy….basic physics of buoyancy, proven time and again in multiple different density column zero G tests.
So all you have is butchered physics, designed to fool the ignorant and uneducated into believing bullshit. It’s just classic confirmation bias. At least the upward motion hypothesis (which actually was pretty popular anongst flatties a few years ago), had a premise that could actually account for the downward accelerating motion we observe and measure in falling matter. It had its own problems of course…but at least it was trying, while the density and buoyancy argument doesn’t even make an attempt, you guys just slot it in then pat yourselves on the back, no need to prove, test, or explain anything. It’s pretty terrible science…can’t even really call it an attempt.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Good, some evidence we’re making progress. We got them from “It’s Flat!!!”, to “It’s probably flat!”, to “There’s no proof it’s round, doesn’t mean you have to believe it’s
flat.” It’s rounding the bend now, few more months and we’ll get em back too “Oh, so...flat Earth was a con this whole time?”. Ya think!? :/
You’re just stating the obvious when you say people, corporations and governments lie...you’re not onto some great revelation the rest of us aren’t aware of, we’re all well aware. Doesn’t mean we toss out basic scientific facts, that are easy to verify if you just peeled your face away from your phone long enough to try. Facts that actual experts use every single day, to do their jobs. Ever talk to a flat Earth pilot or sailor? No? Hmmm...I wonder why that is?
You know who loves truth? Scientists...cause they know better than anyone that junk science gets us nowhere. You think you’re a “truther” cause you watched some conspiracy docs on YouTube and agreed to every single word blindly and without question? That’s adorable...you just let us know when they have a working model that’s actually used for anything in the real world.
5
-
5
-
@yingyang1008 Don’t confuse your limits as a shared experience. Anyone can verify the true shape of the planet with a few simple observations and a basic knowledge of geometry. Start with a sunset...don’t you think it’d be a little hard for a sunset to occur, if line of sight is never physically blocked? You betcha, makes no geometric sense at all, the math doesn’t work either https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Then you can even take it a step further. Start paying attention, record the suns daily positions, shadow angles, transit path, rate of travel, etc. Then plot that real world data on the proposed models, both flat and globe, and see which one the data actually fits on, with no contradictions or errors.
https://youtu.be/fEYsgP4CuSA
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/EF6Ojo9fJhw
https://youtu.be/W1al9aGartM
It’s super simple actually, for anyone to verify which shape is true...just have to actually try. You’re just arguing from ignorance and then pretending like we should all be impressed. :/
5
-
5
-
@bellottibellotti9185 Alright, here’s a far more accurate trigonometric equation, that accounts for an important variable that 8 inches per mile squared ignores, height of observation.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Radius of the Earth
d= Distance to observation in arc length
h= Height of observation
There are several reasons why 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong equation, but the simplest reason to understand is that it ignores height of the observer, which is a very important variable in how far you can see. It’s pretty common sense, the higher you go in elevation, the further you see. That equation though (8 inches per mile squared) gives you the same figure whether you’re at 6 foot viewing height or 1000 feet, it simply does not represent your actual line of sight. The equation I’ve shared does represent line of sight, and tells you exactly what is hidden by the geometric horizon, of a spherical Earth.
As pointed out though, refraction is another important variable to account for. The equation I shared is purely geometric, and does not include refraction, so that does require calculation as well. But refraction is an optical distortion, so you start with a geometric calculation, and then you calculate the distortion after the fact, so that equation is the first step. The Metabunk curve calculator is where I got that equation from, and they’ve created a calculator that accounts for a standard refraction as well, so that’s the calculator I recommend for most observations. But the best calculator I’ve come across so far is the Walter Bislen Earth curve simulator, because refraction index fluctuates and it’s always higher over large bodies of water, and that calculator allows you to adjust refraction index, where Metabunk uses a standard refraction…because it’s far easier to derive an equation for, cause it deals with the average.
It’s easy to understand why height of the observer is important to account for, but refraction is a little more difficult to understand, because most people aren’t aware of refraction. Which is understandable, most people are not physicists, so if you’d like a clear observation of refraction in action, look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, which is a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment. There’s a whole section on refraction in the official research blog, if you find it, scroll down to images 31 and 32, it’s a very clear observation of the effect. You can also find a time lapse of refraction from that experiment on YouTube. So if you really want to learn why it’s important to account for refraction, that’s the observation I’d look up sometime.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful. Bottom line is that Flat Earthers are pulling the equivalent of a sleight of hand trick on people, that takes advantage of most peoples lack of mathematical knowledge. It’s a pretty standard rule of thumb in science, to always double check your math…it’s usually the first thing you check, when observation doesn’t match predictions. Never assume you can’t be in error…the Flat Earth math is very much in error, and so that’s the reason why the calculation doesn’t match observations.
5
-
5
-
No, it’s not that simple I’m afraid...because errors can be made and bias is real. That’s why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors and bias and lies. Here’s the harsh reality of information gathering of any kind, we do not know everything, for this reason old information always has the potential to change, when new information is acquired. So that’s why science chose to label its conclusions under theory and not fact, because a fact does not change, but if we don’t know everything and sometimes we get shit wrong...then what do we do if our facts are wrong? Just ignore it to appease bias? No, that gets us nowhere, science has to remain objective.
We build scientific theory with facts, but we can never be 100% certain about anything, because we do not know everything and we likely never will, so information has to have room to change or even be discarded. It is harder to do yes, but it’s necessary and it’s how we’ve achieved what we have. I’m sorry it’s not as simple as most would prefer, but objective reality really doesn’t care about what we want to be true.
5
-
Alright, so it’s kinda like a sleight of hand trick. Rowbotham (Parallax) tells you that you shouldn’t see the boat after 6 miles…but that’s it. It’s basically “keep your eye on what I’m telling you”. If you never question his initial claim, then sure, you’re now primed to believe the conclusion. See how it works? Now let’s stop and actually think about it a bit…where’d he get that number from? What’s his math? What’s his observation height? How tall is the boat? Are there any other variables to consider, like refraction? Rowbotham doesn’t really provide many details, and doesn’t ask you to think about it beyond what he’s told you, just provides a claim and then a conclusion…if you never question it, then you’re just along for the illusion, keeping your eye on what he wants you too see. It’s a pretty simple trick…that sadly works on a lot of people. It works because most people don’t have the time to invest, they just want quick answers. Not their fault, we all have that tendency to some degree I believe.
Science requires a lot more thorough investigation, then there’s peer review, which is a crucial step to weeding out conmen, like Rowbotham. Upon peer review, his experiment is simply found to be extremely inconclusive, due to poor experimentation. He only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, taking ONE data set, used the wrong math for his set up (8 inches per mile squared, which is a parabola equation, does not represent line of sight or horizon), and ignored important variables like height of the observer and refraction. Refraction was really the least of his troubles in his experiment…but yes, it mattered as well. Here’s a simple recreation of the experiment, demonstrating why https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA. This is a time lapse filmed over several hours, from a stabilized camera. I want you to pay attention to the ground here and watch that as refraction index increases, everything in the distance appears to rise up. This is the effect atmosphere can have, on what we see at distances, that’s a pretty clear demonstration of atmospheric refraction. Light Refraction is pretty standard knowledge in physics, you’ve experienced it as well, ever noticed a pencil in a glass of water distort the shape of it? I’m sure you’ve gone swimming, ever noticed things under the water are distorted and don’t appear to be where they actually are? That’s refraction and it does occur in atmosphere as well, that’s how things like mirages occur.
It’s a variable he ignored, didn’t even care to research it or consider it. But it matters, it’s a variable that effects how far we see, so it must be included in the math. Science has studied refraction for a very long time, even in those days they had a few equations worked out that could account for that variable. So you just do the geometric math first (but he did the wrong math right from the start, so his experiment is inconclusive right out of the gate, just from using the wrong math), then you do the math for refractive index, which you can measure, it’s just air humidity and pressure, which increases or decreases air density, which is what causes refraction. It’s also important to make several observations, because refractive index fluctuates, so making more observations, collecting more data, is how you find the average. You can find a great formula fir refraction and more information, at the Metabunk forum, just find the refraction calculator, should have links to the forum where they explore the math and science of it in greater detail.
This experiment has been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years, because to be fair, it was a great experiment…it was just conducted poorly. Rowbotham only did so much as to gather the observation he WANTED, looking only as long as to confirm his bias, then he called it a day. That’s bad science…his experiment actually stands as a perfect example for why we conduct peer review today, and why it’s such an important part of the scientific method. Peer review catches errors, an experiment must be repeatable…or it does not count.
One of the more recent recreations of the Bedford Level experiment, that I’m aware of, is the Rainy Lake experiment, conducted over 10 km of a frozen lake. You can find it in a quick search. That refraction time lapse I shared was actually from that experiment. Upon every proper recreation of this experiment, it actually is found to be conclusive for the globe, not the other way around.
Anyway, hope that helps shed a little more light on things. They actually teach this experiment to science students, to help illustrate the pitfalls of both confirmation bias and conducting sloppy experiments. It’s not enough to simply conduct an experiment…you have to make sure it’s not in error and you have to be quite thorough about every detail, from the math to the variables. Even then, it must then be peer reviewed, because some errors simply can’t be caught by the individual because of their biases and limitations, but your peers don’t share the same biases and limitations, so they likely will have no trouble finding those errors.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@patrickhickman8723 Now I’ll answer your question. Level has many different definitions, one such definition is “when all points along a surface are equal distance from a centre”. So for example, the surface of a bowling ball can be defined as level, because all points on its surface are equal distance from centre, they’re at the same LEVEL from centre. That’s how the word is being applied in “sea level”.
Again, your error is in your own ignorance and lack of knowledge. You seem to think level has only one definition…but I’m sure you know how the English language works. Single words can have many different definitions, depending on the context. For example the word “fly”. It can be a verb describing the act of flying, or it can be a noun, talking about the simple house fly. Level has MANY differences uses and definitions. It can mean flat tangent, or it can mean a position you hold with another person “at the same level of employment”, or it can mean what level you’re on in a building, or as an adjective it can be used to describe a surface at equal potential distance from a centre.
Go ahead and look up the many different definitions of level sometime, or just search the term “sea level” sometime.
Point is, level does not just mean flat. Learn how the context can affect the definition and use of a word, please.
5
-
5
-
@EZHostglo Certainly, I don’t mind sharing information, if you’re actually willing to listen and consider it. Here’s the actual consensus understanding of gas pressure and thermodynamics physics.
Atmospheric pressure is different from gas pressure in small containers. You and Flat Earth are confusing the two…they are not the sane and thus are not treated the same. For smaller scales, we use gas pressure laws and equations, like Boyles Law and the other gas pressure laws. But in larger scales, these equations are essentially useless, because it’s impossible in larger scales — especially in massive open systems like our planet — to get an accurate volume. Volume is the variable in gas pressure equations that is most important, the container basically. This is where Flat Earth gets confused, because they think gas pressure and atmospheric pressure are the same in science. But no, gas pressure equations are not used in larger scales, like in atmosphere. Instead, atmospheric pressure equations are used on larger scales, which uses gravity as the variable to replace volume. Go ahead and look it up any time you’d like, gas pressure laws are not used in larger scales, they are limited in their use. We instead use atmospheric pressure equations, which uses gravity.
Gravity is the container of our atmosphere and this fits with what we observe in reality as well. Because if gravity is creating our atmospheric pressure, then we’d expect a pressure gradient…and that’s exactly what we measure.
No laws of thermodynamics are being broken, because thermodynamics has to do with ENERGY transfer…not so much matter. Matter tags along sometimes, sure, but matter is subject to attractive forces, like gravity, so gas will not fill the void of space entirely, because gravity will eventually sap it of all it’s kinetic energy and bring it back down to surface, essentially slowing down entropy. Even gas is subject to gravity…if it wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be a pressure gradient. The lighter gases do escape into deeper space though, entropy does win eventually, that’s why there’s a massive cloud of hydrogen surrounding the Earth for hundreds of thousands of miles.
Another part Flat Earth forgets or simply just doesn’t understand or factor, is that entropy can be slowed, a simple thermos for your coffee does it all the time. But a great way to understand thermodynamics is with that coffee. When your coffee eventually does go cold, did the coffee also leave? No, just the thermal energy did…for matter, entropy is much slower. Especially if the system is constantly receiving energy…and it is, ever heard of the Sun? Energy is constantly escaping Earth, but it’s also being replenished…by the Sun. We are constantly receiving new energy into the system, which is used to create new gas at the surface.
In this way, it’s actually Flat Earth’s model that breaks entropy laws, or at least doesn’t fit with what we measure and observe in reality. Because if the gas is contained…yet new gas is constantly being created at surface with no way of escaping…then we’d expect pressure to rise astronomically in just a few years…heck, it would increase within days…killing us all. But it doesn’t, it remains consistent. In a system that’s constantly receiving energy, it can not be contained without some form of release. Our atmosphere allows for that, because it’s open.
So the trouble isn’t the globe model…the trouble is Flat Earths own personal misunderstandings of that model and the physics. It’s made worse by their stubborn refusal to even consider that they could be wrong. For a group claiming to be more open minded than the rest of us, they sure shut those minds off tight, the moment anyone tries to help point out what they’re missing.
Anyway, I hope this information is at the very least interesting. Let me know if you have any further questions or rebuttals. I do not mind a civil exchange of information.
5
-
Are you really that crushed about Santa? So your mother wanted to impart a little magic and wonder into your childhood, what’s so wrong about that? 🤷♂️ Kids are dreamers, nothing wrong with nurturing those dreams a little. Most of us grow up and get over it, and then we have some magical memories of our youth. Either way…it’s not the same thing by a long shot. Millions of people would not be able to keep Earth’s shape a secret…it’s an absolute impossibility. Especially when anyone can learn navigation, and test it themselves…a whole system designed around Earth’s true geometry, a sphere.
Anyone who thinks a government of any kind, could control and hide that massive of a lie, for hundreds of years, is not thinking logically or rationally at all. You give governments far too much credit. They can’t even hide their affairs…you really think they could hide the Earth, from the billions of other people who can go out and test its surface geometry, whenever they feel like it? 😅
5
-
Need some good places to start, ok. Just observe one sunset, then ask yourself how that’s geometrically possible if the Sun occupies the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, at the same time? A flat Earth doesn’t make much sense of this well known daily occurrence, meanwhile a globe answers for it effortlessly. If you really study it closer too, it fits more than just the base observation, the math and measured geometry work out perfectly as well https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Another great proof is navigation. Everything from the lines of latitude that are equal for both hemispheres, to the consistent rate that stars drop to horizon by latitude, to the geodetic conversions required to plot an accurate coarse. Fact is, millions of sailors and pilots successfully navigate the planet every single day, if you think they can achieve that without knowing the true shape and scale of the surface they travel upon, then you might not be thinking about things very clearly. Learn to navigate, then you will know the true shape of the Earth.
It’s also worth noting that Earth has two hemispheres, both with their own stars, celestial rotation, midnight sun occurrences past the 60th parallel. None of this fits or makes sense on a flat Earth geometry, but it’s exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a Globe.
So there’s a small bit of info to get you started. I hope you find it helpful. If you have any questions or rebuttals, feel free to let me know.
5
-
You also asked about how science knows the inner composition of the Earth, so I’ll give you some insight into that science as well.
It’s true we’ve only physically dug down 8 miles, but as you know, mankind has found ways to expand its knowledge of certain things, with the aid of sensitive equipment that can be used to extend our senses past what they’re normally capable of. With the use of what’s known as a seismograph, we can gather data from the shockwaves and aftershocks of Earthquakes, which paint us a pretty clear picture of Earths inner workings, from the shockwaves that travel through the Earth and ping seismic reading stations on the opposite side of the planet. This field of research is known as seismology, tons of helpful videos here on YouTube that can help you out further to learn more. Here’s a good one to get you started https://youtu.be/HwY1ICqWGEA.
Hundreds of Earthquakes occur everyday around the world, that’s a lot of data, all of it pointing to the same conclusions and telling us a lot about Earths inner composition, as these waves travel differently depending on what they’re travelling through. This science also provides further proof of Earths true shape, as the shockwaves travel time data, only fits when interpreted on the Globe model.
The science also fits with two other fields of study, physics and geology. It’s well known that Earth generates a massive electromagnetic field...that doesn’t just happen on its own from nothing. A massive, hot, liquid, rotating and swirling mass of iron and nickel (the two most abundant metals found on Earth, spewed from every volcanic eruption), that would sure be more than enough to do it.
So there’s a lot of science that goes into the conclusions, the fact that it all fits together in tandem, none of it contradicting any other research, that’s how we can be confident in those conclusions.
Yes, mankind is limited physically in what it’s capable of, but we have something that helps counter these limitations, a powerful 6th sense, our intelligence. We don’t have to always go directly to something to learn about it, we can deduce a lot from just being clever with our use of tools designed to expand our senses. Of course travelling directly is more ideal, but unfortunately we don’t always have that luxury.
So that’s why we compile knowledge under “theory”, because our limitations mean there is a lot we may never know for absolute certain, it’s just the way it is sadly. So science doesn’t think or operate in absolute certainties, it operates in percentages of certainty. So that’s why they use the word theory, because a fact is rigid, it does not change, it just is what it is. The truth about information gathering of any kind is that old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired, so theory is used instead of fact, because a theory can be changed over time. Though there is a bit more too it as well, facts also don’t describe HOW something works, they don’t explain the details of how and why, so it’s not the proper wording either way. Facts make up the foundation of a theory, but there will never be a point where we can ever be 100% certain about any theory, so we can not call scientific conclusions fact, only theory.
A scientific theory is not like a regular theory in the regular use of the word, a scientific theory takes on a much higher status of certainty, it’s actually the highest level any concept in science can achieve. I think this is one of the bigger things most people misunderstand about science. Science does not operate in 100% certainties, they can’t, because there is just too much knowledge to learn, we’ll never know everything. For this reason, information always has the potential to change, so science was actually very humble and wise to label their conclusions as theory, not fact.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Sabine here wasn’t really intending her video as a “debunk” or as an argument against flat Earth claims, it’s more just a quick opinion piece, explaining what she feels is the broader issue here, the growing gap between science and the general public. So that’s why you won’t find any hard science here, because that wasn’t the point of the video.
That being said, it’s fine to ask questions here and part of her point was that science should be doing more to begin a dialogue to help answer those questions, less ridicule more engagement. To which I agree...at least for those willing to have a civil discussion that is, which it seems you are. So if you don’t mind, I’ll see if I can shed some light on some of your questions here, offer some insight from the globe perspective.
First of all, you were wondering how it’s possible for our atmosphere to exist next to an empty vacuum and why our movement through space doesn’t also shed our atmosphere. Those are great questions, but also quite separate topics, so I’ll start with the vacuum question.
This is a common misconception flat Earth has, and it starts with their misunderstanding of how the vacuum of space works. I hear them throw around that “negative Torr” measurement a lot, but I don’t think they quite understand what the unit “Torr” really means. It doesn’t mean space is at negative pressure...because that’s simply impossible, It’s easier to think of space in terms of psi, in the case with space it’s 0 psi. That’s the lowest pressure you can have, that’s all space is, 0 pressure, a space completely void of matter. There is no such thing as negative pressure, cause you can’t have negative of nothing...it’s like saying negative darkness, there’s nothing past darkness, you either have light or you don’t, space is similar, you either have matter or you don’t, it’s pretty simple. 0 psi is space, there is no negative psi.
Flat Earth just over complicated things by using Torr as a unit for vacuum of space, misunderstanding the negative function in the smaller number interpretations. They thought it meant negative pressure...it does not, it’s just how many zeros you place after a decimal. Math often shortens larger or small numbers that way by interpreting them like this for higher numbers 9x10^15, which is just 9 with 15 zeros behind it, or this for smaller numbers 9x10^15- which is just 0 then a decimal then 15 zeros then a 9. It has nothing to do with negative pressure...there’s no such thing.
So it’s a misunderstanding that created this illusion that space is somehow a powerful suction force of some kind...and no...that’s not how it works. Space isn’t sucking on our atmosphere, it’s not creating a suction force, it’s just empty space, 0 pressure, that’s all. So it’s a misconception that flat Earth created themselves...and the reason I’d wager you haven’t heard a viable answer for how our atmosphere doesn’t get sucked off, is because you’re still hung up on the notion that there is a suction force to begin with, that you think the heliocentric model has to contend with...and there isn’t. You have to completely remove that notion from your thought process here, to understand better how space works in relation to our atmosphere. There is no suction force, space isn’t sucking on our atmosphere, flat Earth made that up and misinformed you. The misunderstanding comes from the assumption/misconception of what Torr is a measurement of and what it means.
So our atmosphere isn’t fighting against force in space trying to rip it off, the only force effecting atmosphere is gravity. So our atmosphere simply has nowhere else to go except towards the only force that is attracting it, the force of gravity.
There is however entropy, the other argument flat Earth likes to make, having to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, it’s just another misunderstanding of the physics here. The argument they like to make is that matter seeks equilibrium, that there cannot exist an empty space because matter (in this case the gases of our atmosphere), will seek to fill the empty space. But this misunderstands thermodynamics, which has more to do with energy equilibrium, not so much matter. It’s energy that’s constantly seeking equilibrium, matter just tags along for the ride sometimes. For example when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy?
There argument is typically in comparison to an empty vacuum container, when opened back up the air rushes in to fill it until equalized with the surrounding pressure, but this is a false comparison, as the fringes of our atmosphere are not at 14.7 psi like they are at surface. The gases at the fringe of our atmosphere would attempt to fill the empty space, if gravity wasn’t keeping them from doing so. The reason gas fills an empty space here at surface, is because the molecules here have a lot more kinetic energy, created by constantly colliding with other molecules, we measure these collisions as pounds per square inch or PSI, remember it’s energy seeking equilibrium under entropy...not so much matter. The same psi does not exist at the fringes of space, so the molecules up there don’t have the same kinetic energy as the gases at surface. Kinetic energy is required for molecules of gas to break free of our planets gravity, and because the air is thinner and thinner the higher you go, the psi decreases, meaning less collisions between molecules, meaning less kinetic energy, meaning the gas eventually runs out of the energy required to fight gravity any longer, so it eventually loses and falls back to Earth.
So it’s a misunderstanding of how the physics works. They’re focusing only on what they assume entropy implies, and not really going deeper into the science to understand it better. Our atmosphere does not break any laws of thermodynamics, flat Earth just misunderstood the physics of entropy. Entropy is occurring, but what they’re missing is that entropy can be slowed and even contained for long periods of time, by simple attracting forces. We do it all the time with insulators as well, a simple thermos keeps your coffee hot longer, slowing entropy. Our atmosphere does the same thing, with the help of gravity, gravity os the container flat Earth is looking for, it slows our atmospheric entropy greatly. Some gas does escape into space though, but it’s very slow and gradual.
Sorry if that got long, I just like to be thorough. Let me know if that helped at all.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@SuperMoshady Yup, I realize it’s confusing, but that’s the understanding all of modern physics has reached with buoyancy, it is directly caused by gravity. You will not find an engineer or chemist or physicist in the world, that disagrees with that, it is the consensus, and for very good reason, because it’s verified science. So you can laugh all you’d like, or you can learn a bit more how it works, up to you really. I’m more than happy to explain further how it works.
Mass is attracted to Earth due to gravity, yes, but this also means matter of more density will occupy lowest potential energy state first, because more dense matter is also creating more gravity of its own, causing more attraction to surface. This means less dense matter is forced out of the way, causing displacement. We observe this displacement, as buoyancy. It doesn’t mean gravity is not effecting gas, it’s just being pushed out of the way of more dense matter, which forces it in the opposite direction of the denser matters motion. Since the vector for gravity is down towards surface, this orientates the density displacement up, in the same vector but opposite direction. So gravity directly causes buoyancy, it does not occur without it. So a helium balloon is not defying gravity, its upward motion is actually a product of gravity.
Can we test this? Sure, in many ways, someone here has already pointed out Boyles Law to you, so I won’t go to deep into that again. Some simpler tests would be density columns put in zero G environments, demonstrating how buoyancy disappears the moment you remove the inertial pressure created by gravity and the surface. Another great experiment I like is a helium balloon within a moving vehicle, demonstrating how buoyancy is an effect caused by density displacement. https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY What this clearly shows is that denser matter (the air in the van) will displace the less dense gas (helium) and put it into an opposing vector motion, dependent entirely on which direction the more dense matter is going. In this example, the air is denser, so it sloshes to the back of the moving vehicle first (fluid dynamics), which forces the helium forward instead of backwards. I hope this helps make things a little clearer for you, that it’s the motion of more dense matter, that dictates the opposing motion of buoyancy. This gives us some insight into why a helium balloon rises up, because more dense matter is in motion downward towards surface, as we observe from falling matter, this accelerating motion displaces helium and forces it up, without the downward motion of gravity though, it would not do this.
So your argument is one from ignorance really, most people don’t have any experience with the physics, or upper atmosphere, or space, so you’re free to pray on people’s lack of experience and knowledge here...but it’s just arguments from ignorance from those of us in the know here. We experience helium going up, so you can argue that this appears to defy gravity, but eventually helium will reach a point where it’s no longer displaced and it will rest at a point in atmosphere, unable to climb any higher, just like all matter orders by density, thanks to gravity. This is measured, oxygen thins the higher you go, but hydrogen remains, why doesn’t oxygen climb any higher? Because of gravity, keeping it closer to surface, it’s more dense than hydrogen and helium, so naturally you won’t find much of it in upper atmosphere, this is also why you won’t find any clouds past a point.
It’s pretty simple deduction, studying buoyancy physics really helps a lot here.
But ok, because you keep asking. Gas pressure: basically just collisions between molecules, the more collisions, the more pressure due to kinetic energy of the molecules. More collisions occur when molecules are closer together, hence more gas pressure with more molecules packed together in closer proximity.
Now let’s define atmospheric pressure, because there is a difference. Atmospheric pressure: a gas pressure gradient caused by a downward accelerating force, ordering matter by their density and creating more pressure closer to surface, due to the molecules above constantly being squeezed down upon the molecules below, due to the downward force of gravity.
Gas has mass, gravity effects all mass, so it’s not very difficult to conclude that gas will be effected by gravity. And it is, we measure and observe this, the fact that a pressure gradient exists at all, is proof of this. Under your system, we’d expect gas to mix and disperse evenly, no gradient would exist, if there was no downward force effecting the gas molecules.
I haven’t even mentioned satellites yet, I try to keep things within the realm of what FE has experience with, but you are aware satellites are in orbit, correct? You are aware they’ve long since confirmed the vacuum of space, correct? You can claim satellites are fake...but it’s really just an empty claim until you can actually prove that. So I’m curious, why hasn’t FE done the funding, to put their own satellites into orbit? There are smaller rockets you can actually purchase, that can achieve this goal, why not crowd fund for both a rocket and design a probe or satellite for the purpose of measuring the vacuum of space, or to find the dome? Just saying, there’s more you could be doing, rather than just debating random strangers on comment threads. I’ve seen much evidence to confirm satellites are up there, but only empty claims to suggest they’re not. So again, I’ll go with the evidence over empty claims.
So, I’ve given you the observed phenomenon for gravity, but you do realize that’s only for the hypothesis, independent and dependent variables are required for experiments. That is of course the next step, but we’re not really done with hypothesis yet are we, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. I first just wanted you to grasp, what gravity really is, it is an observed motion, a downward motion. This motion can not be denied, we all have experience with it. Deny the current consensus for how gravity works all you’d like, there’s still some room for argument there, but the downward accelerating motion itself, is not up for debate, it’s very obviously occurring. Name it something else if you prefer, it really doesn’t matter, just made it easier to discuss this phenomenon with a name given for it, they called it gravity.
When I find more time later, I’ll answer a few more questions and give you an experiment with an independent and dependent variable. You’re probably already aware which experiment I’ll share, but perhaps you can work out the details yourself before I’m able to respond. Feel free.
5
-
5
-
Rockets don’t actually push of the air to create lift, they use a different method of propulsion, which falls under Newton’s 3rd Law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basically the ignited gas pushes off the tank and the ship and tank are pushing off the gas being ejected out the back.
Best way to picture this is with a simple thought experiment. Picture yourself on a sheet of ice wearing skates, in your hands is a 10 lb medicine ball. Now if you throw that ball with both hands from chest level, what happens? The ball goes one way and you go the other, you essentially push off of each other, action reaction. Now pick up the ball again only this time instead of throwing it, just push it against the air in front of you as hard as you can...nothing happens.
Rockets propel forward through action reaction and they actually operate better in space, because there is no wind resistance. Anyway, hope that helps.
5
-
Conservation of momentum…basic physics. You learned this in grade school. That’s the problem…Flat Earthers think they have caught some glitch here, when in reality they’re just demonstrating that they didn’t pay attention in physics 101 class.
Try this sometime, next time you’re in a moving vehicle on a straight path with constant speed, toss a paper air plane gently back and forth between you and someone else. You’ll notice it will be effortless, doesn’t matter if you toss it with the vehicles direction or against it, it will behave the same no matter the direction, never speeding up or slowing down and it doesn’t go flying to the back the moment it leaves your hand.
But wait a second, say you’re in a passenger jet going 500 mph…can you toss anything at 500 mph to keep up with the forward velocity of the jet? Obviously not…so how exactly is it keeping up with the motion of the vehicle while in the air? 🤷♂️ Because momentum is conserved at all times, indefinitely…all things in motion stay in motion, it’s the first law of motion…and it’s what you learn on day 1 of basic physics.
Planes do a similar thing while in flight, they conserve the momentum of the Earth they’re moving relative too…their momentum doesn’t just stop the moment they leave the surface.
Physics…learn some please, then you’ll have a better chance of not being conned by these scientifically illiterate misinformation movements, like flat Earth.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@drdusandr Yes, lasers refract just as all light does, they’re also not free from diffraction (scattering) over even just short distances. So it’s actually a common misconception that lasers shot through atmosphere remain perfectly tangent…they actually do not, there’s no such thing as a laser beam that’s free from refraction or diffraction through atmosphere, so they’re actually very unreliable at distances. So that’s a big part of their error (or if it’s intentional, then it’s part of how they con people), they sell these “experiments” under the misconception/assumption most people have, that lasers remain tangent at distances. They do not…and that is easily verified with just a quick bit of research on laser refraction and diffraction.
Another error (especially in pure observation), is bad math, that often ignores important variables. A very important variable ignored quite often being height of observer…I’m sure I don’t need to explain how you can see further the higher you go.
They’re doing experiments, sure…that doesn’t mean they’re doing them right, and without error. Then they skip over all peer review, acting like they’re somehow above it…that should be a major red flag for anyone, that maybe you should be a bit skeptical about these “experiments” they claim to be doing. :/
5
-
5
-
@WORDversesWORLD “the problem you have is that you have no proof because if you did you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation!”
Hard to share proof, with anyone not really interested in seeing it. You’re trying to win a position, and you’re invested in that conclusion, so it’s keeping you from really listening to any of us….happens a lot actually, people are generally pretty stubborn and very prone to following confirmation bias, and filtering out anything they don’t like. I think you have some deep distain for modern consensus, modern science and the experts who reach these concepts…probably because someone online showed you something that you couldn’t argue against, so it convinced you you’ve been lied too, and now you’re angry. Good luck sharing any counter information, with someone who now hates and doesn’t trust the source of that information….you won’t get very far, and we obviously aren’t.
So we’re having this conversation, because you’re not really trying to find proof, you’re really just trying to rub some dirt in our eyes. It’s an act of spite…not a conversation. The mind is closed shut now. But I hope some information is at the very least considered.
5
-
Planes require air pressure to maintain both thrust and lift, so no, they’d never end up in space, because air would become to thin to maintain the thrust and lift required to get into space, so they’d drop due to their inability to overcome gravity any further. That’s why we don’t use planes for getting into space, we use rockets, which don’t use the air for propulsion, they use Newton’s third law of motion, action and reaction. The same physics that causes a gun to recoil.
The plane would measure its shift in angle by degrees, so you have to think about this in terms of degrees, not drop from a tangent. Earth takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree, a passenger jet moving at 500 mph covers that distance in roughly 7-8 minutes give or take…you really think you’d notice a 1 degree shift that takes 7 minutes to complete? Not likely.
We don’t feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion, acceleration and deceleration. A rotation is an acceleration, but it takes Earth 24 hours to complete 1 rotation…that’s not very fast at all, in fact it’s 2 times slower than the hour hand of a clock. Would you expect an hour hand on a clock to fling stuff off of it? Obviously not. You’re focusing on the wrong numbers, centrifugal force isn’t dependent on linear velocities like miles per hour, it depends on rate of rotation, and Earths rate of rotation is 0.000694 rpm’s, so that’s why it doesn’t fling anything off of it.
You can’t stick your hand out of a plane, because the air outside isn’t moving at the same velocity as the plane, so it’s smashing into you, it then creates friction in the form of drag force. Earth travelling through space doesn’t have the same problem, there’s no air in space, so no drag.
And thanks to law of inertia, conservation of momentum, and relative motion, we move with the Earth in all its motions. So just like you don’t feel the motion of a passenger jet moving at 500 mph, you won’t feel Earth’s motions for the same reason…because of the laws of motion.
This is all basic physics. I suggest you learn the basics before making any arguments on a science channel.
5
-
@dick_richards The water doesn't fly off, because the Earths rotation is not fast enough to generate enough Centripetal force to overcome the pull of gravity. If you knew anything about centripetal/centrifugal force and how they increase, you'd know this. Centripetal forces increase by the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is caused by an objects RATE of rotation, it's revolutions per minute (RPM's). Earth rotates at the slow ass rate of ONE revolution every 24 hours...this means it's rotational velocity is VERY small, meaning very little centripetal force generated. But, the rotation of Earth does generate a tiny amount that does negate a little bit of gravity, which is greatest at the equator, about 0.3% of gravity is negated at the equator compared to everywhere else on Earth, which is why things weigh slightly less at the equator. Here's a simple experiment anyone can recreate that helps to verify this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=562s Learn some physics, then you'll maybe learn your error here. Your error is that your focusing on the linear surface speed...and ignoring the more important variables to this problem, the rotational velocity, which is not the same thing.
"And i guess you can land an airplane on a ball spinning at 26,000 mphs because...... let me guess? Gravity???? Is... is... that it???
"
Gravity plays its roll sure, but no, it's mostly conservation of momentum and relative motion that makes this possible. The laws of motion...more basic physics you should probably learn more about.
Your butchering of physics isn't much of an argument though. You can misunderstand and twist science all day long, but you'll never be able to escape the fact that Flat Earth has no working model...and that's for a good reason, because it's not reality.
Flat Earth can't explain a simple sunset, let alone the southern hemisphere, which has it's own stars AND it's own celestial rotation around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. Flat Earth has a pretty damn rocky time explaining solar eclipses and has nothing for a lunar eclipse, but again, the Globe answers for these with absolute ease, it also predicts them down to the second and square mile, DECADES into the future. Flat Earth can't explain flight paths and times, it can't explain Coriolis effect, it can't explain the 24 hour sun observed in the South, can't explain how the Sun and Moon orbit above, heck it can't even explain why things fall to Earth....the Flat Earth model is a fucking mess bud. It falls apart right from the moment you try to apply it to what we observe in actual reality. NOTHING in modern science is built on the foundation of a Flat Earth, from navigation, to communication, to engineering and infrastructure...it all uses the Globe model...and it all works flawlessly, which further helps to verify the model.
I think you should spend more time looking at the model you're supporting, and leave physics to those who can actually understand it. You're just allowing Flat Earth to con you and fill your head with bullshit.
5
-
@dick_richards A railgun shoots a projectile, just like any other projectile weapon. So just like any other projectile, like a bullet, an arrow, a missile, a rock you throw, it still conforms to the same physics. That projectile is not free from drag force or gravity...and so it will drop, it will not shoot straight indefinitely, which makes shooting over a curve, not only possible but pretty simple, all they have to know is the velocity of the projectile, it's mass and then run a simple parabolic trajectory calculation, to give them a firing angle...and then gravity and air resistance do all the rest.
Here's a page from a Naval railgun tech assessment. https://imgur.com/a/BvLi4#rpTODVY Just scroll through the whole report to learn more about railguns and how they actually work.
5
-
@dick_richards "A Leftist is a person that believes all the demonic lies of this world..."
Jesus man....how did people get so scrambled on things. The left is just a group of regular people, like the rightwing, that just tend to focus more on environment and the well being of people, over economy, military, corporations, etc. That doesn't mean they ignore these other things, they're just the softer hand that prefers we don't destroy our environment or butcher our citizens, just to make a profit or remain secure.
It doesn't mean they're right all the time, that's why we have the rightwing.
The right are just regular people who tend to put job security and economy over all else. The right is the firmer hand, that understands that a society can't survive without a strong economy, a hard working middle class and tough attitude towards anyone who would threaten them, local or abroad.
They are ying and yang bud...and they can't exist without the other. Life is about balance and so is society, you need the left more then you realize. The smart people don't lean far right or far left...they realize that BOTH are fucking insane. Both extremes lead to totalitarianism, if they don't balance the other out....that's the reality of things. Neither side is perfect, they need each other.
That used to be pretty obvious...but nowadays, all you hear about are the extremes, so now all you got are people thinking that's all that exists... are the extremes. Then you stay inside your bubbles and then we become divided...and then you start making stupid statements, like the left are just devil worshipers. No...they're just people, who value something other then money and security. We keep destroying the environment non stop...we will pay the price eventually. We keep blowing up our enemies instead of peacefully working with them...we will pay the price for being assholes.
Likewise, if we ignore the economy, then society will crumble. If we don't defend ourselves from those that would do us harm, then they will not hesitate to take from us.
BOTH SIDES have value...a smart person doesn't align himself firmly in one camp, a smart person doesn't think in absolutes like that. If the left has a good idea, then it should be recognized. If the right has a good idea, same thing.....we USED to work together like that, but society is dividing lately and it's not going to end well, if people keep spreading that agenda, with the ignornat bullshit that you posted above. :/
The left is not your enemy....the FAR LEFT are insane, but the same is true of the FAR RIGHT. They're both crazy as all hell, but you don't have to be like them. Nothing is as black and white as you'd like it to be. I think it's smarter to be in the middle, with a slight leaning to whichever you agree with more....like how it used to be, where we used to work together, to make the best possible society.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
You’re referring to the Ring Laser Gyro experiment conducted by Bob “not a pilot” Knodel and his lackeys at Globebusters. Ring laser gyros are what modern airliners use to detect pitch, yaw and roll in the plane, basically they’re very useful for detecting rotational motion. Scientists have used these for decades to detect and measure Earth’s rotation as well, which is always found to be a steady 15 degrees per hour, consistent with a spherical object rotating at 0.00068 RPM’s, 1 revolution every 24 hours. So, not surprisingly, when Flat Earthers thought to try this experiment themselves, they got the same result.
It was pretty funny actually 😄, but as you’d expect, they just ignored it...as it didn’t confirm their bias, so it never happened in their delusional world.
5
-
Gravity was realized after the geometry of Earth was undeniable. See if you want to understand how science reached the conclusion of gravity, then you have to go in the same order they solved things in. It started with the geometry, which eventually came to a point where it could no longer be denied, that it was spherical. Some basic evidence being the consistent drop of stars to horizon by latitude, different constellations seen in both hemispheres, Sun shadow angles and transit paths only matching a spherical geometry, heck the fact a sunset occurs at all is a pretty good starter proof, eclipses, the list goes on.
Once it became impossible to deny the basic geometry, then they moved on to the physics, such as gravity. It was clear that no matter where you were on the sphere, you were always pulled down to its surface, this could only be possible if a force was present that kept you balanced perpendicular to centre of mass, always pulling you towards centre. We observe this force, it puts dropped objects into motion, always towards surface, so it’s just simple deduction after that. All things are held to surface, thanks to an accelerating force that pulls to centre of mass...and let me tell ya, after gravity was realized, a whole lot of other things started making sense, like orbits, and why everything in space is observed to be spherical...that’s the shape things tend to make, with a force present squeezing all matter around a centre. That’s why bubbles form spheres as well as water drops, it’s the most rigid shape in nature.
So why doesn’t it all get spun off? Good question and it has a simple answer, it’s not spinning fast enough to trump the pull of gravity. Centrifugal force is increased by the rate of revolutions per minute (RPM’s), the more rotations per minute, the more centrifugal force, pretty basic rule of thumb here. Earth completes 1 rotation every 24 hours...so to put that into perspective, rotate a ball in your hand so that it completes one rotation in a 24 hour tine frame...not going very fast is it?
So why do we think water will adhere to a spinning ball? Because we observe that to be the case. Earth is proven spherical and the physics checks out, so it’s not difficult to deduce why. The only people not able to grasp it, are those who haven’t bothered to really understand the physics, of things like gravity and centrifugal force, and who haven’t really tested the geometry of Earth very well.
From what I can gather, you’re just looking at the conclusions of science but not really going very deep into the science to learn how they reached those conclusions...so no wonder you think it’s impossible, you don’t know how any of it works.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The Michelson and Morley experiment was a test to verify the Aether, it was not to test whether the Earth was in motion or not. It didn’t find the Aether, and its final conclusion is that it’s inconclusive, both in the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. Since when do we use an inconclusive result to reach a conclusion in science? We don’t…anyone who does, is doing so out of bias.
The experiment is only noteworthy, because at the time physicists were so certain of the Aether, they were shocked when such a simple experiment came up with nothing conclusive. Then every other experiment after, also could not detect this Aether. Inconclusive test, after inconclusive test…still no evidence for Aether. Michelson Morley was just the start of the failed attempts…that’s why it’s noteworthy.
So here’s what scientists had, mountains of evidence for Earth’s motion, from Foucault pendulum experiments, to the gyro compass, to Coriolis and Eotvos effect, not to mention a heliocentric model that fit perfectly with all astronomical data, and now today it can be detected and measured with large area laser interferometers…but every experiment to find the Aether came up with nothing.
So while the Aether had absolutely no evidence, Earth’s motion had so much it wasn’t even a debate anymore……I wonder which one science is going to reconsider as real. Hmmm…🧐
Flat Earth latches onto the null hypothesis and lies about it…simply because it confirms their bias, that’s all you’ve done…fallen for some bullshit, cause it confirmed a bias. Y’all need to get a better bullshit filter.
5
-
People can debate it all they want, he’s just saying he’s not interested in a debate he feels is objectively wrong. Why should he be forced to debate something he finds to be nonsensical? When you’re working directly with scientists who are putting satellites into orbit on a regular basis…pretty pointless to argue the basics of that science, that’s been settled for hundreds of years now. From his perspective, there’s really no point…they likely wouldn’t be convinced anyway, so it’s a wasted effort.
More to that point, it can actually do more to help spread misinformation, by entertaining it and providing an audience for it. Conmen target and bait big names like Tyson for a reason, he’d bring a larger audience. The sad truth is, you don’t have to be right to win a debate, you just have to be a better talker. Debating is a skill, a skill conmen have honed, so why give potential conmen what they want most…attention? It just sends the false impression that these kinds of topics actually have merit and legitimacy. So it’s smart not to take that bait, far better to just ignore them, then they eventually fizzle out on their own.
Flat Earth isn’t holding any real cards in the scientific community, so why give them any?
5
-
Debating is a skill, and typically those who enjoy debating will practice and engage in that skill. You can win a debate, even if you’re absolutely wrong, just by being a better talker, just by having more practice in debating. Tyson has stated several times now, that he doesn’t care to debate science, it doesn’t interest him, debating doesn’t interest him, so it’s not a skill he’s developed, so he’s really under no obligation to do so. Why people think he absolutely has to do debates against his will, is just odd to me. Do you think you should be forced to do things you’re not interested in? I bet not…so why should he?
On top of that, conmen and grifters often use debates as free advertising. It’s just giving them what they want, a platform to spread their misinformation, they don’t even have to win, just getting out in front of more people is all they need…so debates are just marketing to them, they gain everything, regardless of whether they’re right or not. Science should never engage with known or even potential conmen, just creates this false impression that their bullshit has legitimacy. Much smarter to just ignore them, let them fade away into obscurity on their own.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@yestervue4697 “...you cannot fly in a perfectly level angle at zero degrees pitch indefinitely on any sphere of any size...”
Agreed, I’ve never been arguing with you on that, why do you continue to think I am? My point is that you will never notice the degree pitch, because of how gradual it would really be, on a globe at our scale. You also won’t notice, because gravity puts you in a field of force that’s equal distance from centre, at all times. So the inertial centre of gravity is constantly shifting with the surface, meaning as long as the plane maintains perpendicular to surface (which isn’t difficult to do at all with how many gyros they got helping them), then nobody will ever notice an inertial shift in gravity.
It’s easy to stay at altitude as well, because the altimeter tells the pilot when he’s off...so just like a car driving down a highway needs to gradually adjust the wheel to stay on the road, a pilot will gradually adjust the plane, to stay at altitude. This can mean, gradually adjusting pitch, but like I mentioned before, gravity can also do this, because gravity is always pulling the plane down, so it doesn’t have to pitch down as wildly as it did to get higher in altitude, it can just let gravity take it down when it needs too as well.
“...cannot fly along any sphere no matter the size in any aircraft...and maintain a set altitude...That’s simple physics...”
No, that’s geometry...why do you keep calling it physics? Do you know what physics is? Your points are largely discussing just the basic geometry, no physics is really being discussed yet (though I’ve brought up lift and gravity often, which is physics), just shapes and scales, which is all mathematical, all geometry.
Look man, you’re arguing a position that is going against millions of scientists and experts the world over...and acting as if they’re the ones in error here, claiming that you know better what science is...when you don’t even seem to know the difference between physics and geometry. Ever consider that maybe YOU are the one that’s missing something, not everybody else?
Yes, I do know a pilot you can chat with about this, look up Wolfie6020 sometime, he’s a licensed international pilot from Australia, who has several videos on this very topic. He’s pretty understanding and patient with people, and he’s quite knowledgeable. Look him up and bring your questions to his attention, he’ll help you out further.
5
-
5
-
You think projectiles like that are shot in a straight line eh…well there’s your problem, a false assumption. Any projectile, regardless of what’s firing it, is subject to gravity the moment it leaves the barrel. So these guns are not shooting in a straight line, they instead point the barrels up at an angle, and then the projectile fires in a parabolic arc, helped along by gravity, dropping it down. It’s pretty standard artillery knowledge, you can look up parabolic arc trajectory formulas that gunners use, they’re not firing these guns straight, that’s a false assumption you have. Can’t fire that far in a straight line on a curved surface, you’re correct…but you sure can fire over a curvature pretty easily. If you know the drop rate of your projectile from the gun you’re using, then it’s pretty simple to angle your gun up at the proper angle.
Typically those who feel the need to mention their IQ or boast about it, are often not as smart as they claim. If you fell for flat Earth, then that really puts that number into question.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Dr. Bas Ackwards So let me get this straight…the Flat Earth model has absolutely NO EXPLANATION for how a lunar eclipse is possible and how it occurs, but the globe Earth which does have an extremely simple and logical explanation for lunar eclipse, is the model with a problem? 🤷♂️ Are you even listening to yourself? Flat Earth has no solid explanations for lunar eclipses…you don’t think that’s a problem? You’re just gonna ignore that BIG HOLE and nitpick about a few things YOU personally don’t think work on the globe model? How can you honestly think you have the superior argument here?
Refraction does account for the Selenelion eclipse, so like it or not, you can’t just hand wave that aside so you can keep to a bias. An objective researcher would consider it and then go deeper into the science. It should be noted that the selenlion eclipse is very rare, relying on index of refraction for that area, it only occurs on the terminator line of night and day, and the Sun and Moon are always observed on completely opposite points of the sky. So all the variables are there to fit the model just fine….while Flat Earth model hasn’t even left the starting gate yet, doesn’t have any clue how a lunar eclipse works.
Now as for the shadow and where it passes, the Moon orbits 5 degrees off the ecliptic, and this orbital path wobbles. This 5 degree tilt and wobbling orbit is what keeps the Moon from passing into Earth’s shadow every 28 days…that’s why we don’t see a lunar eclipse every month, because the Moon isn’t actually on the same ecliptic plane as the Earth is. So sometimes the Moons orbit is moving up as it passes through the shadow, essentially coming from under it…hence why you see the shadow approach from the top.
This isn’t tricky stuff, it’s basic geometry and astronomy…but you sure don’t seem to care, because you’re working so hard to ignore anything that might pull you out of the flat Earth delusion. Flat Earth has no answers for the Lunar eclipse…that shouldn’t just be so easily ignored by you people, you should be asking yourself why and you should question your model, with the same standard of analysis as you do the globe.
That’s why a lot of us don’t take Flat Earthers very seriously, you’re hypocrites…shouting “QUESTION EVERYTHING!! Except Flat Earth though…it’s perfect.” See the problem? That’s what you look like from our perspective. We wish we could just have a conversation, but you guys just get angry when we question your positions and point out the flaws, not willing to listen or consider anything that is counter to what you currently believe. We’ve done the research that Flat Earth keeps asking us to do, but we’ve reached the opposite conclusion.
In any case, the fact remains, the globe accounts for a lunar eclipse, while FE does not. I don’t think you should ignore that so easily. Are there peculiarities and oddities that occur with the lunar eclipse? Yes, absolutely, the geometry of the solar system is complex, with a lot of variables happening all at once. So we’d expect there to be a few occurrences that aren’t as simple to understand, without a bit more knowledge and understanding. You’re not poking holes in anything…you’re just doing sloppy research to confirm a bias. Over exaggerating a few anomalies and blowing them out of proportion…to turn people’s attention away from the GLARING problem you face with the Flat Earth model. It’s a nice misdirection trick, but sorry, didn’t work on us I’m afraid.
5
-
5
-
@tombass3288 So we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, because a few people don’t understand something? Just because YOU personally don’t understand something, doesn’t make it false. Do you ever consider the possibility, that maybe theres just some information or understandings, that you’re not aware of? For example, the Arctic is very different from the Antarctic, in that the Arctic is not a landmass, it’s an ice sheet on the ocean...and it’s nowhere near as thick of an ice sheet. The ocean traps and transfers a lot more heat...it’s basic physics, conduction and convection. Put an ice cube on a table, and another in a glass of water, which one will melt first? The ice in the glass of water will melt LONG before the ice on land ever will.
Variables that matter...physics and knowledge you ignored or are not aware of, that are important towards understanding your quandary there. There’s a lot of basic science like that, Flat Earthers don’t know or understand, and it’s why you reach such false conclusions and assume things are just impossible. Maybe learn some actual science and things would make better sense to you then. :/
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
There’s probably millions of full photos of Earth from space at this point, being ignorant about it doesn’t change that.
You must have a low opinion of science, if you really think they never once thought to factor perspective in their observations. You people are not geniuses catching simple things the rest of us just overlooked, you are suckers listening blindly to conmen feeding you half truths and bullshit, successfully tricking you to think such simple things were overlooked.
The average passenger jet fly’s at roughly 500 mph, yet people can get up and walk around the cabin just fine. Ever considered there’s maybe a lot of physics you don’t quite know about or understand currently?
I don’t know what kind of poor education you received, but at my school they didn’t just talk about science and expect you to believe it all without question, they demonstrated it with pretty clear and conclusive experiments, and encouraged us to ask questions about each one.
Little hard to light up an empty space with nothing in it. Light needs something to reflect off of, otherwise you’re just seeing direct light from the source. Light in the daytime reflects off of our atmosphere, scattering the light, making the atmosphere visible. In space there is no atmosphere, so nothing to reflect light, so nothing to illuminate.
5
-
@Allstarsga We see curvature everywhere, if you can’t find it, then maybe step out of your echo chamber and try again.
https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
We don’t feel constant motion, we feel inertia that’s created by sudden or rapid change in motion. That’s physics of motion 101. Earth is constant in every single one of its motions, with only small gradual changes in Velocity. Science has however detected and measured Earth’s motions in several different ways now. Here’s a short sample of experiments that confirm rotation.
https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss
https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U
https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o
Physics does not say atmosphere can’t exist next to a vacuum...flat Earthers say that, because they’re masters at misunderstanding basic physics and twisting it to fit their bias. Physics knows that gravity is the container of our atmosphere, which also creates the pressure gradient we measure, and no laws of thermodynamics are broken because the entropy is slowed by the attractive force of gravity.
You’re not really seeking truth, you’re layman thinking you’re smarter than actual scientists, who are chasing bias without realizing it. If you bothered to actually listen to people when they try to help you with the errors you’ve made, you might actually realize how you’re being conned.
Misunderstand and cherry pick the science all you want though, the basic fact remains that flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science or technology today. So you’re right, in that there is no point debating this topic anymore, Earth is a globe, that has been a certainty for hundreds of years now. Stop getting your science from con men and non experts spreading misinformation, and rejoin reality. Learn some real science.
5
-
5
-
It's pretty common sense that you require an accurate map of an area, in order to find a destination, correct? Well, we have developed an entire system of navigation, built from the understanding that Earth is a sphere, with a circumference of roughly 25,000 miles, with two equal hemispheres. Lines of latitude are equal in both the North and South hemispheres, that does not happen if Earth is flat. So best proof of a globe, just learn how to navigate...like really take the time and learn, then apply that knowledge sometime, like many have done before. You really think millions of pilots and sailors around the world, can plot and navigate successful routes around the Earth, with precise accuracy, without actually knowing the true shape and scale of the surface they're navigating? If so, you might need to rethink that position...cause it's not very sound in logic.
Just one of many easy to verify proofs of Earths spherical geometry. Would you like more? Seems like you could really use some.
5
-
5
-
There is no doubt amongst experts who actually have real world experience in fields of work relevant to the discussion…the only people who still question this today are layman with very poor educations, very little actual world experience, who spend too much time online confirming their biases.
The 2002 Blue Marble image is not a painting…it’s a composite, meaning thousands of REAL photographs of surface, compiled together like a puzzle to make a single image of Earth. The 1972 Blue Marble photo is a photograph…taken in a single shot, with a regular ol’ camera. If you think either is a painting, then provide your evidence for that claim.
No, a zoom lens can bring objects back from the vanishing point, but that is not horizon, that’s just the physical limitation of your naked eye to resolve an object due to perspective. Flat Earth has fooled people here by making them think scientists never once thought to use a telescopic lens in their observations of distant objects…the truth is that’s exactly how those observations are made, they don’t use the naked eye, what made you think they did? 🤷♂️ Eventually objects reach a point where no amount of further zooming in will bring it back into full focus, they become obscured at their base, and they begin to sink into horizon and below eye level. This is when something has actually reached the physical horizon. Look up the Turning Torso tower observation if you need proof, one of countless examples.
Flat Earth is a con, feeding you false information and half truths. Don’t be another sucker, get a better bullshit filter. I hope this information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@chrisskully1228 “No experiments have been given to me that don’t involve some sort of assumption…”
Ya…..and you never will, because every experiment has a hypothesis as its base. What do you think a hypothesis is? It’s an assumption! 😄 Every experiment starts with a hypothesis, which is basically just an educated guess reached from prior knowledge…then you test that guess, that’s the whole point of an experiment! 😄 You do experiments to test if a premise is true or not…you don’t have an experiment without a hypothesis…..that’s where EVERY experiment starts!
But is the falling motion we observe in dropped objects an assumption? No, it’s very clearly happening, and it always happens, you can drop almost anything and it will always fall. Don’t have to assume anything there, it’s a fact…and it’s also a fact that a force is required for any and all motion to occur, nothing just moves on its own. The hypothesis is in what causes it….that’s what science does, it tests cause and effect relationships. To do that, you make a guess….and then you test that guess.
Welcome to science, that’s how it works. You seem to think that’s an erroneous way to do things…even though it’s clearly brought results. May I ask how you think science should be done instead? 🧐 Go right ahead, you’re the one who seems to think you’re smarter than every scientist in the world, so you must have a better way of doing things that’s proven itself to be even more productive. So feel free to share.
5
-
Here’s a fact about Google Earth, it uses camera planes flying a bit lower than your average passenger jet, to photograph the closer details of the surface. You can look that up, it’s fairly simple information to confirm. I think many people assume it’s all done by satellites, but that’s actually a misconception. There’s very few satellites in orbit right now that can resolve crisp detailed images of surface that close up, so surveillance planes are used instead, for the really close detailed images of surface. These planes wouldn’t bother flying over any area that’s not inhabited…cause why would they? 🤷♂️ If nobody lives there, if there’s nothing there, then why bother scanning it? Do me a favour, zoom in on places in far Northern Canada, where nobody lives…you’ll find it’s just as blurry and pixelated.
The North Pole is an ice sheet over the ocean…so there’s no permanent structures, meaning no cities, towns, villages, not even research bases…so why would they bother with accurate visual data there?
You’re jumping to conclusions from pure speculation alone…doesn’t make for a very strong argument. But I hope that information helps you with your questions.
5
-
5
-
Well, these days they can accurately measure the size of Venus, by bouncing micro and radio waves off of its surface, this also is how they measure its distance, as the speed of these transmissions is clocked and measured, so they just count the return time and then calculate the distance. Once Venus's position and distance is known, it's just a bit trigonometry to figure out the Suns position...we use the exact same mathematics to navigate with, it's proven mathematics. There's many more methods for measuring/calculating that distance as well. Another example, the Sun is constantly bursting with solar mass ejections, the speed of these charged particles is known. Once one is detected visually -- since light travels much faster -- they just count the time it takes to hit Earth...this time can then be used to calculate an accurate distance.
What's important to note, is that they've come up with several ways to measure the Suns distance now, and each one gives the same figures. It's that same figure that's important here, cause if they were getting a bunch of different figures, then that would be a sign that the methods were flawed, but since every method brings that same figure, it's a good sign the methods are sound and that the figure is accurate.
Tons of university level lectures on this very topic to be found right here on YouTube, so you can learn this stuff at any time my man. It's a great question, but why remain in ignorance to the answers? Currently, you're just making an argument from ignorance, which doesn't hold up at all to scrutiny.
5
-
@filipebernardino2152 Why would you expect every photo to be the same? Different cameras, with different lenses, different colour and exposure settings, shot at varying angles and perspectives, and every photographer edits their photos slightly different from the next, I’m sure it’s not much different with whoever’s operating the satellites. Then there’s the difference between film photography (the Apollo photos), digital photography (satellites), what spectrum of light they’re filming in (radio, x-ray, infrared, etc), and then there’s composites which are heavily edited. Seriously…why would you ever expect every photo to be the same? 🤷♂️
Let me guess, you saw that meme where some Flat Earther put a few examples side by side, pulling from the most extreme examples, most of them being composites and some that were computer generated, and that’s the depth of your research? You need a better bullshit filter my man.
5
-
5
-
Well, no, he didn’t even do the measurement correctly. He used a parabola equation, with no variable for height of observer (among many other missing variables), so he wasn’t even using the correct math, so his calculations were way off. He did also ignore atmosphere refraction though, yes, that was a big variable he also ignored, but his whole experiment was just a mess all around. So upon peer review it was found extremely inconclusive, due to sloppy experimentation. He basically just did enough to confirm his bias, and then he called it a day. It’s the perfect example for why peer review is so important to science. Upon recreation of the experiment, it’s actually found to be conclusive evidence for the globe, not the other way around.
Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it’s a very in depth modern recreation of the experiment. It’s been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years.
5
-
@goggamer3012 Well, gravity physics was a long process to deduce...you’re not going to figure it out with a single observation or experience. But, you have experience with the Earth itself. Drop something...it will fall, that direction is always towards Earth, always at the same rate. Place an object on a scale, the force of gravity will press it down, creating pressure, the scale then registers as a weight value....wouldn’t do that without a force pushing it down, that’s how a scale works, you apply a force downward upon the top of the scale. Falling is a motion, and since nothing is put into motion without a force or an apparent force, it means a force does exist. So it exists...there’s no denying that, but that’s only half the battle.
Verifying HOW it works, that takes some work, it requires further experimentation, which starts with a hypothesis. The main hypothesis for gravity attraction was that mass attracts mass, so science had to test and verify if that was true or not. It was verified with the Cavendish experiment, here’s a great explanation and demonstration https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. This confirms part of things, it verifies that mass does in fact attract other mass, the experiment also measures the force more directly, providing a value which was useful for Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation, which helps astronomers and astrophysicists calculate orbital motions more accurately, among other things.
But that doesn’t even explain how it works fully, just a part of how. The next big confirmed hypothesis was the bending of space time, first verified in the Eddington experiment of 1919.
It’s a process...to learn how gravity works, takes time. It took centuries to get where we are with gravity today, and we still don’t know everything about it yet. How mass bends space and time...nobody really knows for certain yet. So you see, asking HOW something works, is a bigger question than you might think, especially when it comes to gravity physics. It’s very difficult science to understand fully, but I hope this information I’ve shared is helpful.
5
-
5
-
FFS...peel your head away from that book for awhile and open your frickin eyes, you gotta hit your head pretty hard to believe anything in scripture is actually true. Don’t need a Phd to deduce this stuff, just your eyes and some basic logic. Maybe travel outside your home town for once in your life, visit a different country sometime and notice that the Sun is visible from somewhere at every hour...it’s not disappearing for 7 hours and then returning, it’s high noon for someone somewhere, that’s easily verified with just a little travel bud.
So here are the basic facts, the Sun does appear to rise and set, but it’s also visible at every hour somewhere on Earth, both are easy to verify. So basic geometry will tell you, these two facts of reality kind of contradict each other, if Earth were flat. Meanwhile, a globe Earth fits this geometry perfectly...so pretty simple to deduce which is actually true.
The Bible is pure BS from front to back, best to rip that bandaid off as soon as ya can.
5
-
5
-
I don’t need fancy equipment, or an expensive university degree, to deduce that a sunset is an impossible phenomenon, if the Sun is never geometrically blocked from my line of sight over a flat Earth. Just one of many simple observations that falsifies a flat Earth, it’s not rocket science. Just a basic understanding of physics and geometry is all you need, a little world travel helps as well, but it’s not necessary.
You can ramble all day about how some delusions that you/others made up gives your life meaning and purpose, then assume that the rest of us somehow struggle with finding purpose — whatever helps you feel superior to others I guess — but I’m here to tell you, it’s not for everyone. If it works for you, great, I’m happy that you’re happy, but I’ve never been able to lie to myself and just believe made up superstitions, simply because they’re repeated over and over again. Doesn’t mean my life is meaningless, I find joy and purpose in just the simple fact that I exist, a conscious life born in an indifferent and chaotic, but also extremely beautiful universe, that I’ll never fully understand. I don’t feel small or insignificant, I’m not scared by that, I’m excited by the possibilities, I don’t take any of it for granted, I’m happy to be here just experiencing it all, right here, right now. That’s all I’ve ever needed. Maybe that’s just something YOU will never understand.
To each their own.
5
-
5
-
@hershelpogue1745 Uh huh, just gonna ignore my point on Ptolemy and deflect to a new topic eh. Classic. 🙄
You’ve been across a bridge, while I have travelled the world. I’ve seen the second hemisphere sky, the different stars, the second celestial rotation. That geometry is simply not possible on a flat Earth, it does however make perfect sense on a globe. As for your causeway bridge, I assume you mean the Pontchartrain bridge (which clearly shows curvature by the way, it’s been photographed many times), it’s about 60 feet above the water table (and that’s just its baseline, each boat entry point rises to about 100 feet), so did you factor that observer height into your curvature math? And refraction is always occurring (especially over large bodies of water where humidity increases air density). You’re always looking through atmosphere, so there’s always going to be refraction…it doesn’t just shut off. So you don’t get to just ignore it.
No, I think you watched a few Flat Earth docs on YouTube, believed everything they said without question, and now you think you’re an expert on Earth science. Go ahead and repeat what you heard from these docs all you like, I’ve heard it all parroted many times before. You’re nothing special, just another sucker falling for an online hoax.
5
-
5
-
I agree, truth does not fear scrutiny, so did you keep watching to see if it disappeared bottom first once at full zoom? Do you honestly think scientists made this observation with the naked eye and you people are the first to do it while zoomed in? Of course not, they used a telescopic lens to see as far as they could AND THEN made the observation of boats disappearing bottom first. You’re being conned my friend.
Did you do any research on perspective and the vanishing point? Did you know that horizon and vanishing point are not the same thing at all? When you bring a boat back into focus, you’re bringing it back from the vanishing point, which is just your eyes physical limit to render something visible at distances. Horizon on the other hand, is a physical obstruction of line of sight, caused by your surface curving away from you...if Earth was flat, there would be no horizon. Simple fact is...if you can bring a boat back from the vanishing point, then it hasn’t gone over the horizon yet. You should really leave the camera rolling and then watch as boats begin to disappear bottom first...just like how scientists and sailors first made these observations.
You and flat Earth seem to somehow think you’re free from the same standards of review...but you’re not. Truth is, you have just reached yet another rushed conclusion from a single observation that ignores variables. If you people would just calm the fuck down, breath, turn the all caps off and actually LISTEN to people when they try to explain what you’re missing, perhaps you wouldn’t fall for these internet scams so easily.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Okay, Flat Earthers use the wrong math for the observation they’re making. It’s a rough curvature calculation, yes, but it’s not a line of sight calculation, can’t even tell you where horizon is from any given elevation, let alone what’s hidden by horizon…because it doesn’t account for height of the observer. Should be pretty common knowledge, but you see further the higher up you go. So observation height kinda matters here, but the math that gets peddle by Flat Earthers doesn’t factor that, among other important variables it also doesn’t factor.
Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Why none of you thought to check the math you’re using, says a lot about the people who fall for Flat Earth.
5
-
@OfficialElljay “there are a plethora of flight plans that prove the earth is not a globe.”
No, there’s a few flight plans that some conmen lie about and suckers like you fall for. Meanwhile, every actual pilot and sailor is navigating the Earth right this very second, using a global system of navigation to do it. Learn to navigate if this topic truly interests you…don’t just blindly agree to every piece of bullshit you watch or read online.
“There is also video evidence of rockets strapped with cameras hittin the ceiling of the firmament.”
No, there’s videos of small cargo rockets being put into controlled spins, to stabilize their trajectory, and then they’re despun using what’s known as a yo-yo despin mechanism. Think about it for a second longer than you have. Why would you put cameras on a rocket, if it’s just gonna be spinning uncontrollably the whole time? Look up the yo-yo despin mechanism sometime, it’s a pretty simple mechanism, used in rockets and satellites to stop them from spinning. You’ve jumped to an erroneous conclusion, from a lack of knowledge on the subject.
“And alot of declassified Cia files on fallen angles and their technology.”
No, there’s some bullshit somebody made, that you agreed was official, without any further research or confirmation.
“The globe model was created the same time Allistair Crowley drew the demon lam which he also summoned.”
Jesus…you’re off the deep end now. 🤦♂️ No, there are old globes in museums today, going as far back as the 15th century. You need to peel your face away from your computer screen and get out more.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Most satellites are the size of a small car, and to get a full picture of Earth in a single frame, you have to be at least 2x’s its diameter in distance, that’s optimal distance to photograph anything in full. So roughly 16,000 miles in the Earth’s case. As I’m sure you know, the further you are from something, the more perspective shrinks its apparent size until it’s no longer visible to you. You can barely see a passenger jet from 6 miles away flying above you…what makes you think you’d see anything at 16,000 miles away? I don’t think you’re quite factoring the vast scales and distances you’re dealing with in these photos, or how small satellites are compared to Earth.
If you were seeing photos of Earth with visible satellites surrounding it, then they were not real photos of Earth. Or they were, but the satellites were added.
5
-
5
-
Ok, but you’re making a lot of bias assumptions of your own...without even realizing it. You’re intentionally ignoring gravity in your Nile river example, not quite understanding how elevation works here...you’re instead just assuming that North is up and South is down and that’s not at all how it works 🤦♂️. So the problem is your own, in not understanding the model you’re attempting to refute. Little hard to debunk a model, if you don’t even understand how it works.
You in one breath said Eratosthenes assumed 93 million miles, then in the next were completely happy to assume 3000 miles is the “correct distance”, using the same experiment. You don’t see that as hypocritical and bias? Furthermore, you’re even misunderstanding that experiment, it didn’t measure the AU, that was never its intention nor could it. It was merely an effort to measure Earths circumference, that’s all. Yes, without any further data points taken, you have to assume a sphere with his original experiment...but take any more than two (or plot the data in 3 dimensions instead of 2), and you will not be able to pin point a local sun. Here’s an example from someone who thought to try that.
https://youtu.be/LeEw0Fw1qio
Eratosthenes already knew the Earth was a sphere...sundials pretty much already prove it, as did navigation, heck the phenomena of a sunset at all, in the manner in which we observe it, is proof enough of a globe. So he already knew Earth was spherical, the Greeks were masters of geometry, and he was one of the best mathematicians of his time...deducing the Earth was spherical, doesn’t take much. His experiment was merely to measure it...it was in no way an effort to measure the AU, that wasn’t achieved until millennia later.
Finally, not sure how you think a sextant verifies a flat Earth (but feel free to elaborate further), it would actually verify a globe. The stars drop to horizon at a consistent rate by latitude...if the Earth was flat, they would not drop consistently, they would drop less and less, at a rate that isn’t consistent, the further away you got...it’s basic geometry. In reality, stars drop consistently by latitude...as they should, if Earth is spherical.
These points have all been beaten to death at this point...but you guys just keep repeating them anyway. Though a part of me admires the stubborn tenacity, so by all means I guess, you’re free to do what you want here. The scientific method includes peer review, so it’s perfectly fine that you guys are asking questions of the Globe, but that review goes both ways. You don’t seem to realize it, but you’re assuming and asserting a lot in your conclusions and are being quite ignorant to all the details, almost like you did just the bare minimum of research on each point, until your bias was confirmed and then you stopped looking. And if you don’t think you have bias...just look at your username, then tell me you’re not bias.
I don’t think Sabine really reads these comments, but it would be interesting I suppose if she did get in contact. Though I’m willing to chat if you’d like, I can certainly shift gears to a more civil and respectful tone and hear you out. Though it’s fine, I can understand you’re probably tired of these comment thread discussions, you’d rather discuss with a face you can identify and seem to already respect. I would leave that to you, I might come off a bit short and frustrated, but I’m actually in agreement with Sabine on this. Nothing wrong with questioning established science, in fact it’s quite logical, nothing should ever be off the table for debate.
5
-
5
-
Well, I would say science should avoid reaching conclusions on single observations. There’s always gonna be someone looking to make a name for themselves by claiming to have falsified renowned science, it’s part of why we have peer review in the first place, to weed out potential huxters. The Eddington experiment that Edward Dowdye was recreating, has been reproduced many times over the last 100 years, why didn’t any of those recreations bring a similar conclusion to Dowdye’s work? I think that’s a valid question to ask. I’m currently not aware of any other recreations that came back with similar results to Dowdye’s experiment, but I certainly don’t know of every test, but currently I’m aware of far more that fit the GR predictions.
It’s pretty clear that there are holes in GR, it’s well known that the theory doesn’t work inside the quantum realm very much at all, but yet it still works pretty flawlessly on larger scales. I don’t think it’s from lack of trying to falsify GR, but every time they set out to test its predictions in the larger scales, it always yields positive results. So what would you prefer they do? Just ignore the data? From time dilation, to gravitational waves, to red shifting of stars due to space expansion, it’s done pretty well explaining and accounting for everything on the macro scale so far.
Science doesn’t know everything, but it doesn’t really set out with that goal either. There’s simply too much to know, it’s very likely we’ll never learn everything, so it’s a bit of a fool’s errand to even try and learn everything. Best we can do is just learn what we can, when we can, make observations, record data, do our best to interpret it with the rest of the knowledge we have at the time. Science gets things wrong all the time, but that’s not a bad thing, it’s always been a process of trial and error. New information always has the potential to change old information, and that’s the way it’s probably always gonna be. I think people just have this misconception of science, largely because the scientific community has allowed it to happen, that science is somehow infallible, that it has to be right always, or it falls apart. There’s really no need for that kind of pressure, science is just another tool in the belt, sometimes it builds some sturdy foundations, and other times it builds on quicksand. We shouldn’t be upset or angry if something is proven wrong, we learn so much more from errors than we do success. That said, the scientific community shouldn’t just roll over for the first guy claiming to have falsified something, takes a lot more than that.
5
-
5
-
@chris73brown Ok, but just stop and think about that observation for a few seconds longer than you have. If line of sight to the Sun is never physically blocked...then how does the Sun set? Should be a pretty simple and logical geometric question to ask...how does that work exactly, if the Earth is flat? You can take that observation even further, recording everything from the shadow angles, to the rate of travel, to the apparent size, to the path of travel, to the day time hours fir every location throughout a year, and then you can plot that data upon the geometry...to see which model it fits. People have actually done this...they’ve discovered that none of that data fits a flat Earth, but it fits a spherical Earth perfectly. Here are some examples from a mathematician who checked the data.
https://youtu.be/fEYsgP4CuSA
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM
https://youtu.be/EF6Ojo9fJhw
Just because YOU have never personally bothered to look, does not mean others have not as well. You’re just making an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Real people do know for certain what’s true, and it really doesn’t take much effort these days, just some basic understanding of geometry. At any time, YOU can also make these observations and collect your own data. That’s why this conspiracy is kind of ridiculous, because anyone can test it at anytime they want, nobody can stop you from testing the very Earth you live on.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@noel101082 How is YOUR understanding of thermodynamics? You’re aware that it has more to do with energy transfer and equilibrium right, not so much matter? For example, when your coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Pretty simple example I hope. Matter of course tags along for the ride sometimes (and total entropy is always inevitable), but matter is subject to forces that can and do keep them contained, effectively slowing entropy. Forces like gravity, which is what contains our atmosphere. Flat Earth can claim all they like that an open atmosphere contradicts entropy laws, but it’s very ignorant to the role gravity plays on the system. We measure a pressure gradient, that’s a reality, the pressure gradient is consistent with what we’d expect with gravity containing our atmosphere, so much so it’s included in atmospheric pressure equations as a variable. Even flat Earthers have sent up weather balloons to the fringes of atmosphere, and you might notice in that video footage that the balloons all eventually pop, as they’re designed to do in vacuum conditions. So even FE has unknowingly measured the vacuum that exists up there…but you know what they have never found? A container…and neither has mainstream science.
So all they have is a butchered understanding of thermodynamics physics…no actual tangible evidence for this container they claim exists. Evidence is pretty key to scientific conclusions…we should never form conclusions without it. They can maybe form a hypothesis from their understanding, but it’s easily falsified just by understanding that gases are subject to gravity, just like all mass is. Though it’s dead in the water just by confirming satellites exist as well…but I understand they’ll fight tooth and nail to deny that technology exists, so I won’t use it for argument here.
On top of all that, you do realize our system is constantly shedding energy and gas, right? So entropy does occur all the time in our atmosphere, that’s why atmosphere extends so far. The Karmen line is the official border of space, but it’s not a defined line, there’s still atmosphere even at that distance, it’s still a gradient of gas. FE might have a point…IF we didn’t have a source of new energy for our system. Luckily for us hough, we have a constant source of new energy, from the Sun. But that now presents a bit of a problem for FE’s model. If our system is contained, with no way for gas to escape…yet our system is constantly receiving energy that produces new gases every single day…wouldn’t we expect heat and air pressure to rise exponentially? I think you’ll find it’s actually flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws.
To your other points, curie point only effects metals HOLDING a magnetic charge…it has nothing to do with ELECTROMAGNETIC charges, which our rotating molten iron core could easily produce…in fact it’s the only thing that could create the magnetic field we know exists on Earth. Tell me…how does Flat Earth explain this magnetic field? What do you know about seismology? Do you know anything at all about the science that helped us determine the composition of our inner core? What do you know about S and P waves? I think you should do some research on that if this topic truly interests you.
Coriolis is observed, measured and proven, so it’s not a “pseudo effect” in the slightest…you’re just ignorant. Hurricanes and Typhoons are observed to rotate in opposite directions depending on their hemisphere, marksman and artillery gunners do absolutely have to account for this effect or they will miss targets, even pilots must adjust for this effect. Here’s a marksman explaining and demonstrating Coriolis drop charting https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs. Here’s an actual pilot explaining how pilots adjust fir this effect in flight https://youtu.be/eugYAfHW0I8. And here’s an accredited scientist and engineer directly testing the effect, verifying it exists through experimentation https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38.
So any other bullshit points from FE you’d like to address? You should really stop getting your physics lessons from huxters and conmen in YouTube videos. You do strike me as an intelligent person…don’t let your desires to confirm a bias you may have, rob you of your objective reasoning. Flat Earth is an online hoax, perpetuated by conmen…don’t be one of their victims. It’s perfectly fine to question things, in fact it’s logical to question everything and remain skeptical, but don’t forget to turn that skeptical eye around on even the sources of information you’ve come to trust. It’s not difficult to lie online…the modern internet is a con mans paradise. Just keep that in mind.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
They actually do change, it’s well documented at this point and any astronomer (you know, the people who actually observe, track and record the sky night after night) would tell you the same.
Combustion is achieved in rockets in space with the use of a liquid oxidizer, most commonly liquid oxygen, but there are others https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/oxidizing/oxiziding_hazards.html. It’s just chemistry at that point, mixing a fuel with an oxidizer, to cause an intense chemical reaction.
Propulsion is achieved by the third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So basically, gas explodes out one way, that kinetic energy is transferred to the rocket, sending it the other way, transferring that velocity and maintaining it. It’s basic physics of motion, in fact a rocket actually works better in space, because there’s no drag force.
Anything else you’d like help with?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Yes you can, because direction is relative. That angle is relative to the Earth’s orbital plane, so that angle can be determined because a reference point can be determined. Earth doesn’t have a top or bottom though, because what would those distinctions be relative too? 🤷♂️ What’s your reference point for making that determination?
An axis of rotation is objective, an orbital path is objective, so a tilt in the axis of rotation can be objectively determined relative to that orbital plane. Top or bottom though…any point on Earths surface is equally valid for either designation, any and all points on Earth can be the top or the bottom, so none are. The axis of rotation however, is in one place, it’s not going anywhere. Earth only orbits along one path, so they are set in stone. So you can absolutely determine an axial tilt relative to that orbit.
It’s not our problem you don’t understand relative reference points. The rest of us understand that direction is relative just fine.
5
-
@zquest42 I find that’s where a lot of flat Earthers start, with the “faked space” docs about NASA. I find it’s key to note here though, that even if they did (or even could) fake going too space for this long, it still does not mean the Earth is flat. But I get it, it’s where some people seem to start losing trust in science, once that trust is gone, you start going deeper. Which is fine, nothing wrong with asking questions and I’m glad people are out there keeping an eye on authority, it’s actually the one thing I admire about flat Earth...but I think you start to lean heavy on that bias of not trusting them, and I don’t really think you’re being as objective about things as you seem to think.
What if I told you though, that those “faked space” docs, are taking you on a ride? That they’re the real liars and scammers, doing all they can to get you to believe what they’re selling you. It’s not hard once they have you doubting and getting people to doubt is easy (especially if you already don’t trust something or someone), just edit the information a little bit, lie and speculate endlessly. You’d likely disagree, but have you ever stopped to actually challenge any of their claims, or were you prone to believe them almost immediately, simply because you tend to trust the word of regular people, more than you do systems of authority?
I’ll take a moment to shed some more light on my point, addressing just a couple of your other points.
Neil saying the Earth is a pear/oblate spheroid. If you were really being objective here, you’d actually watch the full interview where this comment was made. Even Neil realized his comparison of a pear wasn’t accurate and then later he redacted the comment, restating several times that the Earth is classified as an Oblate Spheroid, meaning not a perfect sphere, slightly wider at the Equator, which is true. That’s the part you likely know, the part you’ve likely never asked yourself though is HOW OBLATE is it? The answer is, not very much at all. To the naked eye, it will appear perfectly spherical...but when you really measure it, technically it is not perfect. Scientists are all about accuracy, they know it looks perfectly spherical to your naked eye, but it’s not in reality, so he was being honest and telling people its true classification. It is bias that leads you to think this is somehow fishy...it is classic cherry picking and twisting of information to fit a bias, turning an honest answer into suspicion, all to confirm bias. If you’d like to visualize just how tiny the difference is, here’s a great video that can help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ It’s a tiny difference, as this video demonstrates, you will not notice by simply eyeballing it.
Saying they can’t go back to the Moon cause they lost/destroyed the tech. Well, first of all, new missions are planned for later this decade, just look up the Artemis project, they are going back very soon. Secondly, there are details and an engineering perspective you’re not considering here. They only built so many lunar modules, and they are old and falling apart, so they were discontinued and destroyed, because they’re not safe for manned missions anymore. The plans of course still exist, but they too are out dated...it’s like building a model T car when our technology for building cars is far more advanced now, why would we build another model T to go into space? We wouldn’t, we’d engineer a new vehicle...the problem is, when you do this, there is a long process of research and development that needs to occur. Every new system has to be tested thoroughly, for the environment it’s going to be used in...this presented a problem over the last 40 years or so, because the old modules were all analog...which were not prone to breaking down in strong magnetic and radioactive fields, like the ones found in deep space. Smaller digital microchips however, they do not hold up very well in these harsh environments. So what do you think the ISS has been working on this whole time? They are a research lab in space, a testing environment for these new components. It took a lot of R&D, but now we have solid state technology, your phone is likely making use of it right now. These replaced the old disk drives that are damaged in strong magnetic fields, so now they have modern systems that are sturdy enough to withstand deep space missions. The other problem they had was funding, there was no interest to go back to the Moon right away, so they weren’t putting as many resources towards it...that and rocket launches used to be a LOT more expensive, about half a billion per launch...not including payload R&D. Thanks to Elon Musk though and his new Falcon rockets, that price tag is WAY down, now about 60 million per launch. So it’s a lot more economically viable now...so guess what this does, it brings in more investors.
The trouble is as I see it, when some people don’t understand something, they tend to assume it’s because it’s wrong...rather than consider the details and nuances of the actual problem. The other trouble is people’s general impatience...why do you assume that just because it’s taking a long time to perfect space travel, it somehow means they’re faking it? Space is probably the harshest environments we will ever explore...why would think this is somehow easy to do? It’s going to take time. There are good valid reasons why they haven’t gone back to the Moon in awhile...taking quotes from scientists out of context and twisting their meaning, is not being objective, it’s more cherry picking and confirmation bias, the very opposite of objective.
I could go down the list of these claims made by “faked space” conspiracy vids, but at the end of the day...neither you nor I can truly verify anything for certain here, we can both only speculate. I have logical answers to all their claims, but it’s still only speculation, unless I’m an astronaut or someone higher up in NASA. So I don’t like focusing on things I can only speculate on...but I do strongly believe the real con men here are the people who make these “faked space” videos. They use a lot of really dishonest tactics and endless speculation to get people to see things their way, showing you only what they want you to see, never considering alternative explanations. So They are the ones I do not trust.
This is why I prefer to stick to things like flat Earth, because I live here, I can test the Earth whenever I want, I don’t have to speculate, I can reach objective conclusions that I can actually verify. And I have done that...the geometry of Earth does not lie, the flat Earth model does not fit with observable reality. Meanwhile the Globe answers for everything.
Again though, it’s fine to question things, even logical, but seriously...if you think people on YouTube can’t lie to you and take you on a ride of their design, then you’re exactly what they are looking for. Don’t trust them blindly, turn that skeptical lens around and put their claims to question as well.
5
-
Actually, gravity is the root cause of buoyancy…so it very much is causing the beach ball to rise up in water. That’s why gravity is a variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Notice that little ‘g’ there? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity; 9.8m/s^2.
It works like this; all matter has a tendency to repel other matter, because they can’t occupy the same physical space. More dense matter will occupy a position first, because it has more inertia (meaning it requires more energy to move it), so it easily pushes less dense matter out of its way. So now what happens if everything is just stationary, in a system where every molecule is not attracted towards surface and put into motion towards anything? Nothing will happen, it would be a mixed system of various molecules just assuming their origin positions in space, it would be unorganized, mixed and chaotic. But now introduce a force that attracts every molecule towards the same location, you now have every molecule moving towards that force of attraction, they’re now put into motion. Now these molecules will order themselves, because the densest matter will occupy lowest potential energy state first (closest position possible to the attractive force), which then forces molecules of lesser density out of the way, directly away from the force of attraction. So you see…buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, buoyancy is the end result of a chain reaction.
This is physics 101 today…gravity actually causes buoyancy. This is understood and accepted science by every scientist and engineer today. So you can’t just say it’s buoyancy…because buoyancy technically doesn’t even exist without gravity to cause it. Saying it’s just buoyancy, just tells everyone that you don’t really know much about physics.
4
-
4
-
@auraveenley.8743 Perspective, the ad hoc response of flat Earth, that they seem to think solves all their problems, pretending like the rest of us have never even heard the term before, let alone understand it. I’m sorry, but it’s just incredible to me how some people can actually act as though they’re the arbiters of perspective, while completely ignoring many of the basic fundamentals, of perspective…like angular size change, for example. I mean if you’re trying to just poke a stick in people’s eye and be annoying…hey, it’s working, but you must have a really low opinion of the scientific community, if you honestly think they never once thought to consider perspective as a hypothesis to these kinds of questions, at some point.
Please don’t just slot in an ad hoc response to a problem, and then call it a day…learn the fundamentals of perspective, learn the math…then really test the hypothesis you’re presenting. You’ll find it doesn’t actually solve the problems of flat Earth, when you really get into it. It’s fine to ask questions, but there’s a lot of problems with the conclusion of perspective here, and it’s just odd that so many in FE don’t seem to care, despite how paper thin some of the arguments are. For a group claiming to be just looking for the truth and asking questions…many sure don’t put a whole lot of effort into really analyzing their own conclusions.
For example, Flat Earth will also say that a sunset can be explained by perspective…while completely ignoring that things also appear to SHRINK in angular size, due to perspective, as they travel further away. The Sun when observed throughout a whole day, with a solar filter lens, is never observed to change size. So it begs the question, if you’re going to claim perspective is what causes a sunset, then why doesn’t the Sun change size, as it would do, if it was caused by perspective? Doesn’t add up…and it gets worse than that, the math doesn’t work out, the data doesn’t fit, perspective just does not work out when you really examine it further, and I think it time flat Earth was honest about that…or at least analyzed it closer for themselves, rather than pretend it’s perfect.
Idk, it’s just a bit ironic to me…you say it’s us who don’t question our model, then you come here with the perspective argument…which just tells me you’ve never really questioned or tested the claims of Flat Earth. If you’re really just looking for the truth, shouldn’t you put the same standards of review on the Flat Earth model? 🧐
4
-
@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
-
Very well said, here’s a little more food for thought if you don’t mind. I’ll address these with respect to your effort here, apologies in advance if I ever become condescending or pushy, I’ll do my best to be respectful.
1. I feel you’re just making an argument from personal incredulity here. We follow the evidence, Big Bang is the current leading model of cosmology because it has the most evidence supporting it, that’s all. This evidence is commonly referred too as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang. It wasn’t really an explosion, more like an expansion, so you’re reading too much into that title…scientific titles are often pretty loose and arbitrary, it’s just a label so we’re all on the same page when discussing it, not much more.
Occams Razor is not an absolute rule, merely a suggestion. The flat Earth certainly has a heck of a time twisting perspective fundamentals, to make something as simple as a sunset make sense for their model. Meanwhile the globe model accounts for a sunset with far less effort; the Earth rotates away from the Sun, eventually surface blocks it from your view…there, explanation over. Why don’t you apply a little Occams Razor there?
All you’re doing is choosing between a cozier version of things, against a universe that’s indifferent to us. That’s not a superior logic…it’s a very clear example of a conclusion reached from a bias. None of us wants to believe we’re not something special…but it’s equally as possible that reality really doesn’t care about what we want. So better to remain objective, and just follow the evidence. That’s all science is trying to do, if better evidence comes to light that explains things better, then science adjusts accordingly. Learning is a process, that’s the reality of our situation, we’re just doing the best we can with what information we’re able to obtain for the moment.
2. Good, I don’t have to explain what tidal locking is, that’s refreshing. How it works though is a bit more complicated. The short answer to your question is that the Sun actually is slowing our rotation and it will eventually lock us to it. It’s already done this for Mercury (almost), it all has to do with the orbiting bodies proximity to the host. Our Moon is far closer to us, than we are to the Sun by comparison. Granted the gravity well of the Sun is far greater, so that has an effect, but nothing in our current understanding of things says this is impossible, in fact it tells us the opposite, it’s expected. It’s not rare in our solar system, most Moons orbiting other planets are tidally locked to their host planet, it’s actually very common.
The globe model can actually explain how and why planets and Moons orbit, because that’s what we’d expect from gravity (gravity explains far more as well, from the orbits, to why everything is spherical, to how nuclear fusion in stars occurs, etc, etc)…can the Flat Earth model explain how exactly the Sun and Moon circle around the North pole without falling? I’ve not seen any explanation and certainly no evidence, it’s mostly just a lot of ad hoc nonsense, or “it’s just designed that way, don’t think about it”. I personally don’t find that to be very scientific, do you? More than that though, the globe model can make accurate predictions for every celestial movement…can’t really say the same for FE. You ever seen the geocentric model mapping the movements of the celestial bodies? It’s chaotic. Meanwhile, I could take all the geometry for our solar system model, and use it to mathematically predict eclipse’s, decade’s in advance, down to the second and square mile. The Saros cycle can’t do that, it can tell you the day of occurrence, but it can’t map the shadows path of totality upon the surface. So what reason do we really have to agree that our current model isn’t accurate? 🧐 Because of yet another argument from personal incredulity that you’ve made? Hardly a great reason…think I’ll stick to the model that actually works when applied, and has answers.
3. Why even bring this up if you’re aware of the pendulous vanes? 🧐 It does kinda render the whole argument of Gyroscopes on planes as…moot. Well, points for intellectual honesty I guess.
I’ll stop here for now, reply the rest in a separate comment.
4
-
4. Gas rushes in and fills a container of vacuum at surface, because of the kinetic energy built up in the adjacent container, that is under a great deal of pressure, so a lot of molecular collisions, creating a lot of kinetic energy. So of course those molecules are going to rush in, they’re full of intense kinetic energy. What happens in upper atmosphere though, where collisions occur far less frequently, and at less kinetic intensity? There’s less kinetic energy to go around, less collisions to maintain and increase that energy, so eventually gravity wins…and completely saps those molecules of their kinetic energy, bringing them down, just like everything else. Gas is still a tangible substance, with mass…so it is not free from force of gravity. You don’t require a physical barrier to create pressure in atmosphere, just a force that attracts it to surface. Why do you think the gradient is in the direction it is? Because of the weight of the gas above squeezing down on the mass below. You even agree with that, I’m almost just paraphrasing really, it’s basically just like stacking any form of matter…but what happens when you have no more matter to stack? Why would you need a barrier for that? Does a pile of rocks sitting on the Moon require a barrier to keep them their? No, because of gravity. But then if gas is equally as attracted by gravity as any other matter is…then why would you need a barrier? 🤷♂️
It’s odd to me that you almost work this out yourself, that gravity eventually reduces kinetic energy of gas molecules…but you stop short on that line of thinking, before you get to the logical conclusion that gravity would eventually bring that kinetic energy to zero, converting to potential energy, and then accelerating it back down…just like anything else with mass. You came pretty close to that conclusion, but it seems to me you turned around once it started to conflict with the conclusion you wanted. Just my opinion, but maybe you’ll agree after reviewing, idk.
Nature doesn’t really abhor a vacuum, that’s just something Flat Earthers tell themselves again and again, so they can trick themselves (and some others) into believing it’s true, essentially brainwashing through repetition. In reality, even they have measured the vacuum of space without realizing it; ever happen to see footage from any of those high altitude balloons they’ve sent up? Ever happen to watch until the end, where the balloons eventually pop…just as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions? Planes as well have a ceiling limit…because the air becomes too thin to generate thrust and lift, which is why we use rockets for space travel, because they don’t use air for propulsion, they use Newton’s third law of action and reaction. For me personally, that’s all pretty good evidence for the existence of space vacuum, we don’t need to recreate it on a smaller scale at surface…we can just go to the vacuum that’s already above us.
5. Because of parallax effect, distance has a profound effect on perceived motion. It’s why a passenger jet in the sky moving at 500 mph, appears like it’s barely crawling across the sky from your observation on the ground. And that’s just at 3-5 miles…what effect do you think trillions upon trillions of miles would have? But, any amateur astronomer could tell you the stars are actually shifting, it’s a big part of astronomy’s job, to track and chart the stars every year. Been doing it for centuries, the old star charts confirm it, they are moving. Parallax effect explains why it takes so long.
That’s also how we know they’re far away. The first clue we had was that the stars don’t drift in parallax as we travel along Earths surface. If they were closer, then they absolutely would. Just travelling a few hundred miles would shift their positions. This doesn’t happen, so they must be very far away. But we do record a stellar parallax every 6 months or so…a big clue that led us to the conclusion that we orbit around the Sun. Took a few hundred years to accurately measure the precise distance, the best and most accurate method eventually arriving in the last hundred years, with the invention of radio and radar methods. So now we know for certain the Sun is millions of miles away…so it’s not a stretch at all to conclude that stars are even farther still.
It all comes full circle to help explain why stars don’t appear to shift…because of parallax effect. Because they’re REALLY far away.
6. Only magnets that HOLD a magnetic charge work this way, an electromagnet however, requires a lot of energy (like thermal energy), spiralling around a coil of metal alloy, like nickel or iron…the two most abundant metals found on Earth and inside our core. So you’ve only scratched the surface of how magnetic fields work. Our core is not a fridge magnet…it’s basically a giant electromagnet. They’re not the same thing. One merely holds a charge, the other produces it.
In any case what’s this falsifying really? Do we detect a massive electromagnetic field around Earth? Yes of course we do…a compass wouldn’t work if it didn’t exist. What else exactly could generate that field? Do we have evidence of some metal alloys under our surface? Yup, every volcanic eruption spews out tons of it…and it clearly is hot down there, as we’d expect it should be, because of all that gravitational pressure down there. Iron is the densest material, and gravity pulls the densest matter to centre of gravity first…so pretty logical to conclude that a sphere of iron would form directly at centre. And we know how electromagnetic fields are made, we recreate them pretty regularly ourselves….so if the shoe fits.
You might be interested in the science of seismology too, if this topic really interests you. More specifically the study of S and P waves generated by pretty much any seismic activity. It’s the same science that mining companies use to detect specific minerals under the surface. The very same science can actually be used to determine Earth’s deep inner composition, because Earthquakes of 8.0 or greater actually penetrate through the Earth, pinging seismic stations on the opposite end of the Earth…before the surface waves arrive at those same stations. Meaning they went through the Earth, taking a short cut.
It’s interesting science, you can learn all about it with a quick YouTube search, just search Seismology S and P waves. Point is, you’re barely scratching the surface with your point here…don’t stop at your bias.
Fun fact, Nikola Tesla was not a flat Earther, in fact his famous Wardencliffe generator that he had proposed, in his writings of it had many drawings where he depicted a spherical Earth in relation to his device. So just some food for thought. He didn’t like theoretical physicists very much…doesn’t mean he disagreed with them absolutely.
The trouble with Flat Earthers is not that they’re skeptical, that’s actually what I find to be very admirable about them…it’s that their skepticism is very thinly veiled over confirmation bias. They only seem skeptical…up until it’s there preferred Model that comes under the microscope, then they’re just as stubborn as any mainstream scientist. That’s my main gripe with them…the desire to verify something they WANT to be true, is painfully obvious most of the time. Makes it very difficult to take them seriously.
Anyway, let me know if this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting. Your points were very well made and engaging, and the intellectual honesty and level of detail was refreshing, so thank you for that. I hope I could be just as engaging. Take care for now.
4
-
@drvincentthomas68 Very good, at least it’s an attempt, which is more than most offer. Here’s a few counter points, since you’ve given me at least something to work with.
Well, pictures taken during the same mission, are going to look similar, they’re on a trajectory keeping them observing one surface, and they’re taking many photos at once. But you’re claiming they just used the same photo and adjust it slightly for every mission, is that about right? Ok, then it should be easy to take several images from different Apollo missions and cross reference them to spot things like similar cloud cover, film grains, sun reflections, surface features, etc. So did you do that? Did you even open the link I provided and take a look? Really shouldn’t be hard to prove this claim, if you can match even one photo from each mission, you’d pretty much have a case, but when I look at these photos, I don’t see any similarities...and that’s not from lack of trying. So I can only assume you didn’t really look at the photos I shared.
Besides that, you really didn’t answer the main question, so I’ll rephrase it. How did they create this first image you claim is being reused in every shot, before the CGI technology was created and refined enough to do it? Is it just a painting? Not likely, as an artist for a living, I can tell you how difficult that would be...and no matter how good your artist is, there is always an error that a trained eye could easily spot. Those photos I shared are very high resolution, clicking on one blows them up very big, I’ve gone over many of them, and I don’t see it possible for any artist capable of creating these images, especially not back then. Many don’t realize this, but there has never existed a perfect photo realistic artist, using traditional tools. They come pretty close, but like I said, there is always errors that a trained eye could spot.
You’re next point is talking mostly about low orbit photos and fish eye lenses, but I shared with you an archive containing mostly deep space photos of the entire planet. Little hard to use a fish eye to create a spherical shape, while keeping Earths recognizable land features from distorting and becoming unrecognizable, so your argument there has very little to do with the photos I shared. So I’m really getting the feeling you didn’t look at the links I shared. I’m well aware of FE’s claims of fish eye lenses, slotting that explanation in when it suites your needs, which is why I didn’t share an archive with many low altitude photos. But, even in low orbit photos, you’d have to confirm fish eye was used, that excuse won’t work every time, because they don’t use fish eye lenses in every instance, it’s largely just a lie saying that they do. Yes, fish eye is used in many examples, but not every example. Plenty of examples of launch footage and ISS footage that did not use fish eye lenses. Pretty much none of the examples I shared are fish eye and they’re mostly deep space images...so again, did you even look at the links I provided?
The Moon is actually 1/4 the size of Earth, but hey, correct details don’t matter much in FE, right? https://www.space.com/18135-how-big-is-the-moon.html So why would you think it’d look much bigger, from the exact same distance? So if the Moon is roughly the size of a dime, the Earth is about the size of a dollar, roughly, a silver dollar if I’m Being generous. You really think that would look much different to your naked eye, from the exact same distance, with no reference to compare it to while observing? Especially in a photograph that is likely zoomed, cropped, panned, etc...little hard to determine the true size of an object from a photograph. It’s not the size that’s off, it’s your assumed expectations that are off. You’ve seen too many movies, where Earth is depicted as filling the whole sky from the Moon, and this has created an extremely off scale expectation for you. Actually do the math sometime, you’ll find the Earth is exactly the size it should be, from that distance.
Neil made a poor comparison, when he made that comment. He even realized it himself, in the very discussion he said it in. If you watch the rest of that discussion (and not just the part Flat Earth cherry picks for you), you’ll know he later redacts that comment and explains that Earth is classified an oblate spheroid, meaning not a perfect sphere. From this, Flat Earth has spun this narrative out of context, making it out to be a huge difference...but have you ever bothered to see it visualized before? Here’s a video that quickly demonstrates how slight the difference is https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ. As this video demonstrates, the difference is so small, you will not see it with the naked eye very easily. But just because it appears perfectly spherical to the naked eye, doesn’t mean it is, your eyes are not very good measuring tools...science prefers to be more precise. Science said Earth was oblate...it’s Flat Earth that spun Neils words into a lie, exaggerating things to make it seem like the difference was extremely noticeable. It’s cherry picking and simple dishonesty tactics like that, that should raise some red flags...but for some reason it doesn’t for some. I find that odd personally.
Sure, feel free to go on all you like actually, you’ll find your arguments maybe aren’t as air tight as you think they are.
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
-
Boy…that’s some pretty terrible logic. 🤦♂️ Looks like YOU don’t understand that knowledge is acquired over time…we don’t just know everything right from the start, we acquire information and we learn over time, and as we learn we change our understandings, it’s a process. Do they teach heliocentrism in any Bible? No…it’s a purely scientific model, having nothing to do with religion, just because someone religious did some science once, doesn’t make that science a religious doctrine by default. Science is a process removed from religion.
Here’s a history lesson for you, the heliocentric model is a big part of why people started to question religious doctrines in the first place. Because things being taught by religion, weren’t adding up with what was being observed in actual reality, so it started getting people questioning the teachings of religion. On the flip side, many in flat Earth argue for that position, because they believe it’s written in the Bible, and the Bible should never be questioned according to them. Ask anyone who has actually spent a good deal of time chatting with flatties, the very large majority are deeply religious, and Flat Earth is part of how they confirm their religious beliefs.
So if you believe the Earth is flat, despite the ENTIRE scientific community agreeing it’s not, despite the staggering amount of evidence today pointing to the heliocentric conclusion, despite every field of applied science from navigation to engineering to infrastructure that uses the globe model to function, then I’d say it’s YOU who are more closely adhering to religious doctrine…not the other way around. Believing absolute bullshit, despite all the evidence to the contrary…that’s exactly how religion operates. So kettle, meet pot.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@OSUBucknado I have, and no they do not. Flatties misquoted ONE GUY who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble COMPOSITE, and now they think his words stand as some kind of statement from all of NASA. It's just classic cherry picking, a form of confirmation bias, nothing more. Taking quotes out of context and blowing their meaning out of proportion.
The real truth, is that NASA has many different types of photos of Earth, some are composite, some are single frame digital images, some are regular old photos on celluloid film. Flat Earthers hear what they want...and don't dig any deeper than their bias allows, and you'll become a flat Earther if you just sit on the surface of what they say and never question their claims. There are thousands of photos of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions, taken long before the days of CGI or photoshop, taken in single shots, on regular film. You can find many websites that archive these photos, if you actually gave a damn to try. You can even go out to the various museums that display the actual photos if you'd prefer.
Then there are the Geostationary weather satellites, which all take full photos of Earth, around the clock, 24 hours a day. Satellites like the Himawari, GOES, EPIC and DSCOVR. All have their own online archives you can access. Here's a guy who used the Himarwari 8 satellite, to compare cloud cover for his area https://youtu.be/YCk-zVIvxvc. And here's a group of hobbyists who built their own radio telescopes, that they then used to link up to the GOES satellites 15-17, that they then pulled image data from https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY.
I have looked at this claim from Flat Earth...many times, it's bullshit. NASA has never claimed that ALL of their photos are CGI, that's just a bullshit claim that Flat Earth repeats...because it's part of their narrative, repeating lies over and over again, until they can convince some people into believing they're true.
Get yourself a better bullshit filter, dig a little a deeper.
4
-
@yestervue4697 If I may add some further insight to your points, you’re aware gravity is both a theory and a law in science, right? Look up the Law of Gravitation sometime, then look up what weight is defined as in physics and how it’s calculated. I think you could also benefit from brushing up on scientific terms like theory and law. https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o A scientific theory is actually a bit better than laws of science, because laws make no attempt to describe how things work, they merely describe WHAT is happening. Objects fall down, this requires a force for that motion to occur, it doesn’t just happen on its own, so that’s what’s happening, law of Gravitation in a nutshell.
Also, whoever said a plane doesn’t pitch down? What you’ve likely been told is that pilots won’t notice, because pilots are constantly making small adjustments to keep on track with the horizon indicator and the altimeter, among other instruments. The change would be so gradual, they’re not going to notice. On a planet at our size, it would take roughly 70 miles to make 1 degree of difference, so no pilot or passenger is ever likely to notice a shift that gradual.
There’s a content creator here that goes by the name Wolfie6020, he’s a licensed commercial pilot from Australia, who does many videos on this FE topic, providing insight and evidence from a pilots expertise. He’s quite informative on all things pilot and navigation related, so feel free to look him up sometime, might help answer some questions.
Just some information you might find interesting, I know it’s probably far from enough to persuade you of anything, but hope it’s at least interesting anyway.
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
-
4
-
@yestervue4697 Exactly, things in the distance SHRINK in apparent size before they reach vanishing point...so why doesn’t the Sun do this before it meets horizon? Here’s a timelapse of the setting Sun https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc. You’ll notice, it maintains its apparent size throughout the day...so if we agree to your argument of perspective causing a sunset, then why doesn’t the Sun shrink?
You seem to think everybody else doesn’t know what perspective is, or how it works. No dude...we get it, we hear your argument, it just doesn’t fit with reality. Perspective has rules, and those rules can be quantified and modelled...do you want to see what the Sun would look like, if it were actually small and local moving above us? Here’s a simulation of that geometry and scale https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM.
Science doesn’t say you shouldn’t use your senses, only that your senses are easily fooled, they’re not very precise and they can be wrong...so you shouldn’t jump to conclusions so quickly, that’s all science suggests. Is that really so unreasonable? It’s true, in the grand scheme of things, our senses are quite shit. If they weren’t, then we’d be able to see bacteria, or air molecules, or we’d have ability to see further and sharper and in every spectrum of light, not just the visible colour spectrum. But we can’t, because our senses are limited, they suck and are easily fooled.
That’s the reality...so science is just being honest and up front...while you’re asking everyone to just ignore these simple truths and agree with you without question. :/
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A spirit level uses buoyancy force to find centre of gravity, gravity pulls to centre of mass (centre of Earth), and so its vector angles shift with surface, meaning the bubble actually levels to the field of force of gravity…so you can’t use a level to determine Earth’s shape, anymore than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet, the bubble moves with the force in much the same way a compass needle would move with the force from a magnet.
So, it’s an extremely flawed experiment right from the start, and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can understand why. He only repeated the experiment as a joke…and to help make his point. By demonstrating the kind of bad science being used to sell this nonsense, which helps explain how people fall for it…which was the whole point of his video. It’s a focus on the people of flat Earth…not so much the science. This isn’t a science channel, Johnny is a journalist, so he focuses on people and places and events, not science.
But I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This isn’t a science channel, his point wasn’t to prove or disprove either position, it was just to discuss WHY people believe Earth is flat…that’s literally in the title. It’s dissection of the ideology and the group mindset of Flat Earthers…that’s all.
He shared those two experiments, because they’re both examples of inconclusive experiments, that Flat Earthers didn’t realize are inconclusive. It helps make his point, that some people become Flat Earthers, because they lack the scientific literacy to catch the errors in many of the experiments Flat Earth conducts. That was the whole point of sharing those.
I’ll cut you some slack though, it is true he could have made that clearer, by at least sharing some sources that help support that…but again, this isn’t a science channel, he’s not a scientist, so you really shouldn’t expect much.
He’s not wrong though, they are inconclusive experiments. The level on a plane ignores basic physics, and does not prove or disprove either position, and the original Bedford Level experiment conducted by Rowbotham was an absolute mess of an experiment. He used the wrong math, so his distance wasn’t even accurate. He ignored important variables like height of the observer, horizon distance, hump height, and yes refraction. He collected only ONE data set, made only ONE observation, using only ONE marker, and didn’t run any controls. Upon peer review and recreation of the experiment, it was found extremely inconclusive…yet he reached a conclusion anyway. He basically only did as much as he needed, to confirm his bias, tweaking the experiment to get him the result he wanted…that’s bad science.
The original Bedford Level experiment is the perfect example, for why peer review is so important in science. To catch inconclusive and erroneous experiments, like the one conducted by Rowbotham.
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. When conducted properly, with the correct math, including every variable, with many more data sets, it actually verifies the opposite conclusion. Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
Flat Earth doesn’t seem to care about accuracy in science…they just care about bolstering what they want to be true. That’s the point he was trying to make, they don’t seem to care about peer review or inconclusive experimentation. If they’d just keep researching a bit deeper, take a closer look at their “evidence”, rather than stop once they think they’ve found something…they’d realize how poor their evidence really is.
4
-
Flat Earthers come here to mock, they should expect nothing less than to be mocked back in kind. I agree it’s petty, but it’s to be expected. Takes a tough skin to join these kinds of conversations, especially if you’re going to make claims that go against all of modern knowledge, then you really shouldn’t be surprised that people would push back. You’re arguing a position that has no working model and that is not used in any applied science today, so do you ever stop to consider, that maybe it’s you who have reached a erroneous conclusion, not everyone else? There is a reason a lot of us do not bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, because we know where they’re going wrong. If simply disagreeing with you makes us trolls, then there’s not much chance of having any meaningful discussion, you’re not here to discuss with an open mind then, you’re just here to force your perspective.
There’s a very good chance you’ve fallen for an Internet hoax that has exploited your lack of knowledge and experience, so you should at the very least be mindful to that possibility. If you’re willing to keep your mind open, I’ll do the same, then perhaps a civil discussion can occur, I don’t mind hearing you out. But don’t expect to change my mind so easily, and don’t softball me, I’m not new to this discussion, been researching it for years now and I know the arguments of Flat Earth probably better than most Flat Earthers at this point, so don’t patronize me, and I’ll try not to do the same. So feel free, I don’t mind having a discussion if you’re willing to participate on equal grounds.
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
-
Ok, Rowbotham didn’t do enough in his version of the experiment to reach a more conclusive result, so upon all peer review it has been deemed inconclusive. We don’t reach conclusions in science from inconclusive experiments. To reach a more conclusive result, he needed to first make sure his math was correct, it wasn’t, he was using the wrong formula; then he had to account for as many variables as he could through proper controls, he did not, he completely ignored refraction; then he would need to take many more data sets, yet he only made one observation, using one marker. So basically, it’s an example of a sloppy experiment, conducted only to confirm a bias. He experimented only until his bias was confirmed and then he stopped looking. So it was confirmation bias that led to an inconclusive result.
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Notice how thorough this experiment is, that is how a real experiment is conducted. The conclusion is very conclusive here, the Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
4
-
@pureblooded3877 The Antarctic treaty does not say we’re banned from going there…try actually reading it, instead of blindly agreeing to what somebody told you. It’s not a long read, so heed your own advice and actually look it up sometime, then actually read it. It only states that no single country is allowed to claim it, it is to be shared for scientific purposes, no military is allowed to have a base there and no company is allowed to mine its natural resources for commercial gain. That’s it, that’s basically the jist of it. Nowhere does it say you can’t go there, in fact hundreds of thousands of people do every single year. You can even work there year round, even without being a scientist or specialist, they’re always looking for cooking and cleaning staff, and construction crews.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@set3777 Parallax effect more than explains why the positions of stars don’t appear to shift night after night, but you might be interested to know that they actually do over long periods of time, any amateur astronomer will tell you that, just research stellar parallax. So now explain why there’s two rotations please…because again, that is an impossible geometry on a flat Earth with one sky.
I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere many times, as far down as Invercargill, South Island of New Zealand. On those travels, I could not see the Big Dipper or any of the constellations I’m used too, but what I did see is a constellation I do not see here, the Southern Cross. That’s exactly what I would expect to see on a globe, a different night sky on a second hemisphere. That however doesn’t make much sense on a flat Earth. So again….don’t be biased please, it won’t get you anywhere.
4
-
4
-
@dominiccharvet546 All things stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force. The problem with attempting to harvest power from the law of inertia, is friction…which is an unbalanced force, which slows things down. Your car doesn’t keep rolling for the same reason, because of friction from the ground, air, and the parts inside the engine making contact with the other parts of the engine. Any motor that generates power has to rub on turbines…that cause a great deal of friction, which is an unbalanced force…which slows things down, eventually stopping their motion.
So swing and a miss…you ignored the second half of the first law of motion; pays to pay attention to every detail in science, not just the parts you cherry pick. The Earth doesn’t have the same problem…because there’s no air in space, meaning no friction, so it will travel indefinitely. Helped along by gravity…but gravity is not the main factor. Denial of gravity is really not an argument against it. So you just let us know when you have a better scientific theory for why everything is attracted and put in motion towards Earth.
There’s an entire fossil record that we have found, that traces our evolution back millions of years. We didn’t come from monkey’s, that’s not how evolution works. 🤦♂️ We share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was not a monkey or ape as we know them today, it was something different. We are a branch from that evolution, monkeys are a different branch, that occurred millions of years ago. And evolution doesn’t account for the start of living organisms, that’s abiogenesis.
Nothing you’re saying falsifies the globe, current cosmology, or evolution…you’re just demonstrating your own lack of knowledge on the topics you’re arguing against. And it’s no secret as too why…because they contradict your Bible, meaning your indoctrination is more than likely bullshit, so you’re attempting to avoid realizing that. But understand this…science is not out to disprove a God, your Bible and your religion have something to worry about, but God is an unfalsifiable belief, so it’s completely outside of science. Science deals with the physical, God is metaphysical, so science has no means of disproving a potential creator…but we seriously doubt you have any real clue what that creator is, or if it even exists. You’re just as clueless on that front as the rest of us…time to wake up. :/
4
-
4
-
4
-
@tbrown3356 Your argument here is pretty stupid T Brown…refraction occurs on your model as well, it’s reality, so the horizon line fluctuates for you guys as well, you’ve demonstrated that as much with your “Black Swan” nonsense, which just did more to verify the extreme effects of refraction, than anything. Yet sailors still use sextants, regardless of the refraction that occurs in reality…so I guess it’s no problem, wouldn’t you say? Here, just watch this quick video and let me know if there’s a horizon https://youtu.be/U8Vz9r2yWO8. Oh gee…how is there a perfectly horizontal horizon on the surface of this smaller globe? It’s almost like perspective and geometry will cause it to appear flat, the closer you are to the globes surface! Wooooooow…😮
You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days. 😅 Here’s a fun one, do you know how celestial navigation works? Did you know we’re able to find our latitude because stars like Polaris will drop to horizon a consistent 1 degree every 69 miles traveled directly South? Did you also know that on a flat Earth…that angle wouldn’t be a consistent 1 degree drop every 69 miles, it would drop less and less the further South you travelled if Earth was flat? Oopsie…😮
Run along now…back to your master Oakley.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb “Explain to me…why can we jump, takeoff with planes, throw leaf planes, etc etc how’s that possible with such strong gravity holding oceans upside down?”
Well unlike water which is dead inert matter, you are alive and so your body produces energy it can then use to resist force of gravity for short periods of time. But when you jump up, you eventually come back down, correct? You don’t just jump up into the stratosphere, eventually the kinetic energy you produced in the act of jumping becomes spent, and so it can no longer counter force of gravity, so you come back down. You can jump because you are alive, and can produce energy to counter some forces…water is not, so it has no way of countering gravity, it’s pretty simple. Planes aren’t much different, they have engines which burn fuel to produce energy, it then uses to spin turbines to generate thrust, which puts it into motion. We learned from studying birds that flying just requires thrust, and wings, so we can then use the air for lift, we call that aerodynamics…and it also requires gravity, because the downward force puts a pressure force on the molecules of air, and the air resistance pushes back, generating lift under the wings. Water again, is inert, it has no energy to spend and no limbs or wings it can use to counter gravity, so it just rests at lowest potential energy state indefinitely, completely trapped by force of gravity.
Gravity pulls everything to centre of Earth, that’s how it works. So there technically is no bottom of Earth, so at no point on Earth’s surface is anything upside down. You’re right side up so long as your feet are on the surface, that’s the direction all matter is pulled towards. Seriously…if all motion requires a force to cause it, then what force would be present at the “bottom” of Earth, to cause things to fall into the sky? There isn’t any, there’s only the gravity of Earth, which pulls everything towards surface…so our oceans don’t have any trouble staying at surface, because there’s only one force present that’s attracting them…gravity. So Earth’s gravity doesn’t need to be very strong (and it isn’t), it’s the only force present, it’s not fighting against any other counter forces. Your question asserts that a second force would be present under the Earth, attracting our oceans towards it…but that force simply does not exist, so our oceans aren’t going anywhere, you’re just grossly misunderstanding how it works.
Anyway, hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
4
-
@joaopintovb Before him nobody identified that falling motion as a fundamental force of reality. Before him we didn’t have a completely tested and written down knowledge of how this force works…that knowledge is VERY important in engineering today, and has been since the day it was penned, whether you realize that or not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. Whether he’s a mason or not is irrelevant. If the science works and can be demonstrated to work every time it’s applied, then a mans affiliations do not matter…but that sure tells me a lot about how your mind works, through appeals to emotion and paranoia, rather than clear objective reasoning.
Yes, a scientific theory is a collection of verified and tested facts, very different from a regular theory in the layman vernacular, you can look it up anytime.
This is basic middle school science, that I wish I didn’t have to teach people…you should already know the basics.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb Weight is gravity, you feel your weight, then you’re feeling the force of gravity…you feel it every day, you’re just not paying attention.
Ever heard of relative motion? Law of inertia? Conservation of momentum? Ever wondered why a pot of hot coffee can be poured out into a cup, then sit perfectly still in front of you on tray without spilling, while flying at 500 mph aboard a passenger jet? The reality is we do not feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion, what we feel is accelerations.
More basic physics for you, very easy to verify for yourself, little to no effort required. The laws of motion are the first laws of physics you learn about in general science classes…because they are so extremely easy to understand and verify for yourself. If you knew anything about them, then you would know and understand how balanced rocks are possible within a system of motion…and then you wouldn’t be so easily conned by dumb conspiracies online.
4
-
4
-
@joaopintovb It’s really not difficult at all, thanks to the laws of motion. By your dumbass understanding though, shouldn’t that coffee go firing across the plane getting sucked to the back of the plane? Yet it pours smoothly into the cup, and rests perfectly within the cup. Why is that? Or how is it possible at all to walk around the cabin of a jet without any trouble? Because everything in motion stays in motion…first law of motion, the law of inertia. And when everything moves together at a consistent rate, with no opposing forces (like drag force), then you’re now within an inertial system of motion (called relative motion), that operates as though stationary. Making it possible to do all of that, and more, while in motion.
Physics 101…proven very easily, with very little effort.
4
-
@joaopintovb The most promising hypothesis in quantum physics currently is a particle called the graviton, more and more evidence is mounting for this particle to be the most likely source of gravitational fields, most recently from the work done at the LIGO observatory, where they’ve successfully detected gravitational waves, collecting a lot of useful data that may correlate to the hypothesized graviton and hopefully solve that mystery. Welcome to the fringes of modern physics, still a lot we have yet to learn and discover! Science doesn’t claim to know everything, but it sure knows a heck of a lot more than the paranoid numpty’s in obscure comment threads on YouTube.
Identifying forces is always a lot easier than figuring out how they work and what their source is, but it’s definitely worth our time and effort to figure it out. A hundred and fifty years ago we didn’t really know much about the electromagnetic spectrum, today we use it for everything from radio, to sending texts and connecting to wifi, to clicking on your tv via remote, to microwaving our food, and examining our bones with x-rays…the list goes on. Gravity physics we currently use in orbital mechanics, flight aerodynamics, buoyancy calculation, parabolic arc trajectories, and more recently nuclear fusion. The more we learn about it, the more applications we find.
We don’t have to know everything about physical phenomena, to make it work for us. Gravity is the easiest force to verify…drop something. That falling motion does not just happen on its own, all change in motion requires a force to cause it.
4
-
@joaopintovb Far easier to help you understand how undeniable gravity really is. I’m sure you know how a scale works, you press DOWN upon the top surface, to apply force, which creates pressure, which the scale measures as weight. So the key variable to causing that weight pressure, is a downward force…it’s really that simple. So now if there’s no downward force, as flatties claim, then how exactly does an object that’s resting on a scale generate a weight value? 🧐 Pretty obvious that a force is present, regardless of what a few paranoid idiots claim…all they did was give this force a name, just like they do with every force they identify. Figuring out how it works and where it comes from is the next step, and that’s where we’re currently at.
So it’s pretty simple deduction that helps us with the rest though, lots of little clues. We’ve mapped and measured the entire Earth, it is most definitely spherical, every successful navigation proves that geometry accurate…so you know, millions of verified proofs every year. And we can’t help but notice that things always fall towards surface, no matter where you are on Earth…so pretty simple to deduce that this attraction force emanates from centre. Which makes sense of why Earth would form a sphere in the first place…because that’s the shape things tend to always make, when a force applies pressure in all directions inward towards a centre. It’s also no coincidence that almost everything we observe in space is spherical…gravity makes perfect sense for why. It also explains the orbits of planets, the formation of stars planets, solar systems, galaxies, the nuclear fusion that powers stars…the list goes on.
Gravity does a lot more than just explain why things fall, it quite literally explains pretty much every mystery of the cosmos. When gravity was realized, those mysteries fell like dominoes…it’s really no coincidence that scientific advancement took off running, around the time Newton first figured this out. Anyone is free to question it, but you’re not gonna get far…cause it’s held up to scrutiny for well over 400 years, from some of the greatest minds in history. It’s not from lack of trying, it’s just undeniable science…reality doesn’t lie, and it could care less about a person’s affiliations.
So you’re certainly not the one to falsify gravity I’m afraid…especially if you really don’t know anything about it. But I hope this information has been helpful.
4
-
@joaopintovb “…but I’m sure you know how the measurement was done and when right?”
It can be measured in many ways, the first time it was done was roughly 2000 years ago by a Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes. His method is easily repeatable, here’s a very recent recreation, done a lot more thoroughly with a lot more data points https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=891.
Every navigation clocks their speed and time, and with millions of ships and planes completing voyages around the world every year, we have enough data about Earth’s surface to accurately conclude its shape and scale. You gotta face that fact I’m afraid, Earth’s geometric shape is vital information to have in navigation. If they did not actually know Earths true dimensions, then the systems of navigation they use simply would not work…it’s really that simple.
Have you ever travelled? I certainly have, many times, all around the world. I’ve been to almost every continent, I’ve tested this system of navigation, it’s something I’ve been quite interested in for at least the last decade now. It works…and that’s when you know you have accurate information, when you can apply that knowledge, and it will work every time. Can’t say the same for Flat Earth….they don’t even have a model they all agree upon, let alone a working one.
You fell for a scam my dude, it took advantage of your lack of knowledge and experience, and appealed to your desire to put a little dirt in the eye of experts whom you resent. That’s the reality.
4
-
4
-
@roystimaz1576 Where’s the assumption? Flat Earth has sent up weather balloons to high altitudes, you’d agree they have I’m sure, so no assumptions there. They eventually reach a point where they can’t climb any higher, because the air pressure has declined so much that buoyancy can no longer occur...because as everyone knows, air pressure decreases the higher you go in altitude...what happens when that air pressure reaches zero psi I wonder? Hmmm. Then if you watch until the end of each video, these balloons eventually burst, which is what’s expected to happen as they reach vacuum conditions. No barrier found along the way, just a black emptiness above our atmosphere, that is measured in barometric readings on real weather balloons as a vacuum.
So there’s your experiment, go look up one of your own flat Earth high altitude balloon videos, they provide all the evidence you need to verify atmosphere next to a vacuum, no physical barrier required. Gravity is the container, you are simply just misunderstanding thermodynamics physics, because you listened blindly to con men feed you bullshit about the science.
Let’s call it like it is, you are not scientists or experts with working experience or knowledge in any field relevant to the discussion of Earth science. You are layman, who were suckered by con men online, who are misunderstanding physics and twisting it so you can confirm your bias, nothing more. You may think you’re achieving something by having these ignorant “debates” on social media comment sections, where you show off your scientific illiteracy...but it’s just another delusion among many that you harbour.
Let us know when flat Earth has a working model...or is used for any applied science...you know, like the Globe model does and is.
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
-
First law of motion; all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force. So since there’s no air in space to cause friction in the form of drag force (the unbalanced force), satellites will orbit indefinitely, thanks to the law of inertia (first law of motion) and conservation of momentum. This is physics 101…the laws of motion are often the very first thing you learn in early physics classes. Satellites don’t require fuel, they are put into motion by the rockets that get them into space, they then maintain that momentum indefinitely because there’s nothing in space to slow them down.
The science for putting satellites into orbital trajectories is called orbital mechanics, and it’s just a set of equations that factor the laws of motion and gravity, the goal being to create a perfect balance between the two. It is quite difficult to plot a precise orbital trajectory, because it requires a lot of information of known variables, but it’s far from impossible, they’re quite proficient at it today actually.
Orbital trajectories decay over time though, because there is a little drag in low Earth orbits where there’s still a tiny amount of atmosphere, so a propellant is included to help place them back into stable orbits, that’s the only fuel required, and they use them very sparingly. Once the propellant runs out, the satellites are decommissioned and then they just allow the orbit to decay and fall back to Earth.
You should do some reading (or watch a video) on relative motion. Multiple systems of motion can exist at once, satellites aren’t just caught in Earth’s gravitational well, they’re also in the Suns gravitational well, so they technically orbit both, at the same time. This all basic physics today…taught in every general physics 101 class. So if you graduated high school, you would have probably learned all this at some point.
But I hope that information is helpful. Satellites don’t have fuel, they do not require it, because motion is conserved in a vacuum indefinitely. The only reason we require fuel for constant motion here on Earth, is because we deal with a lot of friction (unbalanced forces), which slow and eventually stop our momentum. That’s not a problem in a vacuum.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Codfan1122 "Don’t you want a better world for your descendants?" Of course we do, but it's not science that's causing all these world issues today, it's greed and overpopulation. 8 billion people...each and every one of them wanting more then what they should have, not realizing the damage that causes and the harmful industries it feeds. Society is a microcosm, a biom, and industry and corporations are almost like living sentient beings, in that they will do everything in their power to survive...like cancer. Do you know what cancer is? It is cellular life, that refuses to die...it is essentially overpopulation of cells, spreading and generating a mass that eventually kills the host it lives in by consuming it's resources and polluting its system. We are like a cancer in that regard...but we're not exactly like cancer, we are smarter, we are not mindless drones. Science can solve the problems of our species...but one of those solutions to overpopulation, is getting the fuck off this planet so we can spread out and find more resources. If we do not study space, if we do not figure out how to traverse this landscape, then we are doomed. That is a fact. 1 of 2 things is going to happen in the future, we are either going to get off this rock and explore space, or our population is going to consume the resources on this planet and we are going to have major die off in population. It will likely bounce back, but the modern world is going to fall into chaos and we will be right back at square one.
Studying space and learning how to travel in this environment effectively, is in our best interest, absolutely. Thankfully, there are people currently working on this and so they will continue on this path regardless of what you think. I am grateful for that...and you should be too, they will likely be what saves us someday.
4
-
4
-
1) They actually work better in a vacuum (no drag force) and action reaction (same physics that causes a gun to recoil) is exactly how they do it. If you honestly think they need to push off of air, then you clearly don’t understand the 3rd law of motion as well as you seem to think.
2) We only see the circumpolar stars all year (but only a single hemisphere, ask yourself why you don’t see the opposite hemispheres sky), the seasonal stars however do in fact change all year, and exactly for the reason you said, because we’re travelling around the Sun. You even know the constellation names, they’re the zodiac constellations. The circumpolar stars lie closer to our poles, which means the Sun never comes between them, that’s why we see them all year round. The seasonal stars however lie closer to the equator, so the Sun blocks them from view periodically throughout the year.
3) Biological systems don’t break the laws of entropy, in fact in the middle stages of any entropic system (so the universe) we’d expect a lot of chaos, disorder, and mixing, which creates a lot of different interactions between many different molecules, which can form into more complex structures thanks to natural forces of attraction. Entropy will cause the end of all things in time, but we’re nowhere near that end currently, we’re in the middle stages, the most diverse and chaotic of stages. We believe evolution, because that’s what all the evidence points too. We’re not just going to ignore that because of some old superstitions, with essentially zero evidence.
What is with some people completely misunderstanding science, and then thinking it’s everyone else who’s wrong? Couldn’t possibly be that you actually don’t know very much at all, noooooo sir. 🙄
4
-
@multymind4744 Well you're technically not wrong, gravity is a product due to density...it's an objects density that bends space and time, which puts mass into motion towards all other mass. So it's half true to say "it's just density", but that's still ignorant to the rest of the science. It's called gravity, because we needed a name for that motion. Density is already defined in science, it's just how much mass occupies a volume of space. So it's already defined in science, it has its place. Falling is motion, as is rising due to buoyancy. We give a name to buoyancy, which is the opposite motion upwards...so why can't we do the same for the falling motion downward? That's all they've done, gravity is just a name they gave to that motion, so that we could all be on the same page when we discuss the topic, so we know what's being discussed. You call it density, then it just gets confusing...cause are we talking about the state of matter, or the motion? It can't be both, so it's much easier to label that motion as gravity, makes it so much easier in terms of language, so that we can discuss it without confusion.
It does get muddled, that's because we do not know everything about it...science doesn't know a lot about a lot of things, doesn't mean we don't know a lot, doesn't mean some things aren't solved, doesn't mean we can't still measure and define some terms, that we can use in equations.
It's not hard to see what's really happening either. Flat Earth denies gravity, because it's not very convenient for their core arguments. That's the reality as I and many others see it. Much easier for them to just deny it exists, then that problem goes away...then they can argue from ignorance. It's just...not very productive, and it's very biased, and very obviously so.
It's fine if they could falsify gravity, I'm sure physics would actually love that! Cause it would open the door to a new discovery and that's what scientists are all about! But they haven't....they've just taken established gravity physics, and chopped out the word gravity....that's it. And then they deny experiments like the Cavendish, or the Eddington, or time dilation tests in upper atmosphere, or the more recent gravitational wave experiments, etc, etc. Then they conveniently forget that general relativity's field equations were pivotal to solving the peculiar orbit or Mercury, and currently is used to detect super nova and black hole events, before ever evening turning on the telescopes. As for more practical applications, satellites are in orbit, gravity physics certainly helps that, and it's helped scientists and engineers successfully recreate fusion reactions...and if they solve that, our energy problems will be essentially solved, at least in the technology sector.
So I'm sorry, but it's just frustrating is all...I'm fine if people have found an actual falsification for a theory or hypothesis, it's perfectly fine to entertain alternatives...but it's very clear what's really occurring. A VERY biased group of people, are just forcing the conclusion they want to be true, by ignoring and denying whatever science is inconvenient for them. It's just classic confirmation bias. They're biased, right from their title...do you see scientists calling themselves Globe Earthers? No, because they could care less what shape the Earth is, what they care about is objective accuracy. Can't do that...if you start with your conclusion, rather than build your conclusion from all available evidence.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Thanx for the civil dialogue in any case, it's a rarity in these chats, so thank you. It's fine to question things, so don't get me wrong, that's the one thing I actually do admire about FE. Though I do strongly disagree with the conclusions of FE, for good reasons, you're still free to explore them.
4
-
@smack24 Also, I’m sure you’re aware that the English language has plenty of nuance. Most words have several different definitions, that depends on the context of its application. Level is one of those words...you seem to think it only means flat, but that’s simply not true. Level as an adjective, can be defined as a surface with all points at equal distance from a point of reference, also known as at equipotential. That’s how the word is used in the context of sea level. A surface that’s level, in the context that all points along the surface are at equal distance from centre of Earth, from centre of gravity. An Equipotential surface.
You don’t have to just take my word for it though, just read some of the official Webster definitions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Entry 3, under adjectives.
You are being conned...by huxters who are taking advantage of your lack of knowledge and understandings. Spinning you a cleverly crafted lie, that you’re eating up like a good little numpty. Good job...these huxters are very proud of you, helping them spread bullshit.
4
-
4
-
Hi, just gonna answer these in the order you've presented them.
- As Scott pointed out in his excellent explanation, we don't need to create materials that resist these temperatures, because the convection rate in space is very very low, to non existent. 2000 degrees Celsius would be a problem...with a lot of air pressure to help the constant and consistent transfer of heat between molecules (convection), but in space, where the pressure is essentially zero, this is no problem. Do some research on convection and conduction, they matter greatly to understanding how temperature works in different environments and conditions. Basic rule of thumb, the higher the pressure, the more molecules of matter with mass to help transfer heat to you, the faster something will cook or be incinerated. Since space is a vacuum, convection heat transfer is basically non existent, making it easily possible for materials to withstand the environmental conditions.
- What problems are you referring too? I'm not too familiar with the problems you're claiming flight crews deal with. We have people on the ISS currently who are monitored for how much radiation they receive while on flight, but I wasn't aware flight crews had much worry. I will say, I used to work in a Uranium mine, insulating pipes for the large refineries. The radiation we received in these compounds we were repairing, probably far exceeded anything that people in space receive on a daily basis (depending), and we were fine. I think people tend to have a lot of assumptions on radiation exposure and space...but don't really know much about how much radiation an astronaut really receives, or how much the human body can actually handle. I wouldn't be so quick to assume space travel radiation is as harmful as you seem to think it is. Though I don't have all the answers here, but don't let assumptions lead you.
- Gravity....I know you've heard of it. We're all well aware of this force, we deal with it every day. If you're not convinced it's real, that's a whole other discussion we could have, but a question is not an argument and it's not evidence, so please don't assume a question alone should debunk established physics.
- Actually, 500 km is still not very high at all...though it's actually only 400 km, so you're off by 100 km. Still, if you were to put things to scale, get yourself a basketball, and then place your finger roughly 1 cm off the surface...that's roughly how far from the surface the ISS is by comparison. So you actually wouldn't be able to see the TOTAL curvature in its entirety. You'd be able to see a bit of it...and you do actually, have you ever actually watched ISS footage? The curvature is pretty clear.
- Well, water, like all dead matter, is inert, so it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it. Gravity vectors shift as you move, always drawing matter toward center of Earth, so the water in a swimming pool will be drawn to center, just like the ocean you're traveling upon. Learn some gravity physics please.
- As I'm sure you're aware, magnetism affects all matter differently. It might be stronger for metal alloys, but you're certainly not being sucked towards every magnet next to you, are you? They're not overlooking or discarding electromagnetism in their understandings...they just understand that magnetism affects matter differently and so this does not account for the consistent accelerating drop of matter to surface, at 9.8 m/s^2. They're not ignoring electromagnetism....they've just completely falsified it as a variable to what causes matter to be drawn to surface. Do some catching up to modern physics, and you'd very likely draw the same conclusion.
- Gravity emanates out from a center, so elevation is measured from that center. Water flows from high elevation to low elevation, that's how water flows. So if elevation is measured from center, then high elevation is away from center, low elevation is closest to center. So water is just flowing to center, that's where lowest potential energy is, center of gravity. I'm sure you've heard that term before, center of gravity. That's what everything balances too. When something is balanced, it's balanced to center of gravity, meaning its center of mass is level with center of gravity, perpendicular to it. When any point of a mass falls below center of gravity, when a majority of its mass is at a lower elevation than the rest of its mass, then it will fall to that lower elevation...toward center. So water flows just fine on a sphere, with gravity. Again...please learn some gravity physics, that's where you'll find your answers.
I'm sorry you're "tired of swallowing the facts", but you're asking the wrong questions. A lot of your questions here seem centered around gravity physics, but you didn't ask a single question around how science discovered or verified that gravity exists. You just acted as though it doesn't exist and then asked questions pretending like gravity has never even been hypothesized. You know very well that gravity is the answer to most of your questions...but then why not ask some actual questions pertaining to how gravity works, or to learn what scientific experimentation has helped to verify it? I just find it odd is all...and if you have concluded that gravity does not exist, then please provide your reasons...because science would strongly disagree with you. So if you feel you have somehow successfully falsified gravity, then by all means, provide your evidence and explanation. I'm happy to share what knowledge I have of gravity physics, so if that's what you're hung up on, then by all means, perhaps ask some questions relevant to your real quandary.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Learn to navigate, and then after you've acquired that knowledge, apply it by plotting and planning a navigation route, using only the stars, horizon and lines of latitude and longitude. Our entire system of navigation relies on the knowledge that the surface we navigate is spherical. If it were flat, mankind would have developed a system of navigation for that geometry, but currently, every pilot and sailor in the entire world, uses a system designed for a sphere, with a circumference of 25,000 miles. That's for a good reason, because Earth is spherical.
Navigation is one of the best ways to prove the Earths geometry for yourself. It's not hard to start learning, tons of videos on YouTube covering the topic.
4
-
No, the globe has been the widely accepted model for at least 500 years now, even the church agreed to this and it’s well documented in many old scientific and historical texts, that this was true. Just read any old works from famous astronomers like Kepler, Copernicus, or Galileo, or any of their peers, many of them worked directly for the church. It’s geocentrism, the idea that the Earth was centre of the universe and everything revolved around it, that took awhile to be resolved.
However, just because Europe wasn’t on board with it right away, doesn’t mean the rest of the world wasn’t. The Greeks and Mesopotamians both have records indicating they had solved it thousands of years prior, as did the Hindu, who believed it to be an egg shape for thousands of years.
It’s a common misconception, that the globe was a recent development.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Several reasons:
1) He used the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared is not a line of sight equation, it's for a parabola. So his figures don't represent what he was trying to disprove. Do the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, so you always must make sure you use the correct math in any experiment, otherwise it will throw off all your results and waste your time.
2) He ignored several variables that are important to factor, the biggest one being atmospheric refraction. Here's a simple demonstration of this effect https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA. You'll notice as refraction increases, everything in the distance rises up higher, making it possible to see things beyond geometric horizon. This footage is actually from a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this is taken from the Rainy Lake Experiment. Same experiment, done a lot more thoroughly, this time over 10 km of a frozen lake.
3) He only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, he basically did the least amount of work to confirm his bias, then called it a day. In science, we never make just one observation, you have to take multiple data sets, several observations, then you take the average of each to help with your conclusion. There's always a margin of error in every experiment, especially when something like refraction can fluctuate throughout a day and give you many different measures and observations. So you have to take the average...can't do that if you only make one observation.
So in summary, it was a sloppy experiment, performed only to confirm a bias. It's the perfect example for why peer review and recreation of experiments is so important in science. Because people can and do make errors, and peer review is how we weed those errors out. Upon peer review, Robothams experiment was found to be inconclusive, due to many errors in experimentation. So it's basically useless, it's been falsified.
Recreate the experiment properly, and it actually fits with the globe measurements. Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, by Walter Bislin. It's the most modern recreation I'm currently aware of.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Lordani66 So you honestly don’t see the motive in his actions? Why won’t Dubay debate the smaller fish on YouTube? Why only Neil? If he’s so confident, he shouldn’t be so picky, you’d think he’d just debate anyone. He wants Neil specifically, because he wants to market himself, it is a calculated move. See...the thing about debates is, it doesn’t really matter if you’re objectively wrong in the end, if you’re a better bullshitter, you can still convince a portion of the audience and pull them to your side, cause a portion of your audience is always going to be stupid and easy to persuade. It’s a liars game...and Eric has an edge in that department, he lies like breathing. You don’t even have to convince all of them or even a small majority, cause there is always gonna be suckers in the crowd easily dazzled by the underdog and that pool of people expands the larger your audience. He wants to debate Neil, cause he’s a celebrity, meaning he has followers, meaning it spreads his bullshit further...that’s the only reason he wants that chance.
Neil is a scientist, not a public debater, it’s not his arena, he’s got better shit to do other than to feed the conmen of the world, just looking to market their scam further. Call it a cop out if you want to, it’s still the wiser choice not giving into scammers. Eric wants to debate these big fish, he better get working on becoming one. Only when he’s on equal footing, should he ever be acknowledged.
4
-
4
-
4
-
All the original Bedford level experiment proves is how NOT to do an experiment. It's the perfect example of an experiment designed to confirm a bias, which is why it's taught to university students so they can learn from that failure. Rowbotham only went so far as to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking, which is exactly how you do science wrong. True science is about remaining objective through falsification, continuing your experiments, covering every variable you can, falsifying as much as you can until you can't anymore, which leaves you with the purest conclusion.
He conducted a poor experiment that was designed to give him the result he was looking for, rather then what was true. Upon peer review, it's found that he skipped over many details and did not collect enough data to reach a conclusive result. The experiment has since been repeated many times and improved upon over the years, you wanna see what that experiment looks like when conducted properly? Here you go. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Give it a look sometime, that's an example of how thorough you need to be in a REAL experiment...all Rowbotham did was watch a flag disappear, used some bad math and then reached the conclusion that supported his bias...so one observation, one data set, bad math, conclusion. Is that honestly how thorough you want our scientists to be? That sort of stuff works on the weak minded, easily conned suckers, who just want quick easy answers...but science has to do better, MUCH better, or we will stop advancing as a society.
The conclusion in this experiment, when conducted properly, always brings the same result, that Earth is indeed curving and it's curving at the rate it should given our planets true size, shape and scale.
4
-
4
-
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
-
Well, you'd need to still explain why things fall, why that direction is always down, why that rate of falling is always 9.8m/s^2, why that number can accurately be used to calculate everything from an objects weight (W=mg), to its buoyancy (Fb=Vpg), to a planes lift to weight ratio (ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g), etc. So ya...you'd still have a force causing a downward accelerating motion in all matter, that you'd have to account for in physics....you know, kind of like we already have. You can't just be ignorant to physical reality, or else we would get nothing done. Applied science kind of depends on us being objective. There is an obvious falling motion in all matter, motion does not occur without a force putting it into motion...it's basic physics.
You can pretend all you want that you're onto something big here, but you're arguing against applied science here, there's no debate on this topic anymore. Much of the technology and infrastructures YOU make use of on a daily basis, are only made possible because our knowledge of Earths shape, scale and geometry is accurate. Seriously, if you think scientists and experts can build EVERYTHING around you, but they can't solve something as trivial as the true shape of the Earth...then you might need some help my dude.
Of course there's lots of "evidence" for Flat Earth, the con men pushing that bullshit are working really hard to ensure there appears to be a lot of "evidence". They're taking you on a ride...and you're happy to take that ride, because they know how paranoid everyone is these days, they know it gives you a bit of peace of mind to pretend like you're back in control, that you can bag the bad guys and be a hero if you stick with the fantasy they're laying out for you. Must feel good...but it's not real, so hopefully you realize that eventually.
4
-
@falcor1969 Density is not a force, it has no physical capability of putting matter into motion, in any direction, it's just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a volume, that's all density is. Falling is a motion, I'm sure you'd agree to at least that much, it's pretty obvious. Nothing is put into motion without a force, it's the first law of motion. So if Density is not a force, but motion requires a force...then how exactly does density by itself put matter into motion? You're not really thinking this through very well, you're just being intentionally ignorant for the sake of your bias.
Density and buoyancy are already a part of gravity physics, you're just chopping out the parts you don't like and calling it a day. Not very objective of you, but then even by calling yourself a Flat Earther, you basically admit your bias. Do you see scientists calling themselves Globe Earthers? No, because they could care less what shape the Earth is at the end of the day, but they do require that information to be accurate, because we can't do anything with false information. Flat Earth is not used in the foundation of any applied science, that's a fact, not an opinion...and that should really be your first clue that it's false.
You have a great many misunderstandings about gravity. Yes, gravity is not a very powerful force at all, but it is a constant and it is far reaching. Doesn't take much energy at all to overcome gravity here on Earth, but the larger the object, the more mass it has, so the more gravity is effecting it...it's in the law of universal gravitation, gravity force is proportional to an objects mass. Hence why the Moon easily stays in orbit, it's not exactly small by any means, it's 1/4 the size of Earth...so it's going to be effected by gravity a lot more, and even produce a lot of its own gravity.
Your own personal misunderstandings are not evidence. Where I come from, if you don't know the answer to something everyone else understands perfectly well...it generally means you're stupid.
4
-
4
-
Water doesn’t seek level, it seeks lowest potential energy...just like all matter does. Lowest potential energy is always towards centre of gravity, so water flows toward that centre and amasses around it...just like all matter does. Because of water’s liquid chemical bonding, it also has surface tension, which forces it into the most balanced state possible under all forces acting upon it. This causes it to form an equipotential surface, within the field of force that is gravity. That’s what is meant by the term sea level, level in this context is implying that all points of the surface of the ocean is at equal distance from centre, that’s what an equipotential surface is, a surface that’s level, all points at equal distance from a centre. This forms a sphere. A bubble is an example of an equipotential surface...that’s what happens when water is squeezed towards a centre by a field of force squeezing it equally from all sides.
Water can rest perfectly fine with gravity that pulls to centre. If all parts are at equipotential, then they won’t flow. Water flows from high elevation to low elevation. Elevation on a sphere is measured from centre. Best way to understand this, stick a bunch of 2 inch pins into a ball, each one about 1 inch deep. The elevation of each pin, is now 1 inch from surface...all at the same elevation, even though they’re not tangent to each other, doesn’t matter, their elevation is the same, cause at the same distance from centre. That’s how elevation works on a sphere. Higher elevation is away from centre, lower elevation is towards centre.
Water will only flow, if it comes from a point at higher elevation, than the rest of the water. But a pool, pond, lake, or ocean, is at equipotential, every point at equal distance from centre. So water won’t flow in these examples. A river however, starts at higher elevations, and flows to lower elevations. Where’s it’s really flowing though, is towards centre of gravity...because that’s where lowest potential energy state is.
So your argument is flawed, because you’re just grossly misunderstanding gravity physics. If you’re going to argue against a scientific model, then you better make sure you understand the model first...otherwise you risk reaching a false conclusion, from your own misunderstandings.
I hope this information is helpful. Learn the model you’re arguing against please.
4
-
4
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Yes, a bird can glide, but it’s still extending its wings to do so, which requires energy. Shoot a bird out of the air, kill it so it’s not able to generate energy anymore, so it can extend its wings, and what happens then? It falls.
No, density and buoyancy is not sufficient, because it does nothing to explain the very obvious downward motion we observe from matter that is dropped. That falling motion occurs in vacuum chambers as well, where nothing else is in the chamber to cause a displacement in any direction, yet it falls anyway. That falling is a motion, first law of motion states that no motion occurs without a force, that’s basically the definition of a force…a physical mechanism of nature that causes motion in all matter.
Density is not a force, it is a property of matter, it is just how much mass occupies a volume of space. So it’s not a force, so it cannot cause motion on its own. Buoyancy is a force, but it’s not a force on its own…it is a byproduct of density displacement, due to the downward accelerating motion we observe from matter every day.
So no, density and buoyancy are not sufficient at all, you’re just intentionally ignoring a very big and blatantly obvious part of the whole puzzle. Can’t do much of anything with information that is false, inaccurate, or incomplete. And we simply won’t achieve much by denying reality. That’s kind of the nice thing about junk science, it’s easy to spot, because it’s absolutely useless. As I pointed out before, gravity is currently used in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Remove it as a variable, and the equation no longer works….so your science renders a once working equation, absolutely useless. Which means your science is incorrect, it’s pseudoscience. Pretty simple.
Feel free to derive a new working equation for buoyancy force, using your understanding of things…but you’d be wasting your time, cause it already works as is.
Flat Earthers have to really wake up from this trance they’re in, denying a very obvious physical phenomenon of nature, is not just bad science, it’s also kind of…dumb. And it’s no secret why they really do it, because gravity is inconvenient for what they want to believe. Well…we don’t just ignore obvious variables, because some people want to confirm a bias, that’s not how science works. It must remain objective.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The point of this video wasn’t to prove or disprove the theory, it was just to talk about WHY people think the Earth is flat. It’s literally right in the title. So it’s a discussion of the psychology of these individuals and the ideology of the group and the paths they took to get where they are currently, it was not so much a deep discussion of the science.
He shared those two experiments specifically, because they are both examples of inconclusive experiments, the first one being very obviously inconclusive. With just a tiny bit of understanding of gravity physics and the buoyancy effect that centers that bubble to center of gravity, anyone can see why it’s inconclusive. But some people don’t…like yourself…hence why some people become Flat Earthers. Because some people don’t seem to have the knowledge or understanding required, to understand how stupid that experiment really is. You understand now why he shared that experiment, for the topic he was discussing?
You pretty much demonstrated his whole point with your comment.
I’ll give a few more details on the science though, I won’t leave you hangin. The first experiment with the level doesn’t verify its conclusion, it only asserts it. We don’t reach conclusions in science upon forced assertions, that’s how you reach false conclusions. The experiment focuses only on what a level is used for — determining a flat horizontal plain — and then it assumes it is capable of doing this indefinitely, no matter how many miles you stretch it. But that last assumption is false, it ignores the physics of how a simple spirit level works and its limitations. Spirit levels can only level a small area, because Earth is so big, it takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference, so a few meters to even hundreds of square meters will appear perfectly flat, even though it technically isn't.
The Bubble is really levelling to center of gravity, it is buoyancy force that places the bubble at highest point in the tube, and buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. Buoyancy is the same exact vector as gravity force, just in the opposite direction. Gravity’s vector always points to center of Earth, so buoyancy’s vector is directly away from center. Point is, the bubble of a spirit level is really levelling to center of gravity, and gravity vectors on our globe, shift as you travel, always pointing to center. So as long as that level is kept perfectly perpendicular to center of gravity, it will not move. Since a plane is gradually arcing with Earth’s curvature as it travels, keeping in line with its horizon indicator and altimeter, it’s arcing in perfect sync with shifting gravity vectors. So level the spirit level with the plane, and it will never appear to move, because its going to be level to the current gravity vector it’s in.
So basically, the experiment doesn’t verify or falsify its hypothesis, it’s inconclusive. If Earth is flat, with only 1 gravity vector, the bubble won’t move. If Earth is a globe, with shifting gravity vectors, the bubble won’t move. So it doesn’t verify or falsify either conclusion. If you think it does, that’s because you don’t quite understand gravity and buoyancy and how it affects that bubbles movement.
See the problem yet? They’re reaching a conclusion, from an inconclusive experiment. That’s bad science. It’s relevant to the topic of this video, because it’s an example of an experiment that does successfully convince some people the Earth is flat, or at least gets them wondering if it could be. For others, we recognize right away that it’s inconclusive, proves nothing….but flat Earth doesn’t have to snag everyone, doesn’t even need a majority, just needs to convince a small few, and this experiment is an example of how.
The second experiment is also inconclusive, but it’s at least a good experiment. The level on a plane can never verify or falsify any conclusion, it ignores gravity physics, a level can not determine Earth’s shape, because it’s bound to gravity, it’s just a terrible experiment. But the Bedford Level experiment can actually be used to reach a more conclusive conclusion, the problem here is that Parallax conducted it poorly. It’s an example of sloppy science, conducted only to confirm a bias. Rowbotham (Parallax) only made ONE observation, using only ONE marker, taking only ONE data set, used the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared), ignored hidden variables like refraction, then he called it a day. That’s not how you conduct a thorough experiment, not in the slightest. So upon peer review, it was found to be inconclusive due to poor experimentation practices. It’s actually a perfect example for why it’s so important to have peer review in science, because people make mistakes, often without realizing it.
Upon further peer review and recreation of the experiment, it’s actually found to be conclusive for the globe conclusion. It’s a good experiment, it was just done poorly. It’s been repeated many times over the last couple hundred years, the recreations are generally a lot more thorough, including a lot more markers, more days of observation, collecting more data sets, factoring and controlling for variables such as refraction, using the correct math, etc. There’s a great modern example of this known as the Rainy Lake experiment, you should look it up sometime, it’s very thorough. It even has a full section on refraction, because yes, refraction is a big variable here, but Rowbotham missed so much more than just refraction…his experiment was just terrible through and through.
So what that experiment shows, is that some people don’t care for the details of an experiment, they just care about the conclusion. The general public doesn’t have the time to sift through data and go through every detail of an experiment…and people like Rowbotham know that. So what he did was almost like a sleight of hand trick…show you a conclusion, feed you false details, claim it’s impossible on a globe, then expect you to believe it without question. Sadly…it does work. Like an illusionist asking you to keep your eye on what he’s showing you, so you don’t catch the illusion, it’s not much different.
So, it’s another example of why people become flat Earthers, hence why it’s in this video, cause that’s the topic. Quite simply in this case, people are being tricked…because they don’t have the time to really get into the actual science of it all, so they’re happy to just go along with what Rowbotham or others are saying.
It illustrates the need for proper experimentation and it points out how ill prepared some in society still are. Things may seem convincing on the surface, but that doesn’t always make them true.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. I don’t mind helping with more if you got further questions or things you’d like to point out that I might have missed. Feel free. Have a good one.
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
-
@dragoncosmico Actually gravity is a law as well, look up Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation…it’s where the foundation of gravity science began.
It’s also a common misconception, but laws are not higher than theory in science, they’re actually considered as equal, just a different form of conclusion. Laws of science describe what is occurring, but make no attempt to explain how or why. Theory’s are the explanation of how a phenomena of nature works. That’s the difference between the two. Both are supported by a body of evidence and facts that are verified and peer reviewed, they are both conclusions, nothing goes beyond them in science. But it could actually be argued that theories are above laws, because you will always have more power and control over a system if you understand HOW it works, rather than just WHAT it does.
Anyway, it just does more to reveal the scientific illiteracy of Flat Earthers really. By saying anything is “just a theory”, they basically admit they have no real understanding of the terminology and basic language of science. Electromagnetism is also a theory of science, but you won’t see them pointing that out. They only pick on gravity, because it’s not very convenient for what they want to believe….it’s just classic confirmation bias through intentional ignorance and plain ol’ denial.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nickmerix2900 No, what really happened was that Rogan set up a debate that Neil didn’t know about or even agree too, I don’t think he even talked to Dubay about it, he just assumed it would happen. So nothing was set up officially, or agreed too by both individuals. I don’t know about you, but if someone pencilled me in for something I didn’t agree too, I’d tell them to kick rocks too. It’s pretty common sense that you should probably ASK a person well in advance if they’re cool with doing something like a debate, before you just assume they will. Neil has stated many times publicly, that he does not do debates, it’s not his thing…so Rogan should have probably done his homework first.
Meanwhile, Dubay has been asked many times too debate, by many different people and experts, here on YouTube and other platforms…so far he’s accepted none of them. So what’s he afraid of?
I say, if people don’t want to debate, it should be fine, it’s not for everyone. Debating is a skill like any other, it also takes time to properly prepare, some people don’t have the time or interest. Rogan shouldn’t be pencilling people in for things without asking first, he’s kind of an idiot for doing so.
4
-
So theres a few errors here. First is focusing on the definition of level and thinking it means only one thing, flat. This is thinking in absolutes, and it’s simply wrong, as I’m sure you know, words in the English language take on different meanings depending on the context. In the context of topography, level is defined as “being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : EQUIPOTENTIAL” equipotential is basically a geometric term, meaning a surface that maintains equal distance from a centre. A good example is a bubble, which typically has a surface that is equal distance from the centre of the bubble, forming it into a sphere. So that surface is level, in the context of topography, maintaining an equipotential surface. You’ll find that definition here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level the third entry under adjectives, definition #5.
Why does this matter? Because water seeks level by this definition. Water is really looking for lowest potential elevation, that lowest point is always towards centre on the globe, that’s where gravity pulls everything. This will cause the surface of water to become equipotential. A spirit level is not levelling to surface, it’s levelling to centre of gravity, so it’s level so long as it’s perpendicular to centre of gravity...which is going to shift as you travel along the Earth with gravity.
So flat Earth ignores gravity and the physics that is going on inside the spirit level and just focuses on what they think level means in this context. They’re making all kinds of arguments from ignorance here. Fact is, that bubble level will shift with the gravity vectors of Earth, so as long as it’s perpendicular to centre of gravity, it will be level with gravity.
The reason why we can use a spirit level to create flat surfaces, is because of how massive the Earth is, compared to us. It takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on Earth, how much do you think it arcs in a few square meters? Might as well be perfectly flat, so we can use bubble levels for keeping things horizontal to a surface no problem.
So the thing about this experiment, is that it’s inconclusive. If the Earth is flat and there is no gravity, then the bubble will read level. If the Earth is a globe with gravity, then the bubble will read level. See the problem here? It neither verifies or falsifies either model, so that means it is inconclusive. So if anyone were to use this experiment to reach a definite conclusion, then they are doing so out of bias. Flat Earth ignores gravity and then thinks this experiment supports their model, because of their poor understanding of both gravity physics and the English language...and how topography works. They just think “level means flat, bubble levels are for leveling flat surfaces, so if the bubble doesn’t move earth is flat, simple”. Simple minds thinking in absolutes, never bothering to learn how they’re in error.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. It’s an inconclusive experiment, they can’t just ignore the model they’re arguing against, and hope that defeats it...they have to stay objective and honest, but they are applying bias in there conclusion here. This won’t lead to any actual truth.
4
-
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 “Something can not move and still keep everything in it the same momentum while it’s moving too.”
Except it absolutely can and that’s exactly what does happen in reality…and this is one of the most proven concepts in all of physics. There’s thousands of different experiments I could point you too that proves conservation of momentum and relative motion, and you can look them up at anytime by searching those terms. But I won’t leave you hanging here, here’s an experiment YOU can do easily, that tests exactly what you’re claiming cannot occur.
Next time you find yourself on a plane, train, bus (any moving vehicle really, but the longer the better), make yourself a quick paper airplane, then once the vehicle is in a steady forward motion, gently toss it from the back to the front. You’ll notice it keeps up with the motion of the vehicle just fine and glides slowly to the front, maintaining the vehicle’s forward momentum to make this possible. Now go to the front and toss to the back, just as gently as before. You’ll notice it doesn’t go smashing into the back the moment you let go of it, it will glide gently to the back, as if it’s still keeping pace with the forward momentum but just subtracting some of that velocity a bit. The same thing occurs on Earth with planes in flight, they maintain the forward momentum of the Earth’s rotation, at all times, in both directions…all of its motions actually. That’s relative motion in a nutshell…basic physics.
If you graduated high school, then you definitely learned this at some point…physics 101 is included in pretty much every school curriculum, and the laws of motion is pretty much the very first thing you learn. If YOU don’t understand these laws of physics, then it is YOUR lack of knowledge that is the problem here. That’s the reality, you do not currently have the knowledge to understand how you are wrong in your current conclusion. So please research conservation of momentum and relative motion. If you have honest questions I don’t mind providing some information, but you gotta drop the attitude. You do that and I’ll do the same, then maybe these questions of yours can be answered.
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 One problem at a time. I addressed your question of how planes can fly, while Earth is rotating, by using a practical experiment for conservation of momentum, that you can repeat whenever you’d like too. That demonstration (and plenty more) tests and verifies conservation of momentum, more specifically tailored towards that question of yours.
But yes, to answer your new question, since pretty much all of Earth’s atmosphere was created at the surface, by biological processes, then it too is already in motion with the Earth, conserving Earth’s motions, moving relative to Earth. So it too moves with the Earth’s rotation. Not perfectly mind you…how do you think the winds occur in the first place? Our atmosphere is a fluid (you can look that up too), that’s its scientific classification of gases, so it’s subject to very similar fluid dynamics as any other fluid is. Sloshing around, mixing, moving against rotations, moving in layers, etc. Fluid dynamics. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Coriolis effect, something that does occur in atmosphere, that is something we’d expect to see occur if Earth was in a rotational motion.
I’m just saying…you’re presenting questions as if they’re evidence, instead of learning the answers. Since when did questions=evidence? 🤷♂️Your questions do have answers, and evidence to support those answers. So you’re not really presenting valid arguments, you’re really just demonstrating how little you personally know about physics and Earth science.
But alright, let’s look at your main question now. So if you know the heliocentric model at all, you’ll know that it states that Earth is orbiting around the Sun, and Earth’s axis is tilted from the ecliptic about 23.4 degrees. This tilt and its orbit, means that at various points in Earth’s orbit, one pole is more pointed towards the Sun than the other. When one pole is tilted towards the Sun, the other os pointed away from it, this is what causes the opposite seasons between the two hemispheres. I’m sure you’ve roasted marshmallows before, when you point one side to the fire, does it then cook faster than the side not facing the fire? Pretty common sense, right?
I’ve been to both hemispheres as well, I live in Canada, and have spent time in places like New Zealand and Australia, while it was winter here at home. So I’m well aware of the difference in seasons between the hemispheres, I’ve experienced it myself as well. I hope my explanation has provided some insight into why this occurs.
I’m curious if you happened to pay attention to the night sky while you were in the South Hemisphere. Did you happen to notice the stars were very different? For example you can’t see the Big Dipper in the South, but the Southern Cross is then something you can easily see. Did you ever stop to wonder how Earth can have two different skies, if Earth were flat with ONE sky? 🧐 Don’t forget to analyze Flat Earth with the same critical lens.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 No, you’re getting the seasons wrong in general. The distance to the Sun is not what causes the seasons, the tilt of Earth’s axis is what causes the seasons. It’s a common misconception some people have, thinking seasons are caused by the distance changing, but that’s not accurate. The Earth does orbit in an ellipse, and the distance does change slightly, but it does not cause the seasons. That’s not to say it doesn’t have an effect, but the tilt in the axis is does a lot more here, because Earth is heated by direct solar energy, there is no convection heat transfer from our Sun, because there is no atmosphere in space, so no pressure to cause convection. The tilt causes the direct solar energy from the Sun to be dispersed differently upon the surface, areas with more direct and focused solar energy becoming warmer, than places with less direct solar energy…this causes the seasons. Understand it a bit better yet?
Your understanding of the model you’re attempting to argue against is just terrible…which explains a lot.
4
-
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 It’s perfectly fine to ask questions, it’s just the way you’re asking them, gives the impression you’re not really all too interested in the answers. But it’s fine, I don’t mind sharing information regardless. To be fair, they are great questions, they are the same questions once asked hundreds of years ago, before the experiments were done and the data collected. Many do tend to forget that before we had this knowledge, we had to learn it first, so nothing wrong with asking questions.
Anyway, I’ve been giving you the short version of everything, so apologies if it leaves gaps. I’ll address things as I can.
It’s not that light from the Sun is “only hitting a few targets” due to the tilt, it’s that solar energy is dispersed by the curvature and the tilt. Here’s another simple experiment. Shine a heat lamp straight down, 90 degrees to a surface, place a thermometer directly under it to measure the temperature. Now shine that same light at 45 degrees to the surface, place the thermometer in the area being heated (make sure it’s the same distance from the heat light as it was at 90 degrees). You’ll notice the second temperature reading will be significantly cooler, from the more direct placing of the heat source. The reason, is because as you angle the heat source, it now disperses over a wider area, instead of when it was more direct which made it more focused. The same thing happens on a curved surface, that’s why the Equator is warmer than the poles, it receives more direct solar energy year round. While the poles fluctuate, due to the Earth’s orbit and its tilt.
Does this prove the Earth is spherical? No, of course not, but it does answer for how it works. There are other observations and experiments that verify the shape and motion of Earth, what I’m doing here is just answering a few of your questions…cause it does seem there’s a lot you’re currently misunderstanding or are not aware of.
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 You’re only half right. Fighter pilots don’t really wear masks because of their forward velocity, they wear them because of the altitude, because fighter cockpits are not as pressurized as passenger jets are, they’re pressurized for an altitude equivalent of 10,000 feet, and they wear them for high speed maneuvers, which effects the oxygen pressure in the cabin. Notice the part that doesn’t matter there? Forward velocity. If a fighter jet maintained a steady forward velocity, they really wouldn’t require a mask at all, it’s there when they need it, for when going into combat, during high speed maneuvers. I’m sure you’ve noticed they typically only strap them on just before combat? When they know they’ll be performing high speed maneuvers.
It’s just another common misconception people tend to have, that G force is a consequence of forward velocity, of motion itself, but it’s really created by sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, acceleration and deceleration, not velocity alone.
You’re arguing with us like we’re crazy, or stupid, but this is the very physics known and taught to everyone…especially pilots, and the engineers who design fighter jets. You know the best way to know when your knowledge is accurate? When it works when applied. If this was all bullshit, then they certainly wouldn’t be teaching this physics to engineers and pilots…cause nothing would work if they’re knowledge wasn’t accurate, and people would be getting hurt, or worse, dying.
4
-
@scholageemusic9373 Well, we could prove to you beyond any doubt that Earth is spherical, and you’d likely still argue with us, so the feeling is mutual, you’re not much different…the difference is, that actual engineers use the science I am explaining to you now, while your arguments are not backed by any field of applied science. You have to understand, that you’re making an assumption without verifying it. You certainly seem to think things would change around 700 mph, but then you’re doing nothing to verify that claim. So what reason do we have to agree with your assumption? 🤷♂️ See the problem?
Ever heard of the Concorde? It was a supersonic passenger jet that operated from 1976 to 2003. There’s a great video you can easily find on YouTube, of the flight crew walking around the cabin serving drinks and food, at Mach 2, which is roughly 1500 mph. The Concorde prided itself on its speed, it was a very expensive flight to take, because travel times were 3 times as fast as the average passenger jet. Look it up sometime, it’s one of many supersonic passenger jets that existed.
So there you go, a demonstration you can look up at anytime, that falsifies your claim that conservation of momentum stops being a thing at certain velocities. We’re not lying to you man…I understand that your trust in science has eroded (for some reason), but this is basic physics you learned in high school and that you can easily verify for yourself. Conservation of momentum is a thing…the truth about motion is that it is constant, that’s the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion…it’s the first thing you learn in physics 101. This knowledge is what makes flight engineering possible…if this knowledge was inaccurate, then we wouldn’t be able to engineer and design passenger jets. You’re arguing against proven knowledge, used in thousands of practical applications…and worse yet you actually seem to think it’s everyone else who is crazy, instead of considering the very real possibility that there’s a lot YOU don’t actually know, which is currently causing you to reach a lot of false assumptions.
Flat Earth is an online hoax, that takes advantage of that lack of knowledge and experience…and it seems to work these days, because so many today seem to have lost trust in their fellow man. I hope this information was helpful but I would suggest brushing up on some physics…it might help you avoid falling into these rabbit holes in the future.
4
-
@pixelhy Apologies in advance, but your explanation of the seasons is not entirely accurate. It’s not really the distance to the Sun that effects Earth’s seasons, that’s a common misconception, it has more to do with the Earth’s titled axis, which effects the angle at which the surface of Earth receives solar energy. Depending on which pole is tilted towards the Sun during points of its orbit, that pole will be in Summer, because it’s receiving more direct solar energy, over longer periods of time, than the pole that’s tilted away from the Sun. That’s why/how the seasons are opposite for each Hemisphere, when North is winter, the South is in Summer and vice versa.
Just a slight correction, the distance does have an effect as well of course, we are within the goldilocks zone of our solar system after all, but did you know the Northern winter actually occurs at perihelion, when Earth is closest to the Sun? So it’s not the distance that causes the seasons, it’s the tilted axis.
In fairness to our friend here, I felt I should correct that small error. I spent a day sharing that information with him, so would only confuse and give him ammunition to get two different descriptions of how the seasons work. Best we’re all on the same page, if we’re going to help dispel misinformation, so I hope that’s helpful. Feel free to double check this information of course, have a good one. 👍
4
-
4
-
4
-
@OlamideAdelaNCC Welp, we conclude things on evidence, can’t make conclusions without it. If you do, then you are arguing from ignorance or appealing to belief , and neither is a logical argument to take seriously. Earth is spherical by every measurement done so far, and the model works when applied, from navigation, to communication, engineering and infrastructure. So Earth is spherical, until evidence can actually verify that it’s not. It’s fine to hypothesize, but we shouldn’t reach any definite conclusions from hypothesis alone. Simulation theory is fun to entertain, but in no way proven…heck we don’t even have a clear way to test it yet, so it’s not even a hypothesis yet, as testable is a prerequisite for that title. So it’s an idea at best.
I’m just saying, there is lots of evidence that you can acquire first hand, without much effort, that verifies Earth is spherical. You don’t have to just take people at their word, you can acquire the knowledge yourself.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
@russellrattys6581 Centripetal forces are increased by the rate of angular velocity change per second, 1000 mph is a linear velocity, so it doesn’t mean much here. We typically measure rotations in revolutions per minute (RPM’s). It’s the rate at which something rotates, that has the larger affect on centrifugal force. A gravitron ride that sucks you to a wall, rotates at roughly 24 rpm’s. Earths rate of rotation is ONE complete rotation every 24 hours, this makes the Earth’s rpm’s about 0.000694, and that even gets smaller the further from Equator you travel. This is a tiny amount of rotational velocity...hence VERY little centrifugal force.
This is very well understood in physics, you can even confirm it with a simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself driving a race car around a perfect circle track, 1000 metres in circumference, at a steady speed rate of 200 mph. Would you expect to feel centrifugal force in this example? Yes, you’d have a heck of a time even staying on the track, you’d be experiencing so much centrifugal force! Ok, now let’s just increase the length of the track to 1000 miles. Traveling on this much larger circular track, at the same steady 200 mph, would you expect to feel much centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would feel almost perfectly straight to you, you’d have a very easy time staying on that track, FAR less centrifugal force, well under anything you could detect.
So let’s now analyze that closer, what changed? The linear velocity was the same, yet the centrifugal force was greatly reduced. So what does this tell you? That linear rates of motion have very little to do with centrifugal force output. The main difference in both examples, was the rate at which they would complete one full rotation. The first example, the car would complete several revolutions within every minute...the second example, only one complete revolution every 5 hours.
So the trouble here is in not quite understanding the physics of centripetal force, which causes people to reach a false conclusion. This happens across the board with flat Earth arguments...hence why they’re met with so much push back. It’s becoming a real problem...people thinking they know everything already, thinking they’re perfectly qualified to spot errors in science, when the real errors are really within their own misunderstandings. It’s made worse on that many of these same people don’t like being corrected, or shown how they could be wrong.
But what you have is actually a really great physics question! It’s not a bad question at all, you can actually learn a lot about the physics here, by exploring these kinds of questions more, and being open to some answers. Flat Earth asks some great physics questions...they just don’t bother to seek the answers, instead choosing to hold the questions up as their evidence. But questions are not evidence.
Here’s another cool little tidbit on this topic of centrifugal force. There still is a tiny amount of centrifugal force generated by Earth’s rotation, which does negate a small fraction of gravity upon you. Did you know you actually weigh about 0.03% lighter at the Equator, then you would at the poles of Earth? I’m pretty sure that’s an accurate percentage anyway, might be off by a decimal place, been awhile since I calculated it myself, but it’s true and it’s also testable. Here’s a simple experiment anyone can try to test this phenomenon themselves, just requires some travel a set of simple weights and a scale https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o. It’s a great experiment, that confirms Earth rotation.
But no, one rotation every 24 hours, not even close to enough to replicate the force of gravity. But, fun fact this is actually how they plan to design space stations in the future, to replicate gravity for the passengers.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. They are good physics questions, so don’t feel discouraged. Let me know if you have any further questions or rebuttals. Have a good one!
4
-
4
-
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Those are math simplification models, for abstract simulations and hypotheticals…they’re not literally stating the Earth is flat, they are assumed variables. Go ahead and tell me what you know about mathematical models and how papers such as those are written. Go ahead…let’s see your expertise on the subject.
Mathematical models often simplify math, to make the math easier to use and easier to calculate. It’s actually a whole field of work in mathematics, to derive simpler equations, by removing redundant variables or variables that won’t effect what they’re being used for. When a math simplification is made, it must be stated very clearly what variables are being omitted in the simplification, so that the reader is aware. They’re not making a literal statement, or drawing a conclusion…that’s why these are often found in the summary sections, just before the equations to follow. They’re typically used in simulations…which are never a full representation of reality.
What we have here is a classic example of cherry picking, from layman, who have no idea what they’re reading. Further verifying that you don’t know much about math or science.
Here’s a thought…in all of these mathematical models, there is an author for the work…why hasn’t any Flat Earther ever thought to contact any of these authors? If you think I’m lying to you…go ahead and contact the authors, I’m sure with a little effort they wouldn’t be difficult to track down. You should be demanding that these people who present these papers too you, that they contact some of the authors, and ask them directly. If you really care about the truth, then you think that would be step one in your research.
Why people just assume they know what’s being said in a mathematical model, when they’re not trained mathematicians themselves, it just boggles me.
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Gases exist just fine next to space, thanks to gravity. Gas has mass, all matter with mass is affected by gravity, that includes all gases. Buoyancy is what causes lighter gases to rise, and buoyancy is directly caused by gravity…that’s physics 101, proven in countless different drop tests for buoyancy force. It’s also why gravity is the force variable in the equation for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Real engineers use that equation to build the ballast tanks for ships and submarines…even dock crews use it to know just how much weight a single ship can carry, before it capsizes. Remove the gravity variable, and that equation becomes useless. Learn how buoyancy works…it’s caused by density displacement, that displacement is caused by the downward acceleration of gravity. Physics 101.
Entropy does occur, and our system allows for it to happen, we’re constantly shedding both thermal energy and gas…thankfully we have a Sun providing us with a constant supply of new energy, which biological life uses to photosynthesize new gases at the surface. The entropy of gas though is slowed and contained by gravity. That’s another point you Flatties ignore…the fact that entropy can be slowed, by attractive forces. Heck, your body is proof of that. You are an entropic system…held together by many different attractive forces, working in tandem to keep entropy at bay. Entropy is easily slowed and contained, it will always win in the end, but it’s a slowly won battle, thanks to forces like gravity.
I think you’ll find it’s actually your Flat Earth system that breaks thermodynamics laws. If there’s a container not allowing any gas or energy out…then wouldn’t we expect our system to drastically increase in both heat and pressure over time? 🧐 I’m sure you’re aware of what occurs with a pressurized container of gas when a flame is held too it. The Sun is a constant provider of new energy…energy can not be destroyed only transferred….if it has nowhere to go, it eventually explodes.
That’s of course making a few assumptions of your model, that assumption being a dome that closes around just the Earth. But of course I’m aware there is no working model of Flat Earth, and not a single one you all agree on, you all just assume arguments from ignorance are good enough…so it’s pretty pointless to bother. But either way, you guys are butchering thermodynamics laws. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has more to do with thermal energy transfer, hence THERMOdynamics. It’s not so much applicable to gases, for that we use the ideal gas laws, in this case Boyles Law, which is basically the same law, but reworked to apply to the nuances of matter with a mass, gases. Energy has no mass, so thermodynamics doesn’t apply to gas so much…it’s referring to energy. For example, when your coffee goes cold, its thermal temperature coming to equilibrium with the surrounding air, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? 🧐 Shouldn’t have to tell you, it’s just the energy. That’s an example of thermodynamics. Again, our Earth sheds energy all the time, and the open system allows it to do that.
When it comes to gases, we use the gas laws. But even those are limited in what they can be used for. In the ideal gas law equations, volume is used as a key variable in every equation, basically the container. This becomes a problem with the atmosphere, because it’s technically infinite, so no volume can be determined or measured. So for atmosphere, we use a completely different set of gas equations, that replace volume with gravity. Gravity is the container of Earth’s atmosphere, and it creates the pressure gradient we observe and measure. So gases are treated differently in physics, depending on whether it’s a volume of gas (ideal gas laws), or an open atmosphere of gases (atmospheric pressure).
That’s a quick summary of the physics you guys butcher, but that’s not evidence on its own, obviously. That’s what’s also key here…Flat Earth has reached a conclusion of the firmament container, on butchered physics alone…with ZERO tangible evidence. We can not reach conclusions in science without EVIDENCE. Yet you people have drawn a conclusion anyway…that’s all I need to know to understand that you are just another online group of layman pushing pseudoscience.
You have not found this dome you believe is up there. It has not been observed, measured, tested, or interacted with in any way….you have however found evidence for the vacuum of space, and without realizing it. I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons the Flat Earth has sent up over the years in the attempt to observe curvature (which they’ve done successfully I might add, just take a ruler to anyone of those horizons), did you ever happen to notice the blackness of space above a blue atmosphere, and surrounding the Sun? That’s exactly what we’d expect to see in our model. And if you watch until the end, the balloons always eventually pop…as they’re designed to do, once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flat Earth has verified the existence of space, with evidence that’s repeatable….but ya know what you guys have never found? A container.
You’re gonna have to face it eventually…you were conned by huxters online, who took advantage of your lack of scientific/mathematical knowledge and experience, to feed you absolute made up bullshit. What’s funny is that you’ll all blindly agree to their bullshit without question…….then call us brainwashed sheep. Oh the irony. 😂
Meanwhile, scientists and engineers are using the knowledge I’m explaining to you here, to build and innovate the modern world around you….while you flatties are in basements, clacking away on keyboards, contributing nothing. Not a hill I’d wanna die on…but you do you I guess.
4
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Already explained it to you, those are mathematical simplification models…they are assumed variables, not to be taken literally.
Just zero in on a few of them and read them closer. You’ll find the word ASSUMED in almost all of them. And many of them assume many other variables not applicable to reality as well. For example, the most famous of the examples Flat Earthers cherry pick from, the NASA document 1207 “Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model”, it also assumes and says quite clearly, quote; “a rigid vehicle of constant mass”. It’s says those exact words directly before “flat and stationary Earth” Those are both impossible variables in reality, no mechanical vehicle with scores of moving parts is perfectly rigid, and they do not maintain constant mass because of crew members that shift around and fuel that depletes.
Why don’t you zero in on those words? It’s simple, because they don’t help you confirm your bias. Can’t cherry pick things that don’t fit the narrative, so they can be ignored….isn’t that right?
4
-
4
-
4
-
@elfalte You didn’t shake anything, you’re not the first flattie I’ve chatted with. These are poor arguments you’ve presented, that I’ve heard many times…that I’ve answered probably hundreds of times at this point. The Stars don’t appear to move because of parallax effect, it’s pretty simple. But they are moving, it’s been determined, we’ve been tracking the stars for centuries, they are moving. If you were an astronomer, you would know this, it’s standard knowledge. As is the second hemisphere sky, which rotates around a different pole star, Sigma Octantis.
You can now either continue to ignore what I’m saying, or you can research it, see that I’m not lying to you, and then maybe realize how impossible it is on a flat Earth.
Flat Earth is a con, that takes advantage of peoples general lack of knowledge, and their growing paranoia that keeps them from looking at things objectively.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TShaun68 Do you sense you’re moving 500 mph when you get up and walk around the cabin of a passenger jet? No, you don’t…yet that’s typically how fast they fly at cruising altitude…so maybe our senses are actually pretty terrible at detecting motion? 🧐 Ya, they are actually…the reality is that we don’t actually sense/feel motion itself, what we sense is sudden or rapid change in motion, not motion itself. That’s actually the first thing you learn in any physics 101 class, the laws of motion. Earth’s motions are constant, with only a few examples of gradual acceleration over long periods of time, so we really wouldn’t expect to feel them, there’s no sudden or rapid acceleration. We have plenty of evidence now verifying that we are in motion (from Foucault pendulum and gyro experiments, to ring laser interferometers detecting and measuring Earth’s motion, to the Coriolis and Eotvos effect, to the gyrocompass, etc), so it’s an argument from ignorance really, to conclude that we don’t spin…simply because you don’t feel it. Learn the physics of motion, and you’ll understand why we don’t.
“Do you also look up to understand what’s under your feet?”
Typically no, but you absolutely can. Reality is bound by geometric rules that are constant, the shape of a surface will alter your position, relative to surrounding objects, by shifting your angle too them, so it’s actually pretty useful information that shouldn’t be ignored. Your argument there is just basically an excuse, to convince others (and yourself) that it’s fine to limit yourself by ignoring geometric information, even though it’s very useful information.
“The horizon is just the convergence point of your eyes…”
Then why does horizon extend the higher you go in elevation? If what you’re saying were accurate, horizon would be at 3 miles whether I’m at 6 feet elevation or 1000 feet…but that’s not what happens. The higher we go, the further we see…like seeing over a curvature. Your conclusion is barely a hypothesis, yet you’re asserting it’s accurate anyway…even though it’s easily refuted with little effort.
“A p900 camera can zoom things back into your range of vision that appear to have crossed the “horizon”…”
First off…what’s with Flat Earth’s obsession with the p900? 🧐 Seriously…telescopes have existed for centuries with focal lengths far exceeding the p900, and zoom lenses for cameras is not new technology…in fact they’re pretty standard in most professional grade cameras today (and have been for awhile), and again many are more powerful than the p900. I’m starting to think Nikon started the Flat Earth movement, so they could sell more cameras…cause it’s the only camera Flat Earthers ever mention. I just find that really odd.
Anyway…more to the point. You mentioned convergence before (vanishing point). Were you aware that vanishing point can occur in any direction, and before physical horizon? So how do you know for certain you’re actually zooming things back from horizon? I’ve seen plenty of examples where things are actually beyond the horizon, and no amount of zoom will bring them back…how are those observations explained by your conclusion? 🧐 In my opinion, if you’re zooming things fully back into focus, then they haven’t actually gone past the horizon yet, you’re just bringing them back from vanishing point, which has occurred before horizon. But once something actually has gone past horizon, no amount of zoom will bring them back. I’d suggest looking up the Turning Torso Tower observation, as a great example of what I’m talking about.
I think there’s a lot Flat Earth ignores or is not aware of and I personally feel they’ve done some pretty poor research honestly. But that’s my opinion after analyzing it, you’re free to disagree, but that’s my stance. I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. Take care.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Here on Earth, you can't create a vacuum without a barrier, but this doesn't mean space doesn't exist and it doesn't mean a dome exists either. I would say, present me some evidence for this dome, why have we not interacted with it yet? We have plenty of methods today where we should be able to interact with this dome firmament, such as bouncing lasers or radar off of it, which is something we do with our Moon to determine its distance from us...why can we not do the same for this Dome? The truth is, we can't, because there is no Dome. But if you think there is, then present some evidence for its existence. I'm sure the scientific community would be happy to see this evidence.
I'm not sure I fully understand your second question, you may have to rephrase it and provide some context.
How about 200 images of the planet. These are full images, non composites, unedited and non CGI, taken in the late 60's to mid 70's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE&t=37s In the description of this video is a link to an archive where you can find these photos and more.
Here's some great footage of the 24 hour Sun taken by a guy who calls himself Iceman. A photographer who has visited the South base several times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcppf47VhrU&t=246s There are 2 videos in this, both are some really great footage. It is important to note, that the Sun traces through the sky in an almost perfect line in this video, and that is something that can only occur directly on the pole, anywhere else, and the Sun will wobble in the sky. This is important to note, because there is no permanent structure base in the North, and that's for a good reason, the North Pole is on an ice sheet that is constantly changing...especially during the summer years when the Sun does this. So this is how we know this footage is taken in the South Pole, because there is a permanent base in this footage.
Well I'm not an astronomer, but have you actually looked up ancient astronomy records kept by civilizations like the Greeks, Mesopotanains and Asian cultures? Cause from what I understand, those old records actually do not match with today's sky...but then prove me wrong, show me where you learned that they do match. Show me the records with some citations of yours. Otherwise, your claim there is empty.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@robertfish4734 I’m well aware of the gas laws, including Boyles…you’re still confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure. You should Google ‘Ideal Gas Laws’ sometime…says right on the first paragraph of the Wiki, that these laws have their limitations. And that’s true…they’re only used for gases in containers where the volume of the container can be determined, and where it can be reduced to increase pressure…example, the pistons pushing down into a valve compressing gas. They are not used when we’re talking about an open system with infinite volume, like atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure equations replace volume with gravity…look it up bud, you don’t get to just cherry pick whatever you think supports an argument, and then ignore everything else. That’s called confirmation bias…maybe you should look that up too.
By all means, find us tangible evidence for this container. Is there any? Do you think we settle science on misunderstood physics? No…we settle it with evidence. There is plenty of evidence for gravity, from drop tests, to Cavendish experiments, to the satellites we’re putting into orbit with that knowledge. I’ve yet to see anything tangible that verifies this dome container you feel is up there.
You’re just another pseudo intellectual trying to rub dirt in the eye of an authority you’ve come to resent, it’s nothing new.
I DARE YOU, to plot a navigation route and travel it, without using the globe model to help you do it. 😂 Go right ahead.
4
-
@robertfish4734 So mostly a bunch of insults and further denial, but no actual evidence or rebuttals, gotcha. And you people wonder why nobody takes you seriously. 🤦♂️
Nowhere in the report for Operation Fishbowl, does it say they were nuking the dome. 😂 That’s just 100% made up bullshit…and then you have the gull to say we’re making things up? Kettle, meet pot. 😂 No, what it actually says is that they were performing tests of nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere, to test what effect it has. Pretty standard when you develop a new weapon…you then test it in as many different environments as you can, to observe its effects. They detonated 6 nukes in this test, and gathered data on what occurs. They learned a lot actually, they learned that nuclear fallout travels further, the radio blackout effect also travels further, it does damage still but doesn’t completely decimate an area, it mostly contaminates it and cripples it. This is useful information to have…hence why they do these tests.
You just read the title and then speculated endlessly on what it meant…I bet you’ve never read it. 😄 The reason it’s called “Operation Fishbowl”, is likely because the blast would leave a perfect circle in the clouds where the detonation occurred…which would look a lot like a hole at the top of a round fishbowl, to an observer on the ground.
So feel free to try again. Any actual evidence for this dome?
Cavendish is very repeatable science, I first saw it repeated at a junior high science fair, then again in my high school science lab we had a bunch of old small scale cavendish apparatuses, that we used to learn the history behind the science of gravity. Now there’s hundreds of recreations of this experiment you can find on YouTube alone…it’s repeated all the time.
Your denial of a highly repeatable experiment, is not an argument. If you have any actual falsification to make, feel free to share it…but insulting us and making empty claims doesn’t do anything I’m afraid.
How about being a bit more mature about it? Instead of puffing your chest at everyone, why not drop the superiority act, and have a conversation? You’re just banging your head against the wall with your attitude here. It’s such a waste of time.
4
-
4
-
@robertfish4734 Let’s try this a different way. Gonna try steel manning your argument a bit. From what I gather, your point on Boyles law is simply that; gas always moves from high pressure to low pressure. Your point with breathing demonstrates this; by creating a system of low pressure in your lungs, the higher pressure outside your lungs rushes into the lower pressure, making us able to breath. So your argument is, space is a low pressure, our atmosphere is a high pressure, so it should move to the low pressure, if no physical container is there to keep it.
That’s the jist of it, correct?
Yes, but that’s just how gases work at the most basic level, with no other systems present to also effect things. Our reality is a BIG complex system, with many different systems and laws all working in tandem, each one having an effect on the other. So what if we were to introduce an attractive force to the gases moving from high pressure to low? Try this thought experiment; what if we just had a bunch of gas moving around a system in total equilibrium, now we introduce an attractive force, that attracts the mass of that gas towards it. Ok, so now we have all the gas moving towards that system, and building up around it. The system that was once in perfect equilibrium, now has several pockets of varying pressure all around, it’s now a chaotic system. So what happens when all the gas is now attracted and condensed to one spot? Does that attractive force just shut off? No, the gas still builds up around the source attracting it, and creates a pressure gradient in the mass of gas. The gradient just lasts as long as theres gas to create it, the end of the stacking of gas is where space is. Is the gas moving to the low pressure? Not unless the pressure difference is great enough to trump the attractive force. Sure, it’s 14.7 psi at surface, but at the top of the gradient it’s like 0.00000000000000001 parts per cm^3 and then it’s zero. Not a very big pressure difference…certainly not comparable to our lungs. So gravity easily trumps that.
You see? No laws are being broken here. Gas can and does still move to lower pressure systems, but only if that pressure difference is great enough to trump that force that’s attracting and holding it. Gravity easily keeps our atmosphere from fully expanding into space, this is also observed.
So your argument just ignores gravity, it doesn’t falsify it. We still measure a pressure gradient, we still observe all matter falling to Earth as if attracted by something. That falling is a motion, a force is required for all motion in matter, so a force is present causing that motion. That falling motion is consistent with the direction of the pressure gradient, towards surfaces, so it’s pretty clear that motion is causing the pressure gradient. You’ve done nothing to answer for that motion, or falsify the current conclusions of physics that already explain it.
You’re not the first to present this argument…I’ve heard it hundreds of times now, by many Flat Earthers, they make the same ignorant errors you’re making. You ignore gravity, you’re not falsifying it. That is why we don’t bat an eye at this argument. You’re focusing on one law, while ignoring the rest of the system, you’re not looking at the whole picture. Laws only describe single parts of the whole. Gravity doesn’t break Boyles law, gas still moves from high pressure to low pressure, gravity just introduces an attractive force that attracts gas, it’s just another small piece of the whole.
We understand your argument, we just notice it for what it is, intentional ignorance to confirm a bias.
4
-
4
-
You’re oversimplifying things, refraction is a variable, it matters, so it can not be ignored. It does effect what we see, it does bend light, so it can’t be ignored. The trouble is that they’re getting mad because science isn’t as easy as they want it to be...tough titty, we have to remain objective and factor every known variable, that’s just how it is. If we do not, if we’re lazy and ignore variables that can affect our conclusions, or if we ignore them intentionally for the sake of confirmation bias, then we risk reaching false conclusions.
Fact is, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy, lazy, bias version of this experiment, rendering it inconclusive. He took one data set, over one observation, using one marker, ignored refraction and height of observer and used the wrong math. You really think the scientific community should just roll over, and accept bad science without question? Kinda defeats the purpose of peer review, don’t you think?
Here’s a modern recreation of this experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Far more in-depth than Rowbotham ever thought to go. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nicholashpitts I’ve been chatting with flat Earthers for 4 years now, I know your arguments as well, so don’t patronize me. In my experience so far, Flat Earth is a heavily bias movement, that doesn’t have answers, only misunderstandings and inconclusive conclusions they’ve slotted in to pose as answers, that upon closer inspection reveals they were really reached from sloppy bias research and cherry picked/twisted information...not objective analysis or experimentation. That’s my current conclusion so far, after hundreds of conversations on the topic.
I don’t mind getting into the science though, if you’re willing to pay attention and actually consider anything I’d have to share. If you do that, then I’m more than willing to do the same for anything you’d like to share. I don’t mind having an open and civil discussion, if we can both restrain from patronizing and trolling the other any further. I’ll respect your position, if you can respect that I have reached my own as well, with my own extensive research on the topic. So keep that in mind, I’m not interested in a chat if you’re just here to patronize and force an opinion.
One point at a time, so let’s start with the curvature you say doesn’t exist. Here’s a short sampling of observations and experiments I’ve come across on that topic.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment - in-depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html - simple observation of a building at different distances
https://youtu.be/RK93TfSYeQU?t=362 - analyzing what flat Earth would actually look like, using real world topography data and observation
These are all repeatable observations and experiments, all providing pretty conclusive evidence of the curvature you’re claiming doesn’t exist. Feel free to attempt at falsifying any one of these observations, I don’t mind hearing your reasoning for why you feel they’re not conclusive.
In the meantime, I’ll provide some reasons why I feel flat Earth fails to find curvature. The larger reason I feel, is because they’ve been conned to believe in certain bits of information, that keeps them from seeing it. The worst offender, the 8 inches per mile squared math, which is not the correct math to use for long distance observations, giving you the wrong figures for the observation...but very few of you seemed to bother with checking the math, so you could learn how flawed it is. If you’d like to learn more about why it’s flawed, I don’t mind explaining more in depth, but I’ll leave it there for now.
The other piece of misinformation, being fed false information on how perspective and optics work, mainly misunderstanding the difference between vanishing point and horizon, one being your eyes own physical limitation to process light, and the other a physical line of sight limit caused by a surfaces own geometry. Vanishing point, is not the same as horizon...they are two very different things, but flat Earth sells them as one in the same. Your eyes do have physical limitations, but there are many rules of perspective that flat Earth ignores, that are not in alignment with their main conclusion of a flat Earth. For instance, perspective will cause an object to appear to shrink, but not lower or sink into or under horizon...certainly not by thousands of feet, as seen in mountains obscured by horizon at hundreds of miles. Even if flat Earth could prove that it does, it still does not replace curvature, as the geometric curvature math (when done correctly) still fits with the observation as well. So at best, even if flat Earth could successfully prove perspective convergence, it would still have a long way to go, like using that for explaining all the other occurrences observed in reality. Like how Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the Equator https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle or how Earth has two equal hemispheres that operate under the same geometry https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU, just like we’d expect they would if Earth was a Globe. Among many other problems it can’t solve for with perspective as its answer.
See the problem? Flat Earths has to ignore a LOT about perspective and what we observe in reality, to make their broader conclusion work here. I feel this is what Flat Earth does across the board, ignores a lot, to force the conclusions to work. A lot of the time, it just feels like they’re ramming a square peg into a round hole.
But, feel free to point out where you feel I’ve gone wrong in that conclusion. You claim there’s no curvature, but I’ve been able to find evidence of it everywhere. So please elaborate further on why you feel this evidence is no good.
4
-
4
-
4
-
It’s also a bit easier to think of gravity in terms of a motion. Roll a ball up a slope, it eventually runs out of kinetic energy and rolls back down, two motions, one requiring energy, the other just gravity. So long as something can continue to create energy and use it for the purpose of resisting that motion downward, then it can continue to resist so long as it can generate energy and use it effectively for that purpose. Replace that ball with a living animal, now instead of rolling down it can continue burning energy to keep going up. Pretty simple and common sense right, living things burn fuel in the form carbohydrates, which gives them energy, then they use that energy to resist gravity, you’re resisting gravity every day, just from standing. Doesn’t take much energy to resist gravity, as trailbossdan1 pointed out, gravity isn’t very powerful, but it is constant, it’s always on, putting you in constant motion towards the surface. Run out of energy to resist it and gravity eventually wins, cause it never stops.
Birds fly by flapping their wings, burning energy to create motion, motion they use to resist the motion of gravity, pretty simple.
Now gases are a bit of a different story, it’s largely buoyancy that causes them to rise and the interesting thing about buoyancy, is that it’s actually caused by gravity. I realize that may sound a bit confusing or contradictory, but think of an air bubble rising up through water, the reason it’s doing that is because the surrounding water is more dense, and because of this it’s going to occupy lowest potential energy first, or closest position to centre of gravity if you prefer. So it’s actually the downward motion of gravity, that’s causing the displacement, forcing lighter molecules up, causing buoyancy. That’s why helium and hydrogen rise, and that’s also largely the reason why clouds float, because of buoyancy, the water vapour is lighter than the air directly at surface, so it’s forced upward. I mean, it is a bit more complicated than that also, but buoyancy plays a big part in why clouds rise. Point is, without gravity first putting all matter in motion down towards the surface, buoyancy could not occur, because if nothing has a starting direction in which to begin ordering itself by density, then it’s not going to, displacement will not occur, so gravity is the direct cause of buoyancy.
Now when it comes to planets and orbits, it’s again easier to think of it in terms of motion, a good visual experiment often taught in physics classes today, is this one with stretched sheets and marbles https://youtu.be/MTY1Kje0yLg. Mass creates a gravity well, a bend in the fabric of space, that extends pretty far out into space, much like the fabric in that example. The bigger the object, the deeper the gravity well, the further this bend extends. Planets are really just moving along this curved space, that’s all gravity is, a motion through space and time.
Anyway, let me know if that helps with your questions. They’re very good physics questions, so hopefully we were able to help you out.
4
-
@k3630 “Gravity seems to full of contradictions.”
Contradictions can often be confused with misunderstanding. Just because you don’t fully understand something, does not mean it’s wrong. As I mentioned before, Science builds on prior knowledge. You seem to be approaching things with no prior foundation. We don’t just have explanations, we have observed and measured reality. Does not understanding how a cloud rises, change the fact that it does? No. Does not understanding how the Earth is spherical, change the fact that it is observed and measured to be one? No. Does not understanding how orbital mechanics works, change the fact that planets are observed to orbit around the Sun, that moons are observed to orbit around planets? No.
You’re getting lost in the explanations of how, and forgetting the facts. What is occurring has been observed and is undeniable at this point, how it occurs is tricky, but Gravity wasn’t reached lightly, it’s the explanation that’s left over, after hundreds of years of observation, experimentation and the process of falsification. It is complex to understand, but not understanding something doesn’t make it false.
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
-
@chrisbarber5155 Would a flight simulation ran on software, that’s interpreting math equations, be done on a sphere? No, it would use a flat, stationary surface, rendered with all redundant/unimportant variables omitted, to simplify the simulation. Or if you’re just running simulation on a chalk board mathematically, either way, the person interpreting the equations, must be aware of every variable being used, or omitted. So it’s stated very clearly what variables are not being used. That’s how a math simplification model works.
You can laugh all you want…but you do yourself a disservice, by allowing huxters to lie and take advantage of you. I don’t expect it to change your mind, but you should at the very least consider this information.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@streetsurvivor687 We are using our brain, are you? Just work through the thought process, do you feel motion itself? No, you feel change in motion, which creates inertia, inertia is what your body feels, this caused by motion, but only sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. That's why people traveling in an airplane going 500 mph, are free to get up and walk around the cabin of the airplane, never once are they sucked to their seats or flung to the back of the plane. That's the science of Relative Motion and Conservation of Momentum, which was likely taught to you in your high school physics class under the Laws of Motion.
What this science teaches us is that you don't actually feel motion itself...you feel change in motion, doesn't matter how fast you're going, if that speed is constant and never changes suddenly, then you will never notice it. So all of our motions through space are a constant steady speed, that basically never change, and the circumference of their orbits are so vast, they might as well be moving in a straight line. So let's go through the only motion that we could possibly pick up on, our Earths rotation, this is the shortest circumference of all our motions, so it will have the greatest Centrifugal force. That is a Centrifugal force we would feel here, but by how much? Have you ever bothered to ponder how a centrifugal force works? Have you ever really worked through the physics of this rotational motion?
It's caused by a rapid change in angular velocity per minute. The angular velocity of our Earth is 15 degrees every hour...a steady 15 degrees every hour, it might as well be crawling.
Here's a great thought experiment to help you understand centrifugal forces a lot better. Picture yourself in a NASCAR moving at its top speed of 200 mph, going around a perfect circle track that is only 1000 meters in circumference. At 200 mph, going around a course this small, there would be a LOT of Centrifugal force occurring here, because the track is so small, the car is completing more rotations per minute (RPM's), so that means its rate of angular velocity change is very high, that driver would have a VERY hard time staying on that track, his body squashed to the door, feeling all of that inertia from the Centrifugal force upon his body.
But now lets increase the length of that track, to 1000 miles. Still a perfect circle by now that driver has a much more gradual turn, so how much centrifugal force would he feel now, traveling at 200 mph? None, he probably wouldn't even notice the course is turning, it would feel like a straight highway to him at that length. So what does this teach us? That linear speed (the 1000 mph speed of Earths surface) is not really what you should be paying attention too here, it's rotations per minute (RPM's)...that is what really increases the strength of Centrifugal forces. The Earth rotates once every 24 hours...so just like that NASCAR going around a 1000 mile track...now imagine it's going 1000 mph, around a 24,000 mile long track. He's not going to feel any of that rotation...he wouldn't even be able to tell he is rotating, the track would feel perfectly straight.
So I know those numbers feel impressive to you, but there is a lot of physics of motion you are not understanding here in your conclusion. Learn a little something about the Laws of Motion, Relative Motion and Conservation of Momentum. As an added bonus, learn a little something about Centripetal/Centrifugal forces. Once you understand this science...then it becomes pretty clear how those speeds are possible. This is the science the rest of us understand, and that is why we don't bat an eye when people like yourself come around, talking about things we've already figured out.
You're a few pages behind I'm afraid...so catch up.
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
-
@lazlob6234 "Tell me how do u verify urself that we r on a ball without using NASA. YOU CAN'T
"
Just observe any sunset or sunrise...then try and make sense of that on a Flat Earth. It's pretty simple...it doesn't work.
We understand perfectly fine that governments lie...this isn't some new revelation or information that you're the sole barer of...it's pretty common knowledge. But just because they lie sometimes, doesn't mean they lie ALL the time. You commit what's called a black and white logical fallacy when you conclude things in such sweeping absolutes. Sure they can lie, but it's a bit hard to lie about the Earth we ALL live upon...there are hundreds of ways to confirm the shape of the planet for yourself, that has NOTHING to do with NASA or government. So if you think the Earth is Flat, then provide evidence, don't just ramble paranoid claims. We're not going to listen blindly to crazy people on the internet who make paranoid, speculative, empty claims. Provide evidence, or else you're just rambling nonsense.
The boats going over horizon has been debunked...turns out Flat Earthers never thought to keep the camera rolling once they were zoomed in. Let me know if you think zooming in any further will bring the bottom of this ship back into focus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw&t=20s Or these turbines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=24s They sure try, but zooming in does nothing once they have actually gone over the horizon. What Flat Earth has tricked you with here is called vanishing point. It is not the same thing as horizon, vanishing point is just what happens when an object has gone so far away from you (in any direction), that it has shrunk so much in angular size due to perspective, that it becomes impossible for your crappy eyes to render that object visible anymore...it's called the vanishing point and it's not the same thing as horizon.
The simple truth here is that if you can bring a boat back with a zoom lens...then it has not gone over the horizon yet. It's pretty simple.
Flat Earth is conning you...it's exploiting your lack of knowledge and your growing paranoia in authority, to take you on a ride of their design. If you never question Flat Earth, then they will drag you down some deep rabbit holes of bullshit...which won't be very easy to crawl your way out from once you're down there. So don't just listen to these people blindly...question what they say, just as much as you now question the mainstream, it's the only way to remain objective.
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
-
Gravity pulls to surface no matter where you are, towards centre of Earth, and you are drawn to surface by that force. So as long as you are oriented to your gravity vector, you will be right side up, feet on the surface. We know this because of two things we observe and measure. Earth is observed and measured to be spherical, we have a whole system of navigation today built on that knowledge, that simply would not work if it was inaccurate. And no matter where you are, America, Australia, the UK or South Africa, everything falls towards surface, this falling motion is undeniable and observed daily by everyone. That falling is a motion, nothing is put into motion without a force to cause that motion…so there’s a very obvious force attracting you and everything to the surface, no matter where you are. So if these two perimeters are true, spherical Earth and a force attracting us towards its surface, then it’s logical to conclude that it’s this force that orientates you to the surface. You are right side up, relative to gravity, so long as your feet are on the surface.
Your error is in making a false comparison, you think a ball in your hand is equal to the Earth, that they would be the same thing, but that ball doesn’t create nearly as much gravity as the Earth does. So you’re creating a false equivalence, you’re assuming they would be the same, and that’s your error. Poor water onto that ball in yours hand, where does it fall? Towards Earth, correct? So Earth is attracting that water, causing it to move towards it, that means a force is present, because no motion occurs without a force.
So now compare that ball in your hand to the Earth in space, is there anything below the Earth creating an attractive force, that could pull anything away from and off of it? No…the only force present in this example is the gravity of Earth, so everything is drawn towards it.
Also…there is no ice wall around Earth, you’re confusing the flat Earth model for the globe model. We have two polar regions, one a solid land mass the other just miles and miles of frozen ocean water. If anything, they’re surrounded by water, not the other way around.
Anyway, I hope you find this information helpful.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sdmfcfh1283 Nobody is saying density doesn’t exist, what we’re saying is density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it is just how much mass occupies a volume of space…that doesn’t cause motion, only a force can do that. You don’t seem to understand the very basic fundamentals of physics. All change in state of motion requires a force to cause it…that’s the basic definition of a force, anything that can cause and effect a state of motion. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is…….so there’s a force causing it, pretty simple. Density is already well defined as a scaler variable in science, a ratio of mass to volume…it is not a force, it does not cause motion. :/
So that’s the problem with your conclusion of density…it’s ignorant of basic physics. You’re doing nothing to explain the cause for a very obvious motion that occurs when you drop things…things don’t just fall without a cause for that motion.
It’s the whole point of science to find and identify cause and effect relationships…sayings things just fall because they do, isn’t achieving anything, you’re not solving any problems by pointing out the obvious and then calling it a day. First thing to understand is that a force is well defined in physics, it’s anything that can cause a change in motion in matter. Falling is a motion, so there’s a force present to cause it, that’s physics 101. Density is not a force, it’s a scaler variable, so it’s not density causing that motion…that’s not how this works.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 The only theatrics I’ve seen, are from these conspiracy docs on YouTube. I’ve caught them lying far more than NASA...so in my experience, the people I don’t trust, are these people making those docs for the clicks. The video you shared is just gish gallop, a bunch of weak arguments mashed together and shot out in rapid fire, to make the main argument appear stronger than it actually is, achieving this goal by overwhelming anyone attempting to refute it, feeding the audience half truths to lead them to their bias, but not the full picture. I could go through every claim made in that presentation and point out the lies, speculations and errors on each one...but who’s got that kind of time?
Point is, gish gallop is seen as a dishonest and low form of argumentation, firing out endless speculations (but no real evidence), before your mind gets a chance to process the first point. So why should anyone take seriously, people who resort to disingenuous tactics of persuasion?
Also, I wasn’t saying the majority is always right, don’t twist my words, I said NASA has better things to do, than appease a few paranoid layman.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 What have they gained? Are you serious? They achieved long distance travel through space....do you think that’s somehow a small achievement? Do you think space travel is just something we should have mastered in a day? How many rockets have you launched into space? What have they achieved...what an ignorant and arrogant thing to say. I swear, flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. :/
Space is the next frontier...and as a very curious species that thrives on exploration and expansion, why wouldn’t we continue to push ourselves as far as we can go? The ISS is a research base, in an environment we can’t recreate here on Earth. The value in a research base such as this, is more substantial than you seem to realize....you already owe the ISS more than you realize, for the advancements in technology it has already provided, such as the innovations to solid state computing technology, as just one example of many.
But yes, every argument put forth by flat Earth is just misinformation. In over 4 years of researching the topic now, I’ve more than reached that conclusion, because there hasn’t been an argument I haven’t been able to falsify yet...didn’t take much either, just some basic knowledge in physics and geometry and some common sense. I entered with an open mind, like they asked of me, and I continue to keep it open...but everything I’ve seen from this movement has just been layman doing what they do best, grossly misunderstand how things work but pretend like they’re the real experts anyway, favouring speculations over actual evidence.
You’re welcome to try and present something you feel is a good argument, I don’t mind hearing you out, but I’m not new to this discussion...so good luck finding something I’ve never heard.
4
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 As Scott pointed out, when you do all the geometry here, including every variable to scale, yes, the degree is negligible, they might as well arrive perfectly parallel to our surface. As the experiments I shared verify, that’s exactly what is happening, it’s measured and observed. Light from our Sun arrives parallel to surface, this is a proven fact at this point. This can only happen if it’s much larger compared to Earth. But since it also appears much smaller, that can only mean it’s also very far away, a trick of perspective, known as foreshortening.
Here’s the thing, it’s not that FE doesn’t ask great questions, cause they are...the problem is, you hold the questions up as your evidence, jumping to a conclusion before any real examination. Instead of taking the steps to further verify your claim of a local Sun, you just take an optical illusion, like crepuscular rays, and state with certainty that this can only occur for one reason, no further work required. Any attempts to show you the evidence that directly refutes your conclusion, is just ignored. It’s frustrating....and FE does it with pretty much EVERY argument.
Are you not even the least bit curious, to learn about how you could be in error? You’re asking great questions, the same kind of questions every scientist asks at some point while learning this stuff, but why do you work so hard to avoid learning the answers? The only reason I can figure, is because of confirmation bias, you don’t trust authority, so you’re searching for only the information that confirms, bolsters and justifies that distrust. It’s bias that leads FE, not objective reasoning.
We can keep going if you want, like I said, there hasn’t been a claim from FE I haven’t been able to falsify as of yet, with real world evidence. If you’re curious to see how FE has potentially conned you, I can share more of what I’ve found. Up to you really.
4
-
The second part you’re having trouble with is the motions of Earth and how our atmosphere stays to the surface. Well, first thing to note is that there is no air in space, it’s empty for the most part, so this is important to note because it means Earth is experiencing zero drag force, as it moves through space. Drag force (aka air resistance) is typically the effect we get here on Earth as we move really fast through our atmosphere, our body or vehicle smashing into the molecules of air as we try to move, which creates drag. Earth doesn’t move through air, so it doesn’t have the same problem, so there’s nothing in space to effectively rip our atmosphere off.
Just gravity and relative motion, relative motion being a whole study of physics on its own, mostly having to do with how motion is constant, objects in motion will stay in motion, that’s largely how the atmosphere keeps up with the Earth, because it’s motion is relative to the Earth. Gravity doing it’s part as well.
As Scott pointed out, there is a slight Centripetal acceleration, but it’s very small and not nearly enough to overcome the stronger force of gravity.
4
-
Yes, that’s why we time our clocks to a solar day, not a sidereal day. A sidereal day is how long the Earth takes to complete a full 360 degree rotation, takes roughly 23 hours 56 minutes by the current measure of a second. A solar day is a full rotation, plus a little extra rotation so that Earth is back in line with the Sun at noon, that’s what we time our second too, so it makes for a perfect 24 hour day. Doing this ensures noon lines up every day, compensating for the extra rotation required to line up with the Sun.
Leap years are more a problem with aligning the solar day clock, with Earths orbit, which is not a perfect 365 days, it’s off by a quarter day, which is why they remove a day every 4 years...but even that’s not perfect. See something has to give, because Earths rotation and its orbit are not in perfect sync, so the years were chosen, cause it’s far more simple and efficient.
That’s the Julian calendar, but Even that’s not perfect, still requires another day be removed every so often, which is a bit more calculation to keep track of, but it’s the tiny change the Gregorian calendar made to the Julian. Gregorian is what we use currently...and even that’s not entirely perfect. Turns out making calendars is pretty tricky, when rotations don’t line up with orbits perfectly...it’s made even worse in that Earths rotation is also slowing down very very gradually.
Anyway, let me know if that information is helpful.
4
-
4
-
Do you really think careers are made in science…by following the status quo? 🤷♂️ On the contrary, science strongly encourages people think for themselves (what do you think a thesis paper is?)…they’re just not in the habit of blindly accepting claims made, without strong evidence to support them first. You can believe whatever you like, but don’t expect the rest of us to agree, if you can’t argue a position with evidence. Pretty common sense I would think.
Einstein, fir example, isn’t famous today because he went with the grain….he’s famous because he challenged the work of one of the greatest minds in history, Sir Issac Newton. The difference he has with Flat Earthers…was that he was successful in proving his hypothesis. He didn’t whine about his opposition…it was most likely what drove him. He was not very popular in his day, but he fought through his opposition, and beat them all. That’s the way it is, you’re not just gonna get things handed to you…so really, you just sound like you’re whining.
You think the education system creates servants…but I’ll remind you, that you are FAR more educated and better equipped to improve your standing in life, than many of our ancestors ever were. You take learning to read, write, do math for granted…but they didn’t have to open schools to the poor peasants, yet they did. The peasantry of old could only DREAM of receiving or having access to a Nobleman’s education, just a few hundred years ago. So I wouldn’t be so ungrateful.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You can film other galaxies yourself with a good enough telescope…anyone can get a pretty good shot of the Andromeda galaxy and many others, with a decent enough telescope and camera setup, it’s pretty basic Astro photography knowledge, we do it all the time. So your points are pretty ignorant. You can find many tutorial videos here on YouTube, teaching you how to do it and demonstrating it, so feel free.
We’re not smarter than people were 130 years ago, but we do have more information, more knowledge. That’s the difference. And we have better technology now, we have advance computing technology that can run calculations at a much faster rate than any single human ever could, this greatly speeds up productivity, makes developing new technologies even faster. Where the Wright Brothers had to build and test each plane, going through a long line of trial and error, taking years, we can now simulate our engineering projects on computers, and test them in real time, before any need to actually build one, shaving off years of production time. We’re not smarter, but we do know more and we do have better tools to help us today…that’s the difference.
Apple didn’t invent the computer, the first digital computer was built by scientists and mathematicians, in a lab, working for the military during WW2. They were used as code breakers, capable of making advanced calculations much faster than any human mind could, so they used them to crack cypher codes that the Nazi’s used in their radio transmissions. You’re pretty ignorant to reality if you think every invention was made by some guy in a garage. Science first had to solve how physical reality operates, before a guy in a garage even had a chance. You think the Wright Brothers were the ones to solve the thrust to weight ratios required for lift? No, those equations were worked out by mathematicians and scientists…then it became possible for the Wright Brothers to develop their planes. Without the work from scientists and mathematicians first developing and acquiring the knowledge needed, these technologies would not have been possible.
You seem to have a very low opinion of science…but it’s pretty clear why, you really have no idea what they do. There’s a pecking order to all invention, first scientists and mathematicians figure out how things work…then engineers and inventors can do what they do, using that knowledge…that’s the order of operations. So every single luxury you enjoy today, is thanks to scientists, that’s a fact, not an opinion. You should be more grateful. At the very least, less ignorant and biased.
I’ll give you another example, the Wifi that currently sends and receives your internet data, connecting your phones, tablets, computers to the internet. That technology first required the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum, which was a two part discovery, first by Issac Newton discovering that light was a spectrum when he split light with prisms, then William Hershel discovering infrared, when he was testing the various temperatures of each spectrum of light. Small little insignificant discoveries to you…but huge in the grand scheme of things. These scientists discovered the electromagnetic spectrum, which we now understand is a long spectrum of different wavelengths of light, that we can manipulate to send data on…radio and microwave wavelengths, we now manipulate to send audio and visuals information on, at the speed of light, sending them around the world. Scientists made this discovery, then scientists and mathematicians worked together on learning everything they could about it, then they came up with the theoretical possibilities for this knowledge, in published research papers that engineers and other scientists could access. Then and only then, could engineers and inventors take that knowledge and figure out how to use it practically. That’s the order of things…that’s what scientists do, they acquire knowledge. We don’t just skip right to engineering…that’s not how it works.
So whether you like it or not, you need science. Maybe if you spent more time learning about it, rather than making these ignorant speculations, then maybe you wouldn’t be so ignorant and afraid of it. Learn some science please, you live in the information age, you really have no excuses to be as ignorant as you are.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SuperMoshady You seem to think the atmosphere of the heliocentric model would contradict thermodynamics, but I’m curious as to why you’d think that? Gas is matter, gravity attracts matter, so why wouldn’t it attract gas? There is a clear pressure gradient we measure, air is thinner the higher you go, so something is attracting matter closer to the surface...under your understanding of atmospheric pressure, wouldn’t we expect gas pressure to be equal throughout the system? It’s clearly not, most of the gas is collected closer to surface, so this would suggest gravity is attracting it downward. Even FE has verified the existence of space, I’m sure you’ve seen the footage from the various weather balloons they themselves have sent up, maybe you’ve noticed at the end of these videos the balloons always eventually pop, as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions. So really, even FE has detected the vacuum of space, without really realizing it.
You know what they never find though? A container.
Thermodynamics isn’t broken here, because entropy still occurs, gas still does escape (that’s why the atmosphere extends so far), the process is just slowed by gravity. That’s the part I think FE ignores about entropy, it can be slowed and contained for long periods of time, with just a few attractive forces. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics has more to do with energy transfer, than it does matter. For example when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Entropy of course always wins in the end, but it can be slowed by attracting forces...you’re an example of that, you’re held together by many different attracting forces, all working in tandem to reduce entropy and slow it down. But make no mistake, you’re undergoing entropy every single second, of every day, but you’re still holding together just fine and staving off the end result of perfect entropy, right? Are you contradicting thermodynamics physics? Clearly not...so why do you think gravity couldn’t contain our atmosphere?
Are you just here to troll people? Cause you’re not stupid, but you’re sure doing your best to circle around the conclusion. If you’re just here to get a rise out of people, congrats I guess...but what’s the point? It’s fine if you’ve actually found something that is problematic with the heliocentric model, but from where we’re standing, it just appears like you’re intentionally ignoring what we’re saying, so you can continue to believe what you want. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but reading these exchanges so far, it just seems like you enjoy making peoples heads spin. I fail to see the purpose myself, you do you I guess...but wouldn’t you prefer a civil exchange?
So I suppose my main questions are, what makes you think gases (a state of matter), are the one exception to gravity and are somehow not effected by it? Why do you think gravity couldn’t reduce a gas molecules kinetic energy to 0 and bring it back down to Earth? If you do believe this, what data or evidence do you have that has led you to that conclusion? Do you have evidence for this container you believe exists, or just a hypothesis you reached from your current understanding of thermodynamics physics? Have you ever considered the possibility that you’re just misunderstanding thermodynamics physics?
Anyway, I realize you’ve gone round and round on this topic, but hope you wouldn’t mind going a little bit further, with a more civil exchange. Not really interested in a pissing match, but if you’d be interested in answering some of my questions I’d be grateful.
4
-
@SuperMoshady I’m afraid as much as you’d like to dismiss the discussion quickly, probably best you not assume or conclude too much, before we’ve even started. Helium rises due to buoyancy, it’s less dense than the heavier gases at surface, so it’s displaced upwards, because more dense matter will occupy lowest potential energy first. It’s much like oil in water, forced upward due to density displacement, buoyancy. Gases are quite similar in that buoyancy effects them in a similar manner. I’m sure by now others have made you aware of this well known fact, and they’ve probably even mentioned that buoyancy is actually a product of gravity, that it does not occur without it.
The simplest formula for buoyancy is as follows Fb=Vpg, that little g in the equation, is the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2), remove that variable, and engineers designing the ballast of ships, submarines or the materials for weather balloons, would have a very hard time doing their jobs with any proficiency.
So it’s well understood in both physics and engineering, that buoyancy is why helium and lighter gases rise and it’s actually gravity that causes the effect of buoyancy. So no, helium is not free from gravity, what you are observing is just buoyancy effect occurring within gases. Now you may not have been aware of this, so I can see how you’d think helium and other gases are a contradiction to gravity, but they’re not, because buoyancy does not occur without a downward force, first giving matter a direction to begin the process of density displacement. Meaning it’s directly caused by gravity. This is proven time and again in density columns put in zero G environments, as well as in vacuum chambers where lighter gases are observed to fall, rather than rise. If you’d like examples I can provide them.
It’s a good attempt though, but it’s really just avoiding the observation I mentioned, popping weather balloons, which only do that once in vacuum conditions. It also avoids my questions. So feel free to try again, because I’m very curious to know what further evidence or explanation you have for your conclusion, other than just butchered physics.
4
-
@SuperMoshady Ok, I see you edited your post and provided more details, even addressing some of my questions. Thanks for that, and it is an interesting hypothesis. I’m referring to your explanation for the changing temperature that comes with the passing Sun. Of course temperature does have an effect on the fluid mechanics of a gaseous system, it’s part of things for sure and does play its role, so it has some baring in actual physics, so it’s not a bad explanation honestly. Though I would say it still lacks an explanation for the vacuum we measure and observe at the top of our atmosphere, which is observed and detected even in high altitude weather balloons. You can say the atmosphere of the heliocentric model breaks thermodynamics all you’d like, and yet we’ve measured and observed the vacuum of space...and found no such container, so what would you prefer science do, ignore the evidence?
Also, this fluctuation of temps still wouldn’t do much to explain the gradient as it is, I would still expect the system to be more chaotic and mixed under this system, and less ordered by density. With no downward force effecting the gases, what would stop any of these gases from expanding upward and dispersing evenly?
What I’m curious of though, have you looked into the physics of buoyancy yet at all, to see the experiments that have led to the current conclusions for why lighter gases rise? I could share many easy to recreate experiments that help to verify how buoyancy works, demonstrating how gravity plays its part, and that proves buoyancy as the cause for why lighter gases rise. If you’d like to see some, I don’t mind sharing.
It’s an interesting hypothesis, but I do feel it’s misunderstanding thermodynamics physics a bit and hinges largely on one claim, that gas is not effected by gravity. But I’ve seen enough experiments within vacuum chambers to know that it does, so I’m not likely to agree that gases are not effected by gravity, because the evidence is pretty clear that it does. I can understand if you’ve never observed these experiments, how you might reach your current conclusions, but it’s very well researched at this point. And as I mentioned, it’s also an applied science, as buoyancy physics is used in engineering, which does give it a bit more verification.
You’ve really given me no reason to agree that gravity doesn’t effect gases, except an empty claim stating that it doesn’t. Again though, gas is matter, gravity effects all matter, so why wouldn’t it have an effect on gases?
Also, it’s not that gravity gets stronger in upper atmosphere, it’s just that less collisions occur between molecules, because the spaces between them are greater. With less collisions, comes less transfer of kinetic energy, so eventually, gravity wins and brings the molecules back down. It’s not getting stronger, it’s just meeting less resistance. No laws of thermodynamics are broken here, the energy is moved from kinetic, to potential, back to kinetic, no energy is destroyed only transferred. Gravity will win for awhile, as will the other attractive forces of our universe, but entropy will win in the end...but for now, gravity keeps things in check.
We can go back and forth forever though, but really, for your main claim to hold any barring, you’d have to first prove that gravity does not have any effect on gas. So can you prove that? Until then, I don’t find that your argument really has much going for it. Interesting though, a good exorcise in atmospheric pressure physics and there are some good points there, so don’t feel too discouraged.
Anyway, off to bed I go. I hope I was able to provide at least some information of interest to you. Thanks for providing me a deeper insight into the FE perspective on this topic, it has been informative.
4
-
@SuperMoshady Well, as I said, we can go on forever and keep circling round, but you’re still avoiding the observation. Weather balloons eventually stop at an altitude, unable to climb any higher, they then eventually pop, as they’re designed to do within vacuum conditions. So if they’ve popped, doesn’t take much reasoning to conclude that there is vacuum conditions at high altitudes. No dome or barrier has been found, but a vacuum has been measured and observed. So again, all you have are two empty claims really, that gas is not effected by any downward acceleration like all other matter (gravity), and that thermodynamics is violated in a system without a container. You can repeat these claims again and again, but until you prove them with some form of evidence, they’re just empty claims. Meanwhile, there is a vacuum up there, we’ve experienced it, so it seems both your claims are simply wrong. I will go with the evidence, above your claims.
So, where’s the evidence for this container? Surely you have more than just twisted physics. Feel free to provide some evidence for this container you’re so certain is up there, otherwise we really have no reason to continue circling round.
The fact that a gradient in gas pressure exists at all, would suggest gravity is effecting the gas, as it does all matter. I would expect a much more chaotic system, with wild fluctuations in gas pressure throughout, if there was no downward accelerating force providing the starting motion, that begins density displacement, and puts matter into better order. Buoyancy is a byproduct of this density displacement, so if gravity is what causes density displacement, then it’s also what causes buoyancy. This is confirmed every time an engineer uses the formula for buoyancy, which includes a variable for a downward accelerating force, and it works for the purpose he’s used it for. It’s an applied science, so your misunderstandings of buoyancy doesn’t really do much to refute applied science.
I’m a bit busy today, but perhaps I’ll answer a few more of your questions later. I’ll answer one very quickly though, you asked what the observed phenomenon in nature is, that leads to the hypothesis of gravity. The observed phenomenon is the motion of falling objects, it is clearly a phenomenon of nature, in that we have no influence over this motion. We can influence the potential energy state (raising an object up), we can influence the time of release between potential energy state and kinetic energy state, but the motion that occurs once an object is released, that puts an object into kinetic energy state, we are not responsible for, that is a mechanism of nature. So that is the observed phenomenon of gravity. If buoyancy is the name we gave for the motion of matter that travels upward, gravity is the name for the opposite motion, so that’s really where the science begins. It is the downward motion we attempt to figure out, that is what gravity is. All matter is effected by this motion, we have no reason to suggest that gases are the one exception.
Anyway, that’s all for now, chat again later. Perhaps in the meantime you can provide some evidence of your own that has led you to your two claims, start with gases not being attracted by gravity, what evidence do you have that gas is not effected? I realize you’ve stated many times that helium balloons going up is your evidence, but a pressure gradient is still measured, and vacuum has been detected at high altitude, which would suggest gas is being attracted to Earth, so all I’m seeing so far is a misunderstanding of some physics and empty claims. Perhaps you can provide something better.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@valherustinger7848 Well, why should Neil debate if he doesn’t want too? He’s stated pretty clearly that he doesn’t do debates…so why should he be forced too? Dubay gets asked very regularly to debate by other creators on YouTube, creators who have actual debating platforms. You know how many of those calls to debate he’s accepted and done? Zero….so why is nobody in FE calling him a coward or getting just as outraged? 🧐 But it’s the same thing, why should he, if he doesn’t want too? Debating isn’t for everybody, we in society seem to have this strange expectation, that science is settled by debate, so scientists/experts should never turn down a call to debate…but that’s not really how it works, our expectations are pretty misplaced. Some people like debates, others aren’t very interested, I don’t think the latter should be forced to do something they don’t want to do.
Debating is a skill, you can actually win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a better talker. So science isn’t really settled by debate for this reason, it’s settled by consensus. That may sound similar, but it’s not. Debate is typically one person against another, with a judge or panel determining a winner on the spot. Consensus is a majority ruling, from other experts, through recreation of experimentation and peer review. It’s very different, the former is over in a couple hours, the latter can often take years.
In any case, Neil is wise not to bother, science is constantly being baited by conmen into public debates, because it’s free advertising for them…especially against big fish like Neil. Neil has nothing to gain, it’s really a waste of his time…while Dubay gains access to an audience he could never achieve on his own. So science actually has a rule of thumb, it’s frowned upon for scientists to debate layman. Anyone non accredited, hasn’t earned the right to join the conversation, so they shouldn’t be humoured. They avoid a lot of conmen this way, who are just looking for the free marketing, to help spread their bullshit to potential customers.
So he’s wise not to bother…..and as I understand it, Joe didn’t ask him before hand, he just pencilled him in without asking firsr. Would you do a debate somebody else scheduled you for without asking? Not likely.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Natural physics of water, like all liquids, is to maintain the shape of whatever forces are acting upon it. Liquids all have a surface tension chemical bonding, so a sphere in most cases is the most rigid shape. When no other forces are acting upon it, it will form a sphere…that’s why it forms spheres when in free fall. On the surface of Earth, water also conforms to gravity, so it maintains an equipotential surface to that field of force, which pulls to centre of mass, so that field of force again will form a sphere around that centre…that’s why all objects in space are spheres, it’s pretty simple deduction. Spheres are quite common in nature, it’s the simplest and most rigid shape in nature.
Level does not just mean flat. A bubble for example, has a level surface, in the context that it’s surface is all equal distance from its centre…an equipotential surface. Earth’s ocean is also level, at equipotential distance from centre. Get it yet? Just look up the definition of level sometime, here’s a link https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Check out some of the entries under adjectives, entry 3.
Learn some English and learn the true physics of liquids sometime.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Don’t forget the South rotation, which revolves in the opposite direction, around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. How does that work exactly on a Flat Earth geometry? Parallax effect more than explains why the stars don’t appear to change (but they do actually, any actual astronomer will tell you that), but how exactly does a flat Earth geometry account for the existence of two hemispheres?
Real science is about falsification, sure...but that goes both ways. The same standards of review and analysis apply to you and the rest dabbling in FE. You have good questions, but they’re easily answered, if you’d just take the time.
Also, learn the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory please. They’re the not the same thing...scientific theories are basically a collective knowledge of verifiable facts. If you’re going to join the conversation of science...at least learn the basics please, so we’re at least speaking the same language. Here’s a video that can help. https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o
4
-
UntamableFreeman The stars do change every 6 months...if you were an astronomer that actually spent his nights watching and recording the stars, it’s one of the first things you learn about the night sky. Do me a favour and search the term “seasonal constellations”, you’ll find several lists of these stars and constellations that change throughout the year and you likely even know many of the constellation names already...you’re born under a zodiac constellation just like we all are.
This is a fact you should be aware of if you’re going to make this ignorant argument of yours, there exists two types of stars and constellations. The circumpolar stars, which are close to the celestial poles, and therefore never blocked by the Sun, these are the stars we see all year round. Then there are the seasonal stars, which lie close to the ecliptic plane of Earths orbit, these stars become blocked by the Sun at various points in Earths orbit, many of which are the zodiac constellations but there are many others.
Go ahead and look those up sometime...any amateur astronomer will tell you, the stars do change. So it would serve you better to actually research these things...before you jump to false assumptions.
If you want to talk about the stars though, let’s talk about the two different hemispheres. You are aware that both hemispheres see different stars, correct? More then that though, both hemispheres experience their own celestial rotation, around their own pole star, Polaris in the North, Sigma Octantis in the South. Question is, how exactly does that work on a Flat Earth? This is exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a Globe...but I’ve never seen or heard any logical explanation for how this is possible on a Flat Earth, so feel free to let me know if you have a valid explanation for this observation.
4
-
UntamableFreeman You’re also taking that quote from Einstein out of context and grossly misunderstanding the physics being discussed....and you’re leaving out the end of that quote, which I’ll get to later. Pay attention to where he says “with respect to the ether”. See Michelson and Morley’s experiment wasn’t to prove or disprove the motion of the Earth, it was an attempt to find the Aether...which at the time was thought to be the medium that light propagates through. See they thought light was like sound, that it needed something to move through, like sound does through air and other matter...this is what Michelson and Morley were trying to find and verify, the Aether. What they did instead was find nothing...it was a sound experiment, should have easily have detected the proposed Aether if it really did exist, but it didn’t. So the experiment was inconclusive, it neither verified nor falsified the Aether, it was inconclusive. It’s null hypothesis was that Earth might not actually be in motion, but this was also inconclusive.
So here’s the issue here, upon all peer review this experiment is deemed inconclusive, even Michelson and Morley both agreed this was the case. What this ultimately means is, that if anyone claims this experiment supports either position, then they are doing so out of bias and ignoring its conclusion. It is inconclusive, both for the hypothesis and the null hypothesis...that’s the reality of this experiment. So when you blindly claim that they proved the Earth isn’t in motion...you are making that claim from pure bias and ignorance.
This is the real problem with Flat Earthers...you are bias researchers, not looking at things objectively at all.
So here’s what Einstein meant in his statement there. There was now a big problem in physics, an experiment that should have easily found the Aether...came back with nothing. So here were their choices, either the Aether didn’t exist, or Earth wasn’t in motion. The part YOU and all of flat Earth ignores, is that the Earths motion HAS evidence, it has lots of evidence even in that time, while Aether on the other hand did not. So it’s pretty obvious what direction to go with things...it was very likely that the Aether did not exist...that’s where all the other evidence pointed.
Like I said, you can’t use Michelson and Morley’s experiment to reach a definite conclusion, to do so is being bias...but you can form a new hypothesis from the outcome of that experiment and from all the other evidence that does exist, that’s what Einstein did. He proposed a new hypothesis, he was then successful in proving it...many times over in fact.
So here’s how the history has played out. Earths motion has been verified beyond reasonable doubt, it’s now an applied science, we have geostationary satellites and gyro compasses that both use Earth’s rotational motion to function...so this knowledge is now beyond theory, it’s now an applied science, which means it’s verified. Aether has meanwhile never been discovered, all attempts have failed...so it has been abandoned as plausible. General Relativity on the other hand has been verified...many many times over now. So what do you want the scientific community to do exactly? Just ignore things like Flat Earth does? Or would you prefer science remain objective? Not a hard choice for me honestly.
When Einstein said he was convinced there was no optical means to verify Earths motion, what he likely meant was that you couldn’t use light to detect that motion, he was of course wrong, because today we now use the Sagnac Effect in large area laser interferometers (ring laser gyros) to measure and detect Earth rotation. Yes, even geniuses can be wrong...they’re not infallible.
But here’s the worst part...that quote you cherry picked, is from his Kyoto address “How I created the theory of relativity” December 14, 1922. You conveniently cut his quote short...you left out the ending where he says “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun”. Go ahead and look that up sometime as well.
You see the problem here yet? Flat Earthers are not being honest...you’re bias researchers, only paying attention to the details that support the conclusion you WANT to be true and ignoring every other detail. I’ve outlined here 3 different ways you achieve that, 1) assuming rather than doing proper research; 2) misinterpreting science research, spinning it to fit your bias and lying about the actual outcomes; 3) quote mining, taking words out of context and only paying attention to the words you think you can use to confirm your bias further.
My guess is though, all this information you’re regurgitating here isn’t even your own. You’re likely just repeating it verbatim from some other sources, so you’re probably not even aware of these errors...my guess is you’ve never actually questioned them.
It’s fine that people are questioning things...but you have to be really careful where you get your information from. Don’t just question the mainstream science, turn that lens around and do the same with these conspiracies you’re now supporting...you might be surprised who the real liars are if you do.
4
-
There’s actually thousands, probably even millions of photos of Earth from space at this point, so your first point isn’t very honest or accurate. Geostationary weather satellites are in orbit right now snapping a full picture of Earth every few minutes, around the clock. From Himawari, to GOES, you can access these photos at anytime, they upload them online in real time. You could say they’re all just CGI, but that doesn’t make the statement true, it just makes it an empty speculation. You can take any of these photos and compare them to your local cloud cover, and they will match every time you do this, so where’s your evidence that proves it’s just CGI? 🤷♂️
If that’s not enough, the Apollo missions alone took hundreds of photos, long before the days of CGI. These photos are not hard to find online, plenty of archives.
So please save us the bullshit. It’s extremely disingenuous at this point to say there are no photos. If you believe they’re fake, then prove it…otherwise it’s just an empty claim.
Onto the physics, feel free to let me know what physics you feel works better on a flat Earth model. These guys can’t even figure out what gravity is, let alone present an alternative theory that fits and works better…and their understanding of motion physics is just awful. Any alternative theories for how Earth’s magnetic field is created? Any clue why our current gravity physics works when applied in everything from orbital mechanics, to nuclear fusion? 🧐
Feel free to enlighten us, but from what I’ve seen…it’s because these people have no real grasp on physics, is part of how they became flat Earthers in the first place.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hershelpogue1745 "We have other mysteries. Like our sun traveling at a speed of 400,000 miles an hour in space with our earth traveling at a speed of 67,000 miles an hour, and the moon between us an the sun traveling between 68,000/ 70,000 miles an hour an none of the objects out of it's elliptical orbits. How odd."
A balance between masses and gravity, created over billions of years is odd to you? Why exactly? A chaotic system will always eventually harmonize and balance itself, with the help of attractive forces found in nature. Shake a bottle full of oil, sand and water, it mixes and creates a chaotic system. Leave that shaken bottle to sit over time, and gravity will eventually sort everything out into layers, organizing and separating the masses, balancing them. It's not much different for a solar system. We are looking at the end result of billions of years of gravity organizing a chaotic system, balancing our system. It's not odd at all, it's pretty common in nature.
Either way, just because something seems odd to you, doesn't make it wrong. You're just making an argument from personal incredulity, which doesn't really mean much in an argument of science.
4
-
4
-
Scientific theories are very different from the layman use of the word, they take on a much higher importance. Hypothesis takes the role of the regular use of the word Theory, while a scientific theory is a collection of empirical facts, that help explain HOW a phenomenon works at the mechanical level. Not to be confused with a scientific Law, which only describes WHAT is happening, but makes no attempt to explain HOW or WHY. In that way, a scientific theory is the pinnacle of all research, nothing goes higher than a theory. Because you will always have more power and control over a system, when you understand HOW it works, rather than just WHAT it does.
Facts are singular points, that make no attempt to explain how things work either, they are used to build a larger concept, such as theories and laws, but they are not higher than either within science, they just make up the foundations of both.
They were wise to use this wording, because we do not know everything and we likely never will. So this means that old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired. So the word theory is used, because it allows science the opportunity to adjust and change if or when it needs too, as we acquire new information. That's the reality...science does not think in absolute certainties, it thinks in percentages of certainty....because it really has no other choice.
If science were to operate in certainties, never allowing any change to occur as new information is acquired, then we would still today believe that viruses and diseases are the work of fictional gods punishing us for our sins and it's outside of our control to help people. I hope you'd agree, that's not very productive in the slightest to continue believing nonsense that's long been proven false.
So maybe learn more about the thing you're attempting to argue against, otherwise you just sound ignorant.
4
-
@frodobaggins169 Well I felt a portion of your point was to tell this guy not to take the bait from conmen pushing misinformation, because it only helps perpetuate their nonsense, or at the very least keeps the joke going by becoming the suckered, is that an accurate assessment? I’m merely pointing out that it really doesn’t matter in capitalist society, if it’s a hot topic, then it’s going to be talked about, so you might as well capitalize. He capitalized, and it’s probably been nothing but a positive experience for him, so your opinion on whether he should or shouldn’t have would probably fall on deaf ears, as he purchases a house and feeds his family tonight on that decision. So why should he care that some conman or narcissist out there got some gratification? 🤷♂️ Can they eat gratification? Does that gratification take food out of his kids mouth’s? No? Well then I’m certainly not losing any sleep over it, I’m sure he won’t either.
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
-
@WORDversesWORLD Can you see 400 km at 6 foot viewing height? No, I’ve never seen anyone present evidence of anything 400 km away, at 6 foot viewing height. Why is that? If Earth were actually flat, shouldn’t we see plenty of examples? I have seen a photo of some mountain peaks, seen from 400 km away, from a viewer height of roughly 2600 feet. I’ve even done the curvature math for that observation, and from that viewer height, with those peaks, you would expect to see roughly 100-200 feet of those peaks….and that’s what you do see, just the peaks. So, I’m sorry, but what made you believe there was no evidence of curvature? Are you sure you were given the correct math? Did you check to see if it was accurate? Lot of con artists online exploiting gaps in our knowledge, advanced mathematics is a common gap for many. If you think you can’t be scammed, if you think nobody can lie to you, then that’s the perfect attitude they are looking for.
Anyway, how exactly does thousands of feet go missing from the base of mountains? That’s pretty much what we’d expect to see on a globe. You can say it’s “just perspective”, but that doesn’t really answer for much, it’s just ad hoc, cause vanishing point doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first and when something is at eye level, it does not drop below it…yet thousands of feet are seen dropping below eye level anyway. So the perspective argument has holes, while the globe still fits what we see.
I’d say check your math, don’t just blindly agree to what’s been presented to you. Hope this information is helpful.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 The trouble is that science is not settled by public debate, it’s settled through empirical evidence. But the general public doesn’t know that, they tend to think in absolutes, that a single debate seals things, that single observations mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. That’s not how it works at all...but good luck getting the rest of the world to understand that. Peer review is part of that process of course, which does come with some debate, but debates are actually a pretty small part of things...the trouble is that the general public thinks they’re everything. And sadly, you don’t have to be right to win a debate, you just need to be a better talker, a better bullshitter...politicians have been doing it for centuries. And you don’t even have to sway everyone, even a few is enough...even if it’s objectively wrong, a few people will likely always side with one side or the other, regardless of evidence presented, if they liked the other speaker more, then they’ll side with them...even if they’re wrong. Debates are more of a popularity contest...there’s not much scientific about it. Science has to look beyond the individuals involved and focus objectively on the evidence...a debate is not designed for that, they have their place, but they’re more for discussion rather than settling anything.
You said yourself, Neil gains essentially nothing, while Dubay gains access to an audience he could never reach on his own. So it’s basically giving free advertising, to a potential conman and it gives the general public the impression that there’s merit and legitimacy to his side of the argument. If he is a conman...then established science has just opened the door to pseudoscience...snd they should never do that, it just muddies the already muddied waters, which slows us down.
You need to understand, when you’re working directly with people putting astronauts, satellites and spacecraft into orbit...this discussion is basically over. Why give a fringe opposition even a chance to spread their conspiracy further? NASA has enough problems as it is securing funding fir their missions...do you think they really need a grassroots movement of layman making it harder fir them? It’s unfortunate that people are losing faith in science, but addressing it at this point just makes it worse, because it gives the impression that FE is in any way legit...and it’s not.
I’ve seen these experiments you’re talking about, and each one upon peer review is found to be either completely wrong or at the very least inconclusive. Most people conducting these experiments, don’t have a clue what they’re doing...and they fall victim to confirmation bias far to often. The very worst of them straight up lie...that’s what we’re dealing with, a movement that doesn’t really care what’s true, they just care about being right. I could go through each experiment and falsify them all, with little effort...but who has that kind of time? But they wouldn’t listen anyway, because these people seem to think they’re above peer review.
Here’s the facts...Flat Earth has no working model, and is not currently used in any applied science today. It’s no surprise to me that the people pushing it are not experts in any field relevant to the discussion...that shouldn’t be ignored by you either, it should be a red flag. It seems more likely to me, that we’re really dealing with the growing resentment of people who have never achieved anything in their lives and now found a way to stick it to the people they blame for that. At the very least, people should consider the possibility that FE is a hoax, and I hope they do...but I doubt many do.
Fact is, they have not yet earned a legit debate between accredited experts. Science is under no obligation to bend to a few loud people online. If they want real debate, then they start small and prove their legitimacy. Right now, Dubay is very suspect...he comes off like more of a cult leader and science should never respect or bend to that kind of approach. Not sure if you’re aware of this, but he’s also a Hitler fan boy, a holocaust denier and an anti semite. Is that really the kind of guy you want to see succeed?
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 It’s also important to note, that the word “level” does not just mean “flat”. Words in the English language are often not that simple, they often have multiple definitions, depending largely on the context. One such context, is for an equipotential surface. All spheres are at equipotential, which means a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre. Well, Equipotential is a bit more nuanced than that I should say, it does apply more to spheres created by a field of force (like gravity), but in simplest terms, it can be applied to pretty much any spherical surface.
So let’s apply it to a bubble’s surface to help make my point. Bubbles, which often form perfect spheres, are the perfect example of a sphere at equipotential. You can define a spherical bubble as level, because all points of the surface are equal distance from centre, so they are level at equipotential. That is how level is applied in the context of “sea level”, what’s being implied is that the ocean surface is an equipotential surface, it is level in that it is all equal distance from centre of Earth, from centre of gravity.
So the one big issue with Flat Earth that I’ve noticed, is their refusal to accept that level does not mean flat in every context. If you don’t believe me though, here’s the official Websters entry for the word “Level” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Just read some of definitions under adjectives, number 1 and 5 in particular.
So they really need to understand this I feel, level does not necessarily mean flat. Level has many different definitions depending on the context.
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 Well, a simple carpenters level uses buoyancy to work. It’s just a simple two part density column in a tube. Buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, so it’s a force directly opposite to gravity, in the same vector, just in the opposite direction. If gravity vectors always point to centre of Earth, then a buoyancy vector is directly away from centre. So the trouble you have is, most levelling devices are using gravity to function...so they’re really levelling to centre of gravity, they don’t just conform to the rigidity of surface from a starting location and then maintain that same rigidity, they level to centre of gravity and thus shift accordingly too it. I’m sure as a construction worker, you’re aware of the term “level to centre of gravity”. Makes your question a bit ignorant, as a level will shift with gravity, so you could never use it to determine Earth’s geometry, because it’s always levelling perpendicular to gravity...which on a sphere with gravity always pointing to centre, means the bubble in the level will shift with the surface, because gravity is why the surface is curved to begin with.
Even if Earth is flat, gravity is still towards surface and a level is still following those gravity vectors...so a level really does not prove or disprove anything, it’s inconclusive. Your question completely ignores gravity physics, so it assumes the level should not shift on a spherical surface. But bubble levels conform to gravity, that’s how they work, plum bobs as well. So it’s an ignorant question that ignores basic physics.
You’d have a better point with a laser level, but when have you ever heard anyone using a laser level to measure and survey miles? They’re typically still only used for construction within a few thousands square meters. They typically use a theodolite for surveying long distances and that kind of long distance surveying has to use the backsight and foresight method, to account for Earth curvature. Taking a measurement in between the backsight and foresight measures, and then using it to essentially cancel out any error due to Earth curvature. If this isn’t done, then there will be errors.
4
-
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 Seeing anything is just your brain interpreting whatever visible light can reach your eye. It depends on an objects size, how much light it reflects or produces, and what’s in the way of your field of vision. So it’s not as simple as putting a set distance on it, it really depends on the variables. Here’s a simple example, at sea level, horizon is generally about 3 miles...but go higher, all of sudden you begin to see much further. So height of the observer matters, that’s a variable.
Another example, water is more dense than air, so you can really only see for a few meters underwater, but out of water you see much further. Even out of water, seeing through atmosphere really depends on the weather...clear days you’ll see much further than a rainy day. So the density of the material you’re looking through matters, that’s a variable.
I know I’m just stating the obvious too you...but then you asked the question and my answer is, there is no real set distance to how far you can see, it depends on all the conditions leading up to the light that entered your eye, to make vision possible at all.
Here’s one more example...even on the Flat Earth model, the stars are REALLY far away, thousands of miles...yet you can see them. So if I were to say fir example; “You only see 70 miles with the naked eye”, well that’s clearly not true...cause you’re seeing stars that are much further than that. The Moon too, still at least a few hundred miles up, yet you see it pretty clearly, even your basic phone camera can zoom it in. The Sun as well...half of the Earth sees the Sun during the day...so that’s thousands of confirmed miles...so how far do we see with the naked eye? Well...it depends....there is no set number.
So you’re asking questions as if there’s a set number I should be giving you...but when it comes to vision, there really isn’t a set distance. So what do you want me to say?
You’d have a hard time spotting a balloon at 70 miles, because of how small it is compared to that distance, it doesn’t reflect much light, unless you put reflectors on it, and because of the air density that increases with distance. A mountain range however, or even a skyscraper, much easier to see at distances, because they’re much larger, or in the case of buildings more reflective.
These variables matter...but flat Earth really doesn’t seem to care much. Don’t even get me started on refraction...most flat Earthers don’t even think it exists, so good luck getting them to agree it matters in long distance observations. Though if you are one such flat Earther, I can easily show you some simple experiments that verify refraction, so feel free to ask.
Point is, there are variables to your questions, variables that matter. Variables I feel that are ignored by FE. You can’t ignore variables in science...you have to factor every known variable. So I’m sorry if I’m rambling, but I prefer to be thorough and these things matter to your questions.
So when you ask me “How many miles can you see with the naked eye”, the answer is infinitely far, no known limitation exists. As long as light from an object can reach your eye in enough quantity for your eye to detect it, then you will see it, can be right in front of you, or trillions of miles...doesn’t matter. Unless you have some evidence that can falsify that conclusion, then that’s what the conclusion will remain as within science.
Ask me how far we see objects directly on Earths surface while looking towards horizon, that’s much easier, the biggest variable being height of the observer. So how high are we talkin?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@saltysergeant4284 Actually, little known tidbit for ya, even the ISS only sees about 3% of the Earth’s surface. You need to understand how big the Earth is...it’s huge. But besides that, could the ISS spot a small hot air balloon? No, not the ISS, not likely. It simply does not have the optical capability. Their cameras are pretty basic, only capable of minor magnifications, as far as I know currently anyway. To tell you the truth, I’m actually not aware of which satellite is even designed for that capability, I’d have to research it. To my current knowledge, I actually believe planes are used for most of the high resolution imagery scans of cities and such, for Google Earth’s mapping at least, I’m pretty sure that’s how they do it. I’m sure satellites do exist that are capable of observing details on the ground at higher magnification, I’ve just never really researched which ones, but could they tilt them at an angle capable of capturing a small balloon, so as to capture its tilt? Maybe, I’m really no expert on that.
There is an annual balloon event in Turkey (I believe it’s Turkey anyway), where they launch hundreds, if not thousands of colourful hot air balloons spanning miles all along the desert. I bring it up, because you might actually be able to find some satellite or high altitude images of this event. Trouble is, I doubt any would be anything but filmed from straight down...so might be a lost cause, but who knows.
So I’m not sure if I can answer your question to any real satisfaction. Do any photos of a balloon (or anything really) exist, demonstrating their angles upon the curvature? I don’t know for certain, I doubt it though, but maybe. A good question is though, why would they care...when filming the curved horizon is far easier and far more conclusive? I mean, cause filming a balloon from above it, you’d have to factor that angle as well....it’s better to be at eye level to the balloon, then you wouldn’t have too...but you’d have the same problem, because good luck spotting a tiny balloon through the increasingly hazy atmosphere.
So I’m sorry, fraid I can’t give you a very satisfying answer. Suppose it’s worth researching a bit more...but I think you’re underestimating how difficult that photo would be too take.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Did you mean to say not personally verifiable? Cause I mean, nothing really graduates past hypothesis in science, until it has been tested and retested and verified and peer reviewed, going through an intense process of constant attempts at falsification, to a point where only the most objective conclusion is left standing. So really, most of the leg work is already done, it’s a bit of an argument from ignorance to say something in science isn’t objectively verifiable...cause how would you know, unless you’ve done it yourself? Are you a scientist? Did you really try?
It’s fair to say that some of the higher science experiments and observations are really difficult to recreate and therefore a majority of people haven’t personally verified them and likely never will, but this is just a discussion of the basic geometry...you don’t need a particle accelerator, or even a space shuttle, to verify the Earths basic shape. You live here, you have access to the surface every single day, you can test the Earth’s geometry at pretty much any time you’d like. Start with a sunset for example, shouldn’t take much knowledge of basic geometry, to understand that a sunset is a bit of an odd occurrence...if line of sight to the Sun is never physically blocked on a flat Earth with a Sun spiralling above. Little things like that...of course you can take even that observation further, but I think it’s a bit of an argument from ignorance to say science can’t reach objective conclusions, especially with something so basic. There is a nuance here though, you are right to say we shouldn’t reach absolute conclusions, because we will likely never know everything, so how can we really know anything for certain, but what would you prefer we do instead, not attempt to learn how things work at all? Science doesn’t think in absolutes, it operates in percentages of certainty...why do you think they file many of their conclusions under theory? Some things are far more certain than others though, Earth’s shape is one of them.
“And if two scientists disagree on the flat earth...”
Gonna have to stop you there, you’d be pretty hard pressed to find an accredited scientist today, who doesn’t agree the Earth is spherical...that’s for a good reason. On the flip side, it’s no surprise to me at all, that most everyone in the flat Earth community is not an actual expert, in any field relevant to the discussion.
“You can not personally prove a globe Earth.”
Actually, yes you can, become a geodetic surveyor (measuring Earth’s curvature is literally in their job title), or a civil engineer, or just learn how to navigate. I mean I’m sure you’d agree that pilots and sailors kind of require an accurate scale and dimensions, of the surface they’re attempting to navigate. Guess which model they’ve been using for centuries. None of these are out of reach for the average individual, just takes some effort.
I don’t know man, you’re really going to a lot of effort to make it sound like flat Earth is the more logical position to hold, and I mean bravo 👏 for the excellent manner in which you masterfully articulated your points, but they’re really only convincing on the surface...and sound more like excuses someone could make, to help them burrow deeper into ignorance. It’s not rocket science we’re talking about here...it’s basic spacial geometry. Anyone can verify the Earths surface geometry, just get outside sometime and make a few simple observations...there are plenty to choose from, there’s really no excuse for ignorance these days.
I swear flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. Flat Earth has no working model and is not currently used for any applied science today...that’s for a good reason and anyone can learn why that is for themselves, at any time they choose.
4
-
4
-
Well, people tend to trust the science...that actually works. It’s kind of the nice thing about junk science, it reveals itself as false...by the simple fact that it doesn’t work. So why do people believe science and academia? Because they’ve likely recreated the science themselves, and they’ve seen fir themselves that it is accurate. I can only assume you’ve never taken a secondary education in the sciences before...if you had, you’d notice pretty quickly, that they don’t just talk about the science and tell you how it works, they also DEMONSTRATE it. Heck, they demonstrate it for you in high school, you don’t even need secondary education to know that. In higher education, they’re not holding your hand most the time either, in labs YOU are encouraged to recreate the experiments yourself, even improve upon them. Thinking fir yourself is highly encouraged in science...that’s how scientists make their careers.
The only people I see making this notion, claiming scientists and experts are somehow sheep’s, forced to conform to consensus, are from layman who have zero experience in science, and really have no clue what they’re talking about. Do you think Einstein is famous today because he conformed to consensus? Heck no, he’s famous because he challenged consensus. He challenged the work of Newton for christs sake...and let me tell ya, he was not very popular in his time for doing so, the difference he has with your standard flat Earther though, is that he was able to prove his hypothesis correct...he was also able to accept when he was wrong.
Anyway, point is, you can be sure the science is accurate, when it’s actually useful and it works. Junk science does not have that same advantage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SKATEtime41 Well now you’re making claims, claims I can’t verify without more effort or more evidence from you. You claim to have seen, or know of someone who has seen, an object only 20 meters tall, from 40 miles away? I’ve made lots of long distance observations, I’ve never seen anything 20 meters high from 40 miles. What was your observer height? Are you sure the object in question was 40 miles, and it was 20 metres in elevation? Was the land elevation factored or just the object?
I once had a fellow who claimed he was seeing all of a 150 foot tower, at 6 foot viewing height on a beach, from 20 miles away. Doing the math, even with standard refraction, it would have been 160 feet hidden by curvature. Back when YouTube allowed outside links in comments, he eventually even shared several pictures with me, confirming that what he was seeing was genuine. But after pressing him for more details, I eventually learned of his exact location and the tower he was observing wasn’t 20 miles away, it was really only 8 miles away. Doing the math again, left only 16.7 feet hidden geometric, and roughly 12 feet hidden adding standard refraction. So though he was using the right math, his details were in error, giving him the wrong figures.
So you see why I’m not inclined to believe you or anyone at face value? Hard to trust people did their observations thoroughly, accounting for every detail, when I’ve seen time and again that they were not. It’s not just wrong math that can be a problem, it’s wrong information as well…and a lot of claims people still expect me to believe without proof. I’m a bit beyond that, so is there a specific observation you’d like me to review, to help verify your claim?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Murphy_Gaspard “…people should be taught how to learn, not what to learn.”
Flat Earthers typically seek only the evidence that confirms their bias, instead of following all available evidence to the most objective conclusion. This shows that they’re certainly not employing the best methodology for acquiring information, they’re just chasing confirmation bias. So if any group could benefit from a lesson in how to learn…it’s them.
“…people should not just take someone’s word for something, but that they should do their own research.”
Yet every Flat Earther gets their information from strangers on YouTube or Facebook…and they believe them at face value, no questions asked. So maybe they should really head that advice. They seem to think that just because they’re resistant to mainstream information, it by default means they’re infallible…as if questioning one side to the extreme, compensates for them ever having to question counter information. That makes them contrarians…not objective researchers.
“He also says we should be open minded, yet he is frustrated with the open mindedness of flat earthers.”
I’d say it’s more frustrating that these people claim to be more open minded than everyone else…while having probably the most closed minds of anyone. They’re convinced that mainstream science is corrupt and can be ignored…and despite anyones best efforts, they will not change their minds on that position. Does that sound like an open mind to you? If they were truly open minded, they would listen to their opposition, and consider the very real possibility that they’ve fallen for a con…but oh boy do they shut those minds pretty quickly the moment you try and share some info they’ve overlooked. That is frustrating.
4
-
@Murphy_Gaspard I’ve seen those videos as well, and I can’t help but notice how blurry and over exposed they always are. If you’re going to observe something as bright as the Sun, then wouldn’t you agree it should be pretty important to filter out as much of that intense light as possible, so you can actually see its true shape and size? The videos I’ve seen of zooming in on the Sun always demonstrate a lot of glare, and that glare reduces as the auto exposure on the camera adjusts with each zoom. So they’re basically conning people with a sleight of hand trick. Here’s someone who thought to lower the exposure on his camera and then lock that exposure, so it couldn’t adjust with each zoom https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8?t=381, you’ll notice it sinks into and under horizon, no amount of zooming in causing it to rise up. This observation is easily repeatable, he explains and demonstrates everything you require.
I’m actually an artist for a living, so perspective fundamentals are something I would consider myself a bit of an expert on. Yes, an object above your eye level will converge towards vanishing point at your eye level…but vanishing point is called that for a reason, it’s because things also appear to SHRINK in apparent angular size as they converge at eye level, until they are no longer visible. The trouble is that the Sun is not observed to shrink throughput the day, here’s another observation of the Sun viewed with a solar filter lens for a full day https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc, demonstrating that it clearly does not shrink.
So Flat Earth is ignoring some pretty fundamental rules of perspective, in order to force that as their conclusion here. Bring up any video demonstrating the Sun shrinks or rises back up after zooming, and I’ll guarantee it’s always extremely blurry and/or overexposed, with no solar filter lens or lowered exposure.
So this is what I’m talking about….they will say a sunset is caused by perspective, while ignoring some very simple fundamentals of perspective. If that’s not a clear example of confirmation bias, I don’t know what is. This observation actually makes my point; they seek only the information that supports their bias, while ignoring any pesky little details that directly refute it. They follow the information they like towards the conclusion they want, rather than forming a conclusion from all available information. They tend to start with a conclusion, rather than form one.
And it’s no secret as too why, you’ve already admitted why, because you don’t trust mainstream science. That has created a powerful bias; you are less likely to accept information from any mainstream source…no matter how conclusive it is, because you’ve reached a conclusion, and now your mind is closed to any possibility that you could be wrong. Confirmation bias is very real, nobody is really beyond or above it. Scientists realized this pretty early on, they recognized it was a real problem that we humans tend to fall victim too…that’s why they included peer review into the scientific method in the first place. I’m not saying scientists are infallible, far from it, but they do have a system in place that helps them overcome the pitfalls of confirmation bias…an individual researcher sifting through information online, does not.
In a way I can really appreciate Flat Earth for that aspect though; they are challenging long held conclusions, despite the ridicule they know they’ll likely face. I can respect that, that’s great, nothing should ever be off the table for discussion, because nobody is infallible…trouble is, while their intentions might be genuine, their methodology (I feel) is lacking. You’re falling victim to confirmation bias, often without realizing it…then what’s worse is any attempt to help you, is seen as an attack, rather than a fair objection. Flat Earth seems to think itself above peer review and burden of proof…so while I can respect that they’re asking questions, what I don’t respect is their tendency to be contrarians, rejecting information, simply because it’s mainstream. I don’t feel that’s very logical.
There’s a very real possibility that you’re being conned, by a group that’s had plenty of time to build and refine a mountain of misinformation. If you claim to be open minded, then you would consider that very real possibility. I have considered that myself for the globe conclusion, but I’ve seen and experienced enough in my life to know that the conclusion of the globe is valid. Perhaps people should spend less time online, and more time travelling and experiencing the real world.
4
-
4
-
Ok, but let’s think about this a bit deeper and isolate the force at work in a rotation. We call it a centripetal motion, felt by us as centrifugal force, so what’s the basic rule of thumb for feeling a centrifugal force? It depends on how many revolutions per minute, which increases the rate of angular velocity change per second. So if the increase of centrifugal force depends on the rate of rotation, then what is the RPM’s of the Earth’s motions? Let’s look at its fastest complete revolution, it’s rotation around axis. Earth rotates at 0.000694 RPM’s…to put that into perspective, a Gravitron ride at the fair is about 24 RPM’s….big difference right? 0.000694 RPM’s, amounts to one complete rotation every 24 hours, so 2x’s slower than the hour hand of a clock….you really think we’d feel that? 🧐
Don’t even need to crunch the numbers for the other motions, because they’re completing a revolution even slower. Earth completes one orbit every 365 days and one orbit around galactic centre every 270 million years….we might as well be moving in a straight line in all those other motions.
Fun fact, we actually can measure Earths rotational centrifugal force…that’s why things actually weigh less at the equator than they do anywhere else. Here’s a simple experiment anyone can repeat that can help you verify this fact https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great physics question, but you’re not really thinking about it very much beyond what confirms flat Earth for you. Rotational motions are best measured and understood in RPM’s…not linear velocities like MPH. Linear velocities are pretty much irrelevant to centrifugal force, rate of rotation is what matters and Earth simply does not complete a single rotation fast enough for us to notice or detect.
4
-
4
-
4
-
YouTube was really only intended for mild entertainment purposes…not a soap box to blast harmful bullshit and misinformation. Fact was that it was being overrun by conspiracy nut jobs using it as a platform to sell their grifts and bullshit claims…it was becoming an environment for anger and hate and negativity, and conmen were thriving. So I’m glad they decided to scrub the platform of that crap. If it were my platform that I had intended for entertainment, I’d do the exact same thing. From a purely business standpoint, a platform like this only survives online if it’s catering to a GENERAL audience, getting the largest amount of clicks and views as possible from the largest group, the general audience. Not everyone is into conspiracy bullshit, that’s a niche’ market and viewing numbers were dropping as this place was being overrun by that content. So it was either change, or risk being replaced by a competitor down the line, that could do things better…they chose to change, and it’s worked.
On top of that, it has stemmed the paranoia and hate, which has effected the division’s being created. Mob mentality was ripping America apart last few years, not sure if you noticed, that’s definitely gone down in frequency lately, I’m sure the cap on misinformation spreading has helped that a bit.
It’s not censorship, people are still free to push their opinions and misinformation on here, they’re just not favoured by the algorithms. You’re free to say almost whatever you want still, and they are free to promote it if they want or not, it’s not censorship to stem the promotion of someone’s opinion. Hate speech and harmful misinformation have never been allowed though. I think people are a bit ignorant to what freedom of speech laws actually protect. Anything that’s hateful, causes harm and insights violence is not actually protected by freedom of speech rights and freedoms…most people are not aware of that. You can be arrested for any speech that insights violence or breaks the law, you do not have the right to insight harm upon others…and that’s a pretty grey line, doesn’t mean only physical harm. Just look up the Imminent Lawless Action test sometime if you don’t believe me.
Luckily, flat Earth hasn’t gotten to that point (yet), but movements like Qanon sure did…and guess what platform helped that movement of bullshit grow? Point is, misinformation does happen online, and if left to fester it can cause a mob mentality reaction, that can cause harm and damage. So it’s far better to counter misinformation and stem its flow, rather than allow it to go unchecked or unchallenged.
4
-
@KangenAlec Mark Sargent doesn’t advocate hate speech or insight violence, so he’ll be fine so long as those lines are never crossed. But Eric Dubay for example, another prominent Flat Earth advocate, is a known anti semite and Nazi sympathizer. He has put out videos promoting hate speech, hence why his channel has been taken down before. See the difference? Both are wrong, but being wrong doesn’t break terms of service…hate speech does. One is not hateful, the other is…so Mark will likely be fine. Dubay has since cleaned up his rhetoric, but he’s still a piece of shit as far as many are concerned.
Mark Sargent is an okay dude as far as I’m concerned. I do strongly disagree with him, but I feel he’s doing this whole questioning reality thing the right way, through peaceful questioning and harmless curiosity, with no violent agenda or messages attached.
4
-
Why would you assume that because someone is refuting the Flat Earth claims, it must by default mean that they then also trust the government without question, absolutely? Believe it or not, but we can disagree with and question strangers online pushing what we feel is misinformation, and still agree that governments are corrupt and not to be trusted. Yes governments lie, yes you should always be skeptical of what they say, that’s not a secret, it’s pretty standard knowledge. But they still can’t lie about everything…nothing is that black and white or absolute.
Government had very little to do with solving Earth’s surface geometry and you do not require them to make that conclusion for you. Anyone can deduce this for themselves with just a few simple observations and a basic knowledge of physics and geometry. Best way to prove the Earth is spherical for yourself, learn to navigate. Seriously, if you think the millions of sailors and pilots around the world can successfully navigate the Earth every day around the clock with precision, without knowing the true surface dimensions of the Earth they travel…then you might need a good knock on the head.
I agree that governments are lying huxters…but that doesn’t mean by default we should just lose our heads, give up on objective reasoning and analysis, and just assume it’s all a lie absolutely. Thinking in absolutes is a fallacy of logic, it’s not that simple. We have every reason to question and challenge the claims of non-experts online, it doesn’t mean we’re siding with government, it just means we’re calling out bullshit when we see it, no matter who it’s coming from. Like it or not, but con men exist, narcissists exist, pseudo intellectuals with agendas exist…and the modern online world is their playground. That’s one of many ways how these people successfully sell you false claims, by exploiting your distrust of authority, because they know it’s strong bias many have, so they plant their bullshit in that bias. It’s very effective.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well, you’re just pointing out your bias, that is currently clouding your judgment. You WANT it to be true, because then it makes everything else easy for you, and we all like things being easy. But you’re just wasting your time, focusing on the wrong stuff. There are a lot of wrongs in society, but Earth being a globe isn’t one of them. Far too many fields of applied science, from engineering, navigation, communication and infrastructure, depend on that information being accurate, in order to do their jobs at all. Junk science reveals itself simply by being absolutely useless, and flat Earth is not used in any field of applied science, so that should be a persons first clue, that it’s just an online hoax, probably put there to distract you from real issues. I hope you eventually step back from your bias long enough to see the real objective truth someday. Put that energy to better use.
4
-
4
-
4
-
First, a plane uses air to generate lift. Space has no air, so no lift can be achieved in space for these vehicles. This is why there’s a limit planes fly at, they can never break out into space for this reason. Air gets thinner and thinner as you go higher, so this limits their ability to rise any higher. This is what the altimeter is measuring, barometric pressure, which calculates a rough altitude.
Second, you wouldn’t use the 8 inches per mile squared math here (actually you wouldn’t use that math for the globe at all, that’s a very basic parabolic arc equation, not an accurate spherical equation at all, so FE has taught you the wrong math). Pitch is measured by degrees, and it takes roughly 70 miles to arc just ONE degree of pitch on Earth, so it would be a VERY gradual degree change, hence why you would never notice. Even at 500 mph, it’s going to take roughly 8 and a half minutes to reach 70 miles, so to put that into perspective, arc your finger gradually from 0 to 1 degree, over the span of 8 and a half minutes...not arcing down very fast is it?
Third, the plane is always resisting gravity, constantly, it’s never not resisting gravity, so a plane doesn’t have to pitch down to drop in altitude. Unlike going up, where it has to, in the case with going down, gravity will bring it down, and the plane can maintain level the entire time. I’m sure you’ve tossed a paper airplane around before, ever try just gently gliding it, gravity bringing it down slowly but consistently, remaining level the whole way down? I’m sure you have.
Your main argument is trying to say that a plane needs to pitch its nose at some point, and you’re right...but you’re assuming it doesn’t. One degree of pitch every 70 miles...that’s pretty darn gradual. Nobody is going to notice that. I’m sure when you drive down a slightly curved highway, you barely notice any adjustments you’re making to stay on the road, it’s just one tiny adjustment after another, you do it on auto pilot without even thinking about it. Now just add a third dimension of travel (z axis), and make the curved highway (Earth’s surface) 25,000 miles in circumference.
Gravity vectors also move with you, always pointing to centre of Earth, so level in this context has always been to centre of gravity. I’m sure you’ve heard that term before, centre of gravity, that’s what it’s implying. A spirit level and your body even, balance perpendicular to centre of gravity, which changes as you travel, but always pointing to centre.
You’re just missing variables is all, the biggest one I find people of FE have trouble with, is gravity. You’re not stupid, quite capable actually of formulating logical arguments, but you do almost seem blind to some concepts. The other problem is that you’ve largely been lied too, the curvature math you’re using being a good example. FE has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for
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
-
Depends on what satellite pictures you're referring too. If you're talking about the low Earth orbit photos, that are later stitched together to form a composite image, they have no choice but to manipulate these photos in a photo rendering software, in order to create those composites. But if you're talking about the pictures taken by the many geostationary satellites in deep space orbit (Himawari 8, DSCOVRY, GOES), then not sure what you're talking about...cause these photos are not manipulated. Some photos from these satellites are taken in different spectrums of the electromagnetic spectrum (infrared, UV, microwave, etc.), and then they're digitally colored, cause we can't see these spectrum's of light, but that doesn't really make them manipulated.
Or what about the photos taken from the Apollo missions, of which there are thousands. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. None of these are manipulated either, these are full images taken by a regular camera. The photo that was used on the cover of TIME magazine back in 72, was touched up and color corrected to make it a sharper more presentable image, but other then that, these photos are undoctored.
So which photos are you speaking of in particular exactly?
4
-
4
-
@aarondavis7826 Because that particular model deals with the flight dynamics of the vehicle itself, not the environment it’s flying in, and it’s for simulation purposes only. So the author is just letting the reader know, the variables in the math ignore Earth’s shape and its motion, and they assume the vehicle is perfectly rigid, with no change in mass over time. It’s basically just putting the variables into words. Mathematical models are abstract, not to be taken literally, many variables are assumed in pretty much every mathematical model. It’s just focusing on the vehicle and its dynamics, moving linear through a system that’s constant.
It’s important to mention these assumed variables, because then, for example, an engineer, pilot, mathematician, etc, will know that this math wouldn’t be very helpful for calculating things like Coriolis drift, or Eotvos effect, etc, but probably helpful for its thrust to weight ratio, or drag resistance, etc. Because it doesn’t focus on environment, just the vehicle itself.
4
-
4
-
She’s not likely to answer you, these comments get buried pretty quickly and with the age of the video, it’s unlikely she bothers to read any of these exchanges. You’ve been provided with answers, with evidence supporting them, ad nauseam, but you decide to strawman or ignore every answer provided for you anyway. I was fine with having a civil discussion, but I can’t answer your questions and help you understand, if you’re just going to strawman or ignore everything I say. I’ll answer again, and I guess we’ll see if your strawmanning and ignorance unfolds again. I’ll answer in order.
“If gravity is supposed to make gas go down...and stop it from filling the space vacuum, how does it expand in all directions?”
The first half of your question here has almost nothing to do with the second. All you’re really asking is how does gas expand, the first half is a non sequitur. You know how gas expands already, it’s colliding with itself, this transfers kinetic energy and puts gas molecules in motion in various directions depending on the collision angles. You’ve attempted to word the question as if it somehow falsifies gravity, but just because gas expands due to collisions, does not mean gas isn’t affected by gravity, at the same time. Nothing within your question falsifies gravity, so it’s a loaded question, a non sequitur fallacy. You’ve done nothing to prove gas is not affected by gravity, only asserted that it’s not, even despite the evidence I and others have shared. So while you have empty assertions here, I have evidence. It may not be enough to convince you personally, but it does give me a far stronger position over your claim.
“Why do you say gas pressure doesn’t need a container when the definition says it does?”
Which definition? Care to provide a citation? Gas pressure only requires gas making contact with the surface of an object, there’s gas pressure squeezing on you right now, every collision of gas upon your body creating pressure, gas pressure. In this case it’s caused by the downward acceleration of gravity, causing atmospheric pressure, the weight of the gas above pressing down on the gas below. But feel free to provide a citation for your claim here. You claim it’s in the definition, so feel free to provide the citation for what you’re talking about.
“Why doesn’t gravity hold the steam down in your open system coffee cup example?”
Buoyancy, steam rises in large part due to buoyancy, explained again and again for you. Buoyancy is a force that requires an accelerating motion, in order to function. No accelerating motion downward, no buoyancy upward, as proven in simple drop tests https://youtu.be/YDXQ-VBjW7Q?t=171, https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=167, and this great experiment demonstrating how an accelerating motion effects the motion of gases https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY. Remove the downward acceleration (that we call gravity), and then buoyancy will not occur. So buoyancy requires gravity to function. I hope this clicks eventually for you, but I don’t think it will at this point, you don’t seem very interested to understand this correlation between gravity and buoyancy...even though it answers your question here. It’s a domino effect, downward acceleration of gravity being the start and root cause of the buoyancy effect.
“If we applied the volume of the space vacuum to Boyles law, what would earth’s gas pressure be?”
Now this one I wasn’t answering, because I didn’t fully understand the context of the question, but now I see the correlation because volume is of course a variable in the equation for Boyles law. Had you articulated your point using the equation, I would have understood your point a lot quicker. You know, kind of like how I pointed out that gravity is a variable in buoyancy, Fb=Vpg <——notice the little g there? Pretty similar argument really. So I see now, this relates to your “gas pressure requires a container” argument from before, ok, so now I better understand the question, so now I can answer it.
Boyles law equation is not the only law used in ideal gas law, it’s one of many, but it’s also just a good approximation formula, for many conditions, but it has its limitations. One such limitation being atmospheric pressure, as you can’t accurately give a volume for an endless space. So Boyles law is useful and quite effective for determining how gases behave in smaller, controlled conditions, where we can give a volume figure, but it’s not useful for such things like the atmospheric pressure of Earth. So it’s not used here. We’re dealing with atmospheric pressure here, so no definite volume figure can be applied, so not useful, so it’s irrelevant.
So this illustrates further one of the biggest problems of FE minded people, thinking in absolutes. Boyles law is not useful in every case, it has its limitations, so it’s basically irrelevant to atmospheric pressure, can not be used, so it is not. So your point is moot. Wrong equation for the job. Better to use atmospheric pressure equations for this problem, like the one for surface pressure P=F/A=(m*g)/A. Oh there’s that pesky (g) again, the downward acceleration of gravity. You’ll find that a lot in atmospheric pressure equations, but you know what you won’t find? A variable for volume...that’s for a good reason.
You know, it’s stuff like this though, that points out a level of intelligence, which is what’s so frustrating about people like yourself, cause you should easily understand the correlation between gravity and buoyancy and atmospheric pressure. It’s why I don’t think you’re stupid (that being said, unless you’re Quantum Eraser or N Oakley, this isn’t really your argument originally to begin with, so you’re parroting), but it also points out YOUR cognitive dissonance. You’re happy to argue with the equations of Boyles law, because it supports your argument, but then you completely ignore maths and equations when they don’t agree with you, claiming math is basically useless, but only when they’re used against you to refute your clams. For example, again, the buoyancy equation (Fb=Vpg), which requires the downward acceleration of gravity. Funny how you selectively use math, but only when it suites you. We use these variables in math for a reason, because they’re proven variables in the cause effect relations found in physical reality. If they weren’t verified variables, then the equation simply would not work, it’s that simple.
“You claimed gravity makes steam fall. Can you show me falling steam?”
Fog or Clouds. Fog and Clouds are basically the same as steam, just water vapour in a cooler state, unable to rise or rise any higher, due to gravity and other factors. The fact that they sit at an altitude and climb no higher, verifies that they’re being held in position by forces at equilibrium, buoyancy and gravity. Since we know buoyancy doesn’t occur without gravity, it’s basically just gravity. Many more examples I shared, like the fog from dry ice vapour, smoke in a vacuum, and the best by far being sulfur hexafluoride clearly falling instead of rising in this example https://youtu.be/mLp_rSBzteI?t=141. Isn’t it better to see an actual gas, like sulfur hexafluoride, falling? Why ask for steam falling, if I can already provide you with another clear example of gas falling? It’s the same thing really, a gas that’s clearly falling instead of rising.
To produce a similar effect with steam, we’d have to go pretty high. If I find an example, I’ll be sure to share it, but you already have many great examples of gas being clearly affected by gravity, so bit of a moot point already.
“You said the cause of mass attracts mass is the angle of a tortiuos bar...”
No, that’s what you keep saying. But alright, let’s get into this again and see why you keep strawmanning. I’ll attempt to word things differently, see if it helps. The cause of the motion is the mass itself, that’s what the Cavendish verifies. All you’re doing in experiment is falsifying or verifying hypothesis, so conclusion basically is the hypothesis or it’s null hypothesis.
So let’s get into the experiment again. Introduce a mass to another mass, an attraction is observed. Mass causes the motion. Worded a bit simpler for you? It’s the observed motion that is the natural phenomenon (falling matter), that the hypothesis is formed from (mass attracts mass). The hypothesis here is just trying to answer for the question asked from the start of the process “what causes the phenomenon of falling mass?” The hypothesis (the educated guess made from prior research and knowledge) is mass attracts other mass. Cause=the mass; Effect=attractive motion between them. IV is what we manipulate in the cause, introducing the masses at a set angle is how we manipulate the hypothesized cause (mass), to see what effect, if any, it has on the motion. This motion (our DV) is recorded as a shift in angle. If there’s a shift, hypothesis confirmed. No shift, hypothesis falsified.
Now you’ve stated several times we’re skipping steps or getting them backwards here, so feel free to lay it out as you’re seeing it, to see if it does. Just getting a bit tired of the Socratic method here, it’s quite exhausting, I’d prefer you explain your reasoning better, in steps if you don’t mind. Then perhaps we’ll reach an understanding. When I work through Cavendish, it ticks every box for a valid experiment and goes through every step of the scientific method in the proper order, but feel free to articulate your point better if you’d like.
4
-
@SuperMoshady That’s the point I’m trying to make, that even at rest, objects are still accelerating down, the scale proves that. You apply a force to a scale to register a weight value, the moment you stop applying a force, the scale stops registering a weight value. So if a mass on a scale continues to register a weight value, then even at rest, it’s still being pushed down by a force, otherwise the scale wouldn’t register anything. I’ll agree it’s at equilibrium once at rest, in that it’s now in balance with two opposing forces, gravity and the electromagnetic repulsion of atoms. That’s the equilibrium occurring, both are constant forces, so they basically balance each other. Make no mistake though, even an object at rest, is still accelerating down towards surface, it never stops, the scale proves that. The motion we observe ceases, but the force of attraction, the acceleration downward, is still occurring within every molecule within that mass.
The formula for weight is as follows W=F=mg...which is basically Newtons second law equation that you keep sharing, just putting the acceleration of gravity in the acceleration field, to calculate weight. You’ll never get away from that I’m afraid, gravity is used everywhere as a variable, because it’s a proven fact of nature, a proven phenomenon, used everyday in so many different applications.
This is easy stuff my man. It’s physics 101. You’re happy to use the second law of motion when you think it suites you, then you just straight up ignore the simplest of applications for the formula? That’s cognitive dissonance and it doesn’t stop there, you’ve done this many times, every step of the way. Just denying reality, so you can continue to believe what you want, that’s all FE does.
There’s not much anyone can do for a mind that poisoned. You can deny it all you like, but denial is not an argument against a very simple phenomenon we all experience and that is undeniable. Deny it all you want, but you will never change the foundations of science that way.
4
-
There is though, there’s a Quantus flight Perth to Johannesburg, direct, about 11 hour flight. So what are you talking about? 🤷♂️
But to answer your question on why most flights are connecting flights in the South; flying isn’t magic, planes require airports and it’s a business like anything else…one that requires paying customers, and airports large enough to handle the traffic. The reality is that the very large majority of Earth’s population lives in the Northern hemisphere, and the largest and richest cities are in the North, so this means it has the most customers, and most of the flight infrastructure. So the South can’t handle to many direct flights to anywhere else in the South, doesn’t have the customers or the infrastructure…but direct flights do exist, so maybe do a little better research.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@cabbagefart7432 We don’t have an FE problem, in 2016 the interest spiked, but it’s since declined drastically to the point of nonexistent, it was a fad, now it’s over. I used to find tens of hundreds of Flat Earthers in these comments and many other comment threads, now it’s maybe 2 or 3 a day, some days there’s nobody. You’ve done what all fringe pseudoscience movements do, spike briefly, then lose the conversation horribly cause you give up once it’s obvious you have nothing sound, then recede into your echo chambers for a time, then fizzle out. Those echo chambers might grow at a slow pace for awhile, but you’re no longer on societies radar currently, and you’ve made ZERO dents in established science. That’s the reality.
If I’m still here, it’s to provide some casual peer review, so potential misinformation doesn’t fly by the radar unchecked or unchallenged. Burden of proof is yours, so feel free.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ok, Rowbotham used the wrong math, so his claim that you shouldn’t see the marker at the distance provided, is wrong right from the word go. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Here’s why it is wrong, 8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation, not a spherical. So it’s not representative of a steady curvature. Worse then that, it doesn’t include any variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, curvature hump, arc length, refraction, etc, etc. It simply does not calculate a figure that represents your line of sight, or what’s obscured by a curvature…it is missing many variables required for that. So it is wrong.
The experiment has been peer reviewed and recreated many times. His version is found to be inconclusive, due to sloppy experimentation practices. It’s clear he only did as much as he felt he needed too, to confirm his bias, then he called it a day. He used only ONE marker, made only ONE observation, included ZERO controls, used the wrong math, and ignored variables like atmospheric refraction. So it’s extremely inconclusive, yet he reached a conclusion anyway. It’s bad science, cut and dry.
Here’s a modern recreation of the experiment, this time done across 10 kilometres of a frozen lake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a79KGx2Gtto. There is a link in the description where you can find the official report, I’d share the link, but YouTube no longer allows outside links in comments. That’s how a real experiment is done, it’s very thorough, covering every variable it can, collecting as much data as it can, making observations over several days to test hidden variables like refraction. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be, given its scale.
Rowbotham’s version of the experiment now stands as a perfect example for why peer review is so important to science. People make mistakes, and they often don’t think they did, because we all have biases that tend to blind us from remaining objective. His experiment was inconclusive, that’s what peer review revealed.
Anyway, hope you find that information at the very least interesting.
4
-
@patrickhickman8723 Why would I be? 🤷♂️ I understand how motion really works. I understand basic physics. There’s a reason nobody bats an eye at these points you’re making…we’re just stunned someone actually thinks they’re arguments. Maybe 400 years ago, before the laws of motion were figured out…but you’re a bit behind on things now.
You should be embarrassed though, displaying for everyone that YOU don’t understand basic physics of motion, that even kids in grade school can understand. It’s physics 101.
Here, I’ll help you out Patrick. We do not notice motion itself, that’s the truth about motion, doesn’t matter how fast we’re going, whether it’s 60 mph or 500,000 mph, if the speed is constant or gradual, then we will never notice it. What we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, so quick acceleration and deceleration. Every single one of Earth’s motions are constant, with only gradual changes over long periods of time, perihelion and aphelion in its orbit for example, which is a gradual change, about 20 mph per day….so roughly 1 mph every hour. Not a very fast change is it? Ever tried accelerating a car from 0-60, at the rate of 1 mph increase every hour? Let me know if you think you’d feel anything.
The only motion great enough that we could really detect, is our rotation, because it’s the quickest change in angular velocity we experience. But at the rate of 0.000694 RPM’s, it’s still extremely slow. For comparison, a Gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at roughly 24 RPM, hence why you feel that rotation…it’s a much faster change in angular velocity.
You can confirm all of this science at anytime. Do you feel the motion of a passenger jet moving at 500 mph? No…how come? That’s still pretty darn fast isn’t it? Yet you can get up and walk around the cabin unhindered? Place a cup of scolding hot coffee on the tray in front of you, and it’ll remain at perfect rest…odd, shouldn’t it be sloshing out by your logic? 🤷♂️ Motion is relative, everything conserves the momentum of the inertial system it is moving relative too…this is physics 101 Patrick.
So why should I be shocked by Earth’s motions? 🤷♂️ Why do you think your own personal misunderstandings of basic physics, should faze me or anyone?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Allstarsga Don’t have too, because the debate is long settled and it’s under no obligation to make sense to those who are simply incapable of understanding. The heliocentric model is now an applied science, it proves its accuracy every single day, with every pilot that successfully uses it to navigate and every engineer who uses the established models to innovate and build our modern world, with working success. So you’re only fooling yourself.
Gravity is the easiest force to observe, drop something.
It’s also measured https://youtu.be/fcT_zUb3wis which gives us a value 9.8m/s^2 used in practical formulas for engineering, everything from fluid buoyancy equations, to lift aerodynamics, to parabolic trajectory arcs, to orbital mechanics, etc, this measurement is useful whether you agree it exists or not.
It’s also verified through many repeatable experiments, most famous being the Cavendish, which isolated what is occurring and also measured the Constant of gravity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68
https://youtu.be/ZiqTkpSh52g
Maybe you’re not clear on how science works, but arguments from ignorance are not how you falsify established scientific theory, clear evidence that successfully refutes the conclusions is how falsification is done. Not going to achieve much through whining I’m afraid.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Your equation is just a curvature from a tangent at surface…where’s the variable for height of the observer? 🤷♂️ It doesn’t represent line of sight, doesn’t tell you where horizon is at any given observer height, completely ignores atmospheric refraction, etc, etc….so how exactly do you think that equation is valid for the observation you’re making? 🧐 You are aware that you see further the higher you are in elevation…..so don’t ya think that’s kind of an important variable to include in your math? 😳
Here’s a far better equation for the geometric line of sight, using the same trigonometric functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= radius of Earth
d= distance to object
h= height of observation
Even at 6 foot viewing height that makes the hidden by horizon drop about 726 feet (almost 200 feet less than your calculation that doesn’t factor horizon distance at all), add a standard refraction and it’s more like 600 feet. But hey, you are also aware that the Rock of Gibraltar is roughly 1400 feet high…you are aware of that, right? So even with your flawed calculation that still leaves about 550 feet still visible…a whole third of the rock! Soooo….even according to your math, you can still see it, so what’s the problem exactly? 🧐
But what’s the observation height of each observation? Did you even bother to look or ask? Cause it kinda matters. Even at just 20 feet, the hidden drops too 621’, with standard refraction it’s 517’. These details matter. :/
Most importantly, you are in fact using the wrong math. It’s accurate for curvature…but it’s not calculating for your line of sight, so it’s simply not the correct equation. Use the wrong equation for the job, and you will reach a false conclusion…it’s pretty simple.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Drop something…did it fall? Okay, then force confirmed. We call it gravity. Pretty easy to prove actually…we experience it every single day, it’s the most obvious force found in nature.
I think what you’re confused with is the difference between the force itself and the explanation of how it works. Nobody in science is contesting that an attraction force is present, what’s still in question is how it works, what causes it, where does it come from? But we don’t have to know everything about something, to determine that it does exist. Personally I don’t know how to engineer my own refrigeration unit…but I’d never argue that fridges don’t exist, simply because I don’t fully understand the mechanics. I see them clear as day, they exist.
This argument is not much different; it’s not the force itself we have yet to prove, that part is clear as day, it’s obvious. It’s how it is created that’s yet to be completely figured out. These are two different things.
So when you say “prove gravity”, it begs the question? Which part? The existence of the force itself? That’s easy, drop something…you’ll confirm the existence of that force pretty quickly and easily.
So you need to be more specific. It’s not the existence of the force itself we need to prove, that’s easily proven, it’s how it works that is still in question. You need to separate the two.
4
-
4
-
@chrisskully1228 You start the condescending tone when you finish your comments with “you can’t”. That’s a taunt, a response driven by your ego…so we respond in kind. Why should we be nice if you’re just here to be a snarky troll? If you’re going to act like a child, then we will treat you like a child.
Look up the Cavendish experiment, it’s a very clear demonstration of mass attracting mass. If you’d like evidence for Einstein’s General Relativity, then look up the Eddington experiment. Both are repeatable scientific experiments, with a valid hypothesis and a conclusive end result, verifying the main tenants of gravity as we understand it so far, that being mass bends the fabric of space and time, bringing masses together, creating the attraction force we experience every single day.
You want to be treated nice, then don’t come here like a snotty child trying to pick a fight, it’s pretty simple. We get that you don’t currently understand how these conclusions were reached, but maybe that’s because you don’t allow anyone to really help you understand, you close your mind before anyone can.
4
-
4
-
False, the math of the Eratosthenes experiment only works for a flat Earth if you only take 2 measurements, and also if you don’t plot that data in 3 dimensions. Take anymore than two shadow measurements, it will no longer pinpoint a local Sun, the angles will be sporadic, never crossing at the same point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=423
Doesn’t matter what version of flat Earth you plot the data upon, it does not work...the Globe at our scale however, works every time the data is plotted upon that geometry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
Math is a useful tool for visualizing our reality in ways we cannot otherwise because of our physical limitations. It has been used to build everything around you...and yet you seem to think when it comes to using it for solving the geometry of Earth, only in this instance it’s not useful? What you’re doing is making an excuse, a bullshit reason to remain ignorant to the conclusions of science, because you simply don’t like those conclusions. Maybe if you understood math and science a bit better, you’d recognize how Flat Earth is conning people.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jimygod So was the horizon flat or not? As I’m sure you’d agree, it was clearly flat...yet that surface was not, it was a Globe. Just ponder that for awhile to start off.
Now, at the start of the video, you don’t think the camera is resting level to its surface? I’d wager it was, but if you don’t think so, it’s a very simple observation to recreate, so by all means, get yourself a very large ball and a small camera and do it yourself. Keep in mind, even in that first initial frame, the lens is technically a few centimetres off its surface, which if you put things to Earths scale, would probably be a few thousand feet off surface (much higher than your drone would be flying). Yet that surface still appeared to raise up to eye level then formed a flat horizon...you really think if the camera wasn’t level, it would make all the difference? You’re really reaching here, level or not won’t change the surface curvature.
Your argument seems to really not grasp the true size and scale of Earth. It’s basic geometry and perspective, the closer you are to the surface of a large sphere, the flatter it will appear, and the more horizon will appear to rise to eye level...really doesn’t matter much how level your camera is, if it’s off the surface (even a standard 6 foot viewing height), level or not, a portion of its peripheral field of vision will always be looking down...level or not, won’t change the surface curvature, won’t change the horizon shape.
The core of your argument though is just the classic “horizon always rises to eye level” argument, that flat Earth claims occurs in reality...but it doesn’t actually, flat Earth just never bothered to test it https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI. You seem to think the drop should be more apparent, but that conclusion doesn’t consider the scale you’re dealing with here.
4
-
4
-
@JudaismIslamUnited Oh boy…clearly you don’t quite understand the control. 🤦♂️ The control is pretty simple, you conduct two experiments, the main one in Moonlight, then the control when the Moon is not out. You keep everything the exact same for both, two thermometers, one in the open, one under the same cover, the only difference is that the Moon is not out in the second, the control experiment. If you get the same reading, a colder reading in the same thermometer that was in the moonlight in the previous experiment with Moonlight…then that means it’s not the Moon light causing this effect, it’s something else. That’s why we conduct controls, to make sure we isolate the actual cause and effect relation being tested, by removing hidden variables that could also be the cause. It’s a pretty simple control, and very important for isolating your main variable of moonlight. If you can’t understand the importance of this…then you should stay far away from science. Watch that video I shared if you require further help with understanding.
Here’s a little physics lesson as well. All light in existence is basically energy…you know, energy, that thing that creates ALL of the heat in the universe? There is no such thing as cold energy…it’s a physical impossibility. Energy only produces heat, by its very intrinsic property, that’s what it does to physical reality. So to even suggest a cold light, breaks the laws of physics.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ok, here’s some answers to your questions.
Gravity pulls everything to surface, even projectiles fired at incredible velocities, nothing is free from gravity’s influence. From the moment a projectile is fired, gravity is already affecting its trajectory, this causes all projectiles to fire in parabolic arcs. Can’t shoot a straight line through a hill of land…but you sure can shoot over it, then let gravity drop it down to your target…so that’s exactly what artillery gunners have done for centuries now…even rail guns.
Here’s the equation every long range gunner or artillery man uses for parabolic drop charting; sin(2θ)v2/g. Notice the little ‘g’ in the equation? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8m/s^2. Snipers also have to account for projectile drop due to force of gravity, if they don’t account for this, then they will miss their target. Get it yet? Gravity helps them fire projectiles at great distances, just aim the projectile slightly up, then let gravity do the rest…it’s pretty simple.
How does a plane land on a spinning surface? Thanks to Relative motion and conservation of momentum…basic physics of motion. Any object moving WITH a system of motion, will maintain and conserve that momentum at all time’s, we call this moving relative to an inertial reference frame of motion…relative motion for short. You have experience with this, we all do. Next time you’re in a moving vehicle, toss something straight up into the air…then watch as it goes straight up, then straight back down into your hand. But wait a second, if you’re moving…how exactly did that object keep pace with the vehicles forward velocity, if all you did was toss it straight up? Conservation of momentum, that’s how, it’s the third law of motion. Anything moving with a system of motion, conserves that motion indefinitely. The same physics applies to a plane, it’s moving relative to Earth’s motions, so it conserves those motions…making landing pretty easy.
It’s just basic physics. I suggest you learn more about the laws of motion and relative motion.
4
-
Rowbotham conducted a sloppy, inconclusive experiment, that ignored important variables, did not take enough data sets, and reached a bias conclusion. Upon peer review, it was found he used the wrong math, ignored atmospheric refraction, had no variable for horizon distance or height of the observer and simply did not do enough to render a more conclusive result. So it’s a perfect example of bad science, conducted only to confirm a bias.
Think of it like a slight of hand trick. He TOLD his audience the flag should disappear at the given distance, but that’s about it, then he expected them all just to agree, no further information or questioning required. A general audience of layman would just agree without really thinking about it, and that’s when he’s got you. It’s a slight of hand trick, because he’s basically waving some math in front of your face saying to “keep your eye on the math I’m showing you”, while never bringing up its inaccuracies for the observation. Any scientist or mathematician would immediately recognize how inconclusive the experiment was, but the majority of people aren’t scientists or mathematicians, so they’re easily dazzled by stuff like this.
It wasn’t a bad experiment mind you, it was actually pretty clever, it’s just conducted poorly. He twisted the facts, to get his bias conclusion, he was not doing things objectively. Here’s what a thorough recreation of that experiment looks like http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Rowbotham did nothing to this level of detail, he only took ONE data set, using ONE marker, during probably just ONE observation, ignoring variables, using the wrong math, going only so far as to confirm his bias, and then he called it a day.
This experiment is taught to science students today, as the perfect example for why conducting experiments poorly is a very bad thing, and it also makes it clear why peer review is so important in science. Peer review weeds out bias, errors and lies.
So there’s a little science history for you. Hope that helps make things a bit more clear. Flat Earthers are currently doing the same thing today, fooling a lot of people, with superficial arguments and experiments like Rowbothams. The sad thing is, it’s working...
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
-
1. Yes, we are beyond the terminator line, but Mercury and Venus are not in the same spot as the Sun, they trace an elliptical path that shoots out Millions of miles from the position of the Sun, which brings them into our night sky. Best way to visualize this, is with a quick visual. https://ibb.co/gF55w1p This is not to scale obviously, but it still demonstrates my point. The red dot represents an observer on the night side of the Earth, the green overlay represents his visual night sky and the orange circle represents Venus or Mercury in their orbit. You'll notice that Mercury and Venus are visible at night...but they are only visible just before sunrise and just after sunset...or if you happen to live at the poles where your visible sky always has a chance of spotting them. It's all about perspective.
2. Again, this only occurs just around sunset and sunrise...and the Moon is always on the opposite side from the sun, or if you live at the poles. Again, this is very similar, it's all about perspective, because the Sun and Moon are so far away, they both can come into our visual sky at sunset or sunrise while we're on the fringes of night and day.
3. We don't see the same constellations after 6 months. Honestly, if you were an amateur astronomer who actually went out at night and monitored the sky each night...you would know this. It's one of the first things you learn as an amateur astronomer, that there are in fact two different kinds of stars and constellations. There are the circumpolar stars and constellations, these are the ones that are locked to the poles and they are the ones we see year in and year out. Then there are the seasonal stars and constellations, these are the stars that lie along the ecliptic plane, and they change throughout a year. You know many of their names too...you're born under a zodiac constellation just like we all were. Just do a search for seasonal constellations sometime and you'll find many lists. You can even confirm them for yourself at any time. Just find those lists and then go out on any clear night and see if you can find those stars that they say you can during that time of year. Then if you'd like, do it again 6 months later and see if you can still find those stars or not.
Anyway, I hope these help to answer your questions here. They are good questions so don't feel ashamed for asking them, they're the same questions any amateur astronomer asks when they first start looking at these things a little closer.
4
-
4
-
4
-
You have to put these things into scale. Yes relative to us, the small microbes living on the surface of a tiny spec of dust in space, these stars and planets are going pretty fast...but not so much in relation to the galaxy they're orbiting around. It takes 230 million years for us to make one rotation around the galactic center, and the other stars take equally as long. So just picture how far we've actually shifted in that orbit in just a few years time...it will appear as though we never moved at all. The same is true for the other stars, because you have to remember that each star is TRILLIONS of miles between their closest star. What looks like a few inches to you on the ground, is trillions of miles of empty space.
But the stars do shift over time, we even track them. Any astronomer will tell you the stars are moving, they just take a very long time to make any significant change, because of the distances they need to travel to make even an arc second of change...which is the unit of measurement we use for the movement of stars and planets.
This is a good question though, so I hope I had some information that you found useful and at the very least interesting. The stars that align with the pyramids I believe are the same stars found in the constellation Orion, the belt most importantly, but the other stars are said to align with other sites close to the main 3 pyramids. The 3 main stars in the belt are interesting to note, because while the other tars in the constellation are going to shift a lot in the next few thousand years...it's going to take hundreds of thousands of years for these 3 stars to shift out of alignment, and it's likely because they're traveling at the same rate of rotation relative to each other and us. There's lots of reasons why stars don't appear to shift, some shift faster, some shift slower, that all has to do with their positions and rate at which they're traveling relative to us.
4
-
@Truthseeksyou You’re not really understanding the physics of relative motion, with your counter argument of putting a person on top of the moving train rather than inside it. You’re making a false equivalence fallacy and then before anyone can respond to point out your error, you’re just declaring victory rather than listening. I mean...if all you’re here to do is argue and troll people, then that’s pretty sad...why you’d waste your time like that is beyond me, but you do you I guess. But if you’re serious about your question, why not listen and see if you’re perhaps making an error? I understand many here are being pretty rude and impatient, but you’re really not being very civil either, so can you really blame them?
The trouble with your counter (and what some are trying to point out and help you with), is that the air outside the train is not moving relative to the train, it’s moving relative to the Earth, so of course there’s going to be a lot of drag force occurring there. This is a false equivalence, because it’s not representative of your question. Your original question was, how can a helicopter hover over a surface that’s moving at 1000 mph, then land back on the same spot after an hour? The answer is because of conservation of momentum and relative motion, everything is moving relative to Earth in that example, so it’s all maintaining the motions of the Earth.
Relative motion is easily demonstrated, by simply testing motion, within a controlled inertial system of motion, like the inside of a moving vehicle, not outside (though it can be tested outside as well, you’re just introducing more drag force, because the air is no longer moving relative to your vehicle). Think about this way, if we’re trying to test a system that’s claiming everything is moving together in a relative system of motion, wouldn’t the best test for that be another system of motion, where everything is moving together relative to that system? The moment you decide to put the experiment outside, you’ve now takin away/changed a variable you’re trying to test and account for, the air is no longer moving with your system of motion, it’s not moving relative to it, so this example is now not representative of the model you’re trying to test. This creates a false equivalence, because the air on Earth is moving with the Earth, so it’s more accurate to compare Earth to the inside of a vehicle, not the outside.
This is always a pretty frustrating topic to chat with flat Earthers about, because instead of listening and learning the lesson it teaches about the physics of motion, you create the same false equivalence, and completely miss the point...then you just declare victory before anyone has a chance to properly explain your error.
Many of us aren’t trying to be difficult, you have a great physics question here, but you’re trying really hard to find ways to ignore the answer. Relative motion and the laws of conservation of inertia and momentum, are how the helicopter is able to hover in place, move with the surface, and then land back in the same spot. This physics is known, understood and used by scientists and engineers around the world, it’s a fundamental law of physics and it’s an applied science. It’s the same exact physics that explains why you can toss a ball back and forth inside a plane travelling at 500 mph and the ball will keep up with plane and glide through the air with absolute ease, as if you were throwing it around in a park, never once flying to the rear like a bullet. Earth’s motions are more comparable to the inside of the vehicle, not the outside. I hope that helps.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@kingyordens364 Much easier to fold up a map and stick it in your pocket, than carry a globe around, wouldn’t you say? Also a lot more flat paper around to write and draw on, how many blank spheres you got kickin around to do cartography work on? And for any local area you’re travelling around, a city or local county, the curvature would be so gradual (takes 69 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth), it would be basically flat from your perspective, so much easier to just map it flat in sections. But every map is based off the standard WGS84 globe model, the latest world survey data…that’s a fact, not an opinion. Our entire system of navigation is built from that knowledge and measurements as well, lines of latitude equal distance for two hemispheres, and lines of longitude running through two poles.
So is that really the argument you’ve put all your chips on? Maps are flat therefore Earth is flat? 🧐
Learn to navigate dude…anyone can learn at anytime, it’s not difficult, plenty of free classes online. If you think the system is false, go ahead and try navigating anywhere by plane or ship, without using the current system of navigation to help you do it. Go right ahead…see how far you get.
Flat Earth is a con…get a better bullshit filter.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The hell you talking about? The Greeks were some of the first people to discover the Earth was spherical...that’s why the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes assumed a Globe during his famous Sun shadow angles measurements to calculate the circumference of the a Earth. It was already well established by them that Earth was a sphere...and it wasn’t hard to deduce, just observe one sunset...then try your damndest to make sense of that on a Flat Earth...doesn’t fit with reality very well.
Also, not sure about your education, but in high school science labs we weren’t just told how things work...it was also demonstrated to us. Maybe you didn’t pay attention in physics, biology, or chemistry...but that’s your problem, not the rest of ours.
Fact is, real people are out there inventing, innovating, engineering and navigating the world around you...they can’t do any of that successfully with junk science. That’s just a fact, not an opinion. It’s fine to question things, but please don’t make such ignorant arguments that assumes the rest of us are just as ignorant as you are.
4
-
It seems harmless on the surface, and it is pretty harmless for an individual…but get enough of them together, people who can vote on policies, then you have a problem that starts to effect society. Fact is, when it comes to the physical sciences of how nature objectively is and how it operates, we can’t do anything with false knowledge here. The shipping industry that imports and exports everything…can’t do that job, if they don’t really know what shape the Earth is and how big it is. You start getting a majority to believe the Earth is flat…suddenly they’re forcing schools to teach that model in school, becomes pretty confusing when they then leave school and try and do something that requires accurate knowledge on Earth’s shape. Would probably stop them from pursuing those careers entirely, so now you have a confused adult who can’t really contribute much to society in any impactful way, it sets society back as a whole.
We’re already seeing that happen with Creationists. How many kids from deeply religious families, who were taught creationism in school, could have gone on to revolutionize medicine…had they been taught the proper science?
It seems harmless at first…until it becomes a majority position, or even just a large minority within a society, whole communities, then these fringe ideas can effect society through policy changes…which can potentially set society back.
Gotta look at the big picture, you don’t just allow an infection to fester, you treat it before it gets worse. I know that’s a crude analogy, but Flat Earth is symptom of a deeper problem brewing in (at least) western society today, so we’d be best not to ignore it. I’d agree ridicule probably isn’t the best approach, but it can be effective to push these kinds of movements into echo chambers where they won’t spread further. It’s not really a long term solution though.
Improving and adapting our education system to the modern misinformation machine of the online world today, is probably a better long term solution. Or updating the internet to filter misinformation better…but that’s a slippery slope, for a society that tries to avoid censorship.
Anyway, it seems harmless yes, but I think we’d be wise not to ignore it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Lords of science? Seems you have a bit of bitter resentment towards science for some reason. I’d be careful with that, it can develop into a bias, a bias that can cause you to reject clear evidence, just out of spite for the source of the evidence.
In my experience so far with Flat Earth (nearly 4 years over hundreds of conversations), flat Earth is conning people here with what basically amounts to a mental slight of hand trick. It works like this, present people with some math and make a claim that it is accurate for Earth curvature and long distance observations, then present an image of an object seen at long distances. Use the math you provided to make a calculation, that number won’t match with the observation, make a claim that we see to far, then ask the viewer why the Globe doesn’t work.
See how it works? It keeps your mind on the claims being made, that being that “we see too far” because “the math doesn’t work”...which keeps you focused on those claims instead of thinking about the details. Important details like; are the equations used for the math actually accurate for the observation? Were the figures used in the math correct (heights, distances, locations, etc)? Did they account for every variable in their math and observation?
The con works, because most people don’t have the kind of time to really go into the details, and most also aren’t very math literate...as long as you give them an equation, many will just assume that it’s accurate and won’t question it. Most people have no idea how to check a math equation for accuracy...and even less ability to derive their own equations. It’s just jargon to many people, so not hard to show them an equation and claim it’s accurate...very few will question it. I shouldn’t have to tell you though, that if you use the wrong math for the wrong job, you will reach a false conclusion...so it matters that you make sure the math is accurate.
So I find Flat Earth commits 3 errors, in pretty much all long distance observations they make. 1) They use the wrong math, typically the 8 inches per mile squared equation is the worst offender, but there are others. 2) They fudge the details, provide incorrect distances, viewing heights, locations, etc. 3) They ignore variables, a huge one being refraction...refraction is real, and will absolutely extend your viewing distance, which is why Flat Earthers will often make observations on hot humid days where refraction index is much higher.
Here’s a blog breaking down the correct curvature math to use https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ they’ve compiled things into a handy calculator you can find here https://www.metabunk.org/curve/.
If you’d like to learn more about refraction and why it’s important, here’s a quick video demonstration I find illustrates it perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t To learn even more about why it’s an important variable not to ignore, just read the second half of this report where it goes into depth on refraction http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Image 31 and 32 are what you should see from this report, if you wanna see the effect refraction has at distances.
Lastly, it’s not hard to lie on the internet...so it’s important to get the correct details (distances, heights, locations, etc). A couple months ago I was reviewing a claim by a Flat Earther, he claimed he could see every inch of a 150 foot tower, from a beach at 6 foot viewing height, that he claimed was 20 miles away. Doing the math for his claim, he was correct, all of the tower should not have been visible from that distance and observer height. But, pressing him for further details, I learned his exact location and found the tower he was viewing...and it wasn’t 20 miles away, it was actually only 8 miles away. Doing the math again with the true distance, and made a big difference, only roughly 12 feet would have been obscured. So he either lied, or wasn’t aware he got the details wrong...but either way, does that help illustrate my point here? It’s incredible what people can get away with...if you let them.
So I hope that helps provide some further insight on things. You don’t have to believe me, but next time you take a look at the “evidence” from Flat Earth of long distance observations they claim are impossible on a Globe...be sure to check their work and don’t just listen to it blindly.
4
-
Jesus...how can people spend so much time looking at the science of the Earth and still miss and ignore so many variables? He makes a lot of empty claims in that video and dazzles you with a lot of half truths and math...but do you ever stop to realize, that he didn't do a single experiment that helps to verify any of his claims? Like his main claim at about 5 minutes 40 seconds, where he states "...the spin of the Earth is powerful enough to smoosh the ball, yet we can't measure even the slightest force of pull toward the equator". He's of course talking about the centripetal force that Earths rotation should generate if it is spinning, that has made Earth bulge slightly wider at the equator. He makes a claim here with absolute certainty, that we have never measured any centripetal force on our planet....and then offers NO EVIDENCE for that claim. Do you ever stop to realize that?
Here's an experiment that anyone can recreate, that measures the centripetal force of the Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t It's a simple experiment, if Earth is rotating, then it should generate some centripetal force that will negate a bit of gravity, which will cause objects to weigh slightly less, the closer to the equator you go, as the centripetal force becomes greater the closer you get to the Equator. He first calculates by how much, breaking down the math for centripetal force calculation, then he makes a prediction graph for his experiment. Upon testing each location, he finds that objects do weight slightly less the closer he gets to the equator and not only that, they match with his prediction graph.
So his claim that it has "never been measured" is bullshit, as this experiment above verifies. Here are two more examples of this experiment being conducted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t
https://youtu.be/agQnj1q2Y08?t=383
This is a common conspiracy nut slight of hand trick. Dazzle you with half truths and a seemingly well put together demonstrations, show some math but never explain or break it down, and then provide ZERO experimental evidence that helps to support ANY of the claims being presented. It's just empty claim after empty claim...and you suckers eat it up every time.
EVIDENCE is all that matters...get a better filter, this video is exactly how these fuckers con you.
4
-
4
-
4
-
8 inches per mile squared is a basic equation for a parabola…not a sphere. It also does not represent line of sight, it has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, perspective, refraction, and many other variable importance for the observation. So no wonder the math doesn’t work….you’re using the wrong equation. Pretty simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion. Here’s where you can find the correct math you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
The Bedford Level experiment upon all peer review, has been shown to match the globe. The original conductor of the experiment (Samual Robotham) was just deeply biased, and so he only ran a sloppy version experiment, designed only to confirm his bias. It stands as the perfect example for why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors due to bias, cognitive dissonance and lying.
Here’s a modern recreation the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. The conclusion here is quite conclusive, the Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
4
-
4
-
Yup, not even close. That equation isn’t even for a spherical curvature, it’s for a parabola, so eventually it’s not even gonna curve it’s just gonna shoot straight down. It also has no variable for height of the observer, which is pretty important, cause as everyone is aware, you can see further the higher you are, so viewing height is a pretty important variable. 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t represent line of sight either, it’s from a tangent line at surface, so I mean if your eye is resting directly at surface it might come close…but of course that’s never the case.
Other important variables it’s missing are horizon distance, because line of sight is always looking down, so horizon actually rises up in your field of vision, which forms the horizon dependent on viewing height…from there is where the drop really begins for your field of vision, at horizon. And that’s just a couple purely geometric variables to factor, then there’s refraction, which is pretty important to factor. Light does not travel straight in atmosphere, it refracts through atmosphere, causing what we see to either rise or drop, depending on the refractive index for that time and location. So this can greatly effect what we see at horizon, it can often help us see further, especially over water where humidity increases air density, which is what causes refraction.
So ya, the equation they’re using is absolutely wrong for what they use it for….then they wonder why the numbers don’t fit the observations. It’s basically a sleight of hand trick, clever misdirection, they conned a lot of people with that math…because they knew most people are not mathematically literate enough to check it for accuracy. If it interests you enough, here’s where you can find the correct equations for these observations https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. You’ll notice it’s a lot more extensive, than just a simple parabolic arc equation.
4
-
iq O And always when flatties can’t logically replace or argue against gravity, they just say it’s density, and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. It’s not that simple I’m afraid...just making empty claims, is not how you falsify science. How exactly does density know which direction to fall? What is putting that dense matter into motion? Why down? You go all the way down the thought process of Density as your replacement, the answer you’re eventually left with is “it just does”. Well great...if science concluded everything with “it just does”, then we’d still be in the bush figuring out how fire works.
You require a force to put matter into motion, density is not a force and buoyancy does not occur without the downward acceleration of matter. Remove that downward force, and buoyancy displacement does not occur, proven again and again with density columns in zero G environments. So you’re not really thinking this through very well. Density is not a force...it has no means to put matter into motion, it’s just a property of matter...how much matter occupies a given space, that’s all it is. When you drop something, it is put into motion...it’s common sense that a force is required to do that, because nothing just moves on it’s own. So the question is, what force? Density by itself has no answer. It’s that simple.
Flat Earth loves to cherry pick science, but you sure don’t understand it all very well. Thermodynamics has to do with energy...not matter. It’s energy that is being dispersed, and matter tags along for the ride, but when the energy in upper atmosphere is dispersed and weakened (in this case kinetic energy), it can no longer carry the density of that matter, and so gravity wins and pulls it back to surface, and the cycle continues. Entropy will win eventually, it always does, some molecules of hydrogen and helium are lost to space every day, but it’s a slow gradual process that’s gonna take a long time. What you’re forgetting is that entropy can be slowed, you do it all the time with a simple thermos to keep your coffee hot. But when entropy eventually wins and the coffee is cool...did the coffee exit the thermos, or was it just the energy? I shouldn’t have to tell you that answer, I’m sure you can figure it out. I hope you understand thermodynamics a bit better now. Gravity does just fine holding our air to surface....denying gravity exists, is not an argument against it, it’s just plain ol’ denial. You are grossly misunderstanding entropy and thermodynamics, in your conclusion of atmospheric pressure.
So here’s the problem, you ignore established physics when it suites you (gravity), and then cling to and butcher it when you think it supports you (entropy). So you are scientifically illiterate layman being taken for a ride by con men exploiting that insecurity you have for this reason, and you are bias researchers, starting with a conclusion and gathering only the evidence that supports it, instead of looking at ALL the evidence and forming a conclusion from that evidence. Not a good combo. You think you’re smarter than everyone else...but you learned everything you’re talking about from a YouTuber...who likely had ZERO credentials, who is just as scientifically illiterate as you are...and you just repeat what they say verbatim and then call the rest of us sheep? It’s incredible. xD
Here’s a question, if you believe atmosphere is held in by a container...where is it? Why haven’t we discovered it yet? It is a physical barrier is it not, so where is it? What evidence do you have for it, other than a butchered understanding of entropy? Why haven’t we reflected or refracted lasers off of this dome yet? Why haven’t we done the same with radar, like we do with the Moon to gauge how far it is? Why do weather balloons sent to upper atmosphere eventually pop, like they would in vacuum conditions? So is there a vacuum between our atmosphere and this dome? How does that work under your idea of entropy exactly? Just sayin, you people demand so much from the scientific community...but don’t think YOU should be held to the same standards of review? What makes you think these strangers on YouTube, who you listened too blindly and without question, have actually falsified 500 years of established science? What makes you think they’re telling the truth?
See we have evidence and experiments that verify gravity, experiments anyone can recreate (Cavendish, Eddington experiment, drop tests, etc.). We have measured it, calculated it, derived it and we use it in applied sciences, like putting satellites into orbit....while you have NOTHING, but a broken understanding of entropy. Yet you believe this dome exists anyway...and you people say the rest of us are indoctrinated? You listened blindly to con men on YouTube, feed you bullshit science and believed them without question....now you repeat it like the good little flat Earth soldier you are. Good job.
Let us know when flat Earth science is used to invent, innovate, engineer, navigate, discover anything. In the meantime, get a better bullshit filter and stop listening to con men feed you bullshit science online.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
“Johnny, in the first half you proved earth is flat…”
No, he shared an example of an inconclusive experiment, that any person with even a basic understanding of physics can see is inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Which fits the topic of the video perfectly, Flatties actually can’t see why that experiment is flawed…so it displays what we’re dealing with here, stupid people. That’s why some people become flat Earthers…they’re stupid.
“There are engineers and scientists working their ass off to write technical documents using math and physics to prove earth is flat”
Name one accredited scientist that’s working towards that.
“No physical devices like rockets or satellites defines the shape of the place we live in”
Ok, but they sure do take nice pictures and videos of it don’t they, confirming what all our observations and measurements have been telling us for thousands of years already. You might be fine with ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your biases, but the rest of us sure aren’t going to do that. Satellites exist, they’re in space as we speak, taking pictures and adding evidence to the mountain of evidence that was already there.
Science doesn’t care what shape the Earth is, they just need to know it’s shape, so that they can make use of that knowledge in applied sciences like navigation, communication, infrastructure, etc. Even in engineering, like rockets and satellites, which make use of orbital mechanics, which is a whole branch of mathematics and science that is built on the foundational knowledge, that Earth is spherical and produces gravity at a centre of mass. Your intentional ignorance does not change the facts of reality, like that Earth is spherical.
Get a better bullshit filter, flat Earth is an online hoax, built by conmen and perpetuated by their victims. At the very least, you should consider that very real possibility.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@UrbCrafter Well, a laser at 50 miles has more than just refraction to deal with, it also has to deal with diffraction, which no laser in existence can overcome. Yes, I’m saying there’s always a standard refraction. Of course it fluctuates, but it’s always there, so it has to be considered in every observation…especially over water, because again, the air density is greater over water, and typically cooler, which causes light to refract downward, causing distant objects at horizon to appear to rise up. Just saying, it’s a very important variable, effecting both observation and lasers. So it can’t be ignored. I can’t verify your observations, if you claim you hit a house at 50 miles across a body of water, alright, but I’m certainly not going to believe you without some evidence to support it. Not hard at all to lie online, happens a lot, so I don’t take any claims at face value. I would hope that’s pretty understandable.
No, I’ve seen enough to know it’s not flat, I’ve reached a conclusion long ago, after seeing the evidence. If I have an agenda, it’s to dispel what I feel is extreme misinformation, a hoax spread by conmen and perpetuated by those they’ve successfully conned. Even one Sunset is enough to verify that for me, and I’ve seen the data as well https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0. Just one of many examples. So why exactly do those sunlight angles work perfectly on the globe model, but never converge on the most commonly accepted FE model, the Gleason map? That’s not just a coincidence.
I’m also curious if you’ve ever travelled far South, anywhere to a location in the Southern Hemisphere. Ever seen the second night sky of completely different stars, or the second celestial rotation of stars around their own polar axis? How exactly does a flat Earth, with one sky, have two celestial pole rotations? That’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe, as are sunsets…the model accounts for them perfectly, with no effort. The flat Earth however…can’t account for either.
I’ve travelled a lot too, both hemispheres, I’ve seen enough to understand that flat Earth simply does not fit the geometry. And I’ve reviewed enough long distance observations now to realize the Flat Earthers are always in error somewhere, math being the biggest culprit. So I’m sorry, but I’m not just going to ignore all that. But, just like I can’t confirm your claims, you can’t confirm mine, so it’s a bit moot really. I’d suggest next time you’re in the far South though, take a camera with you, something capable of long exposure shots…see the second rotation for yourself. There’s more evidence for the globe than you have been led to believe…I didn’t reach that conclusion lightly, neither did science.
4
-
No, but people who seem to think Admiral Byrd was a Flat Earther are lying to you. That's classic cherry picking and confirmation bias, taking words out of context, and spinning your own interpretations upon them, to support a bias narrative you have. Misinterpreting what people are actually saying and then ignoring when people correct you. It's bias research...and the sooner people realize that, the sooner they can stop themselves from falling into the scam.
Stop lying about Admiral Byrd or at the very least, stop listening blindly to the people making claims about his work and many other peoples work. Tesla was not a Flat Earther, Byrd was not a Flat Earther, Augaste Picard was not a Flat Earther, Captain Cook was not a Flat Earther, etc....stop cherry picking and start looking at the full context of things, rather then the bits that Flat Earth snips out and presents for you with their bias spin on it.
4
-
Well he briefly explained why, but I suppose a few more details is warranted there. The original Bedford Level experiment conducted by Samual Robotham (Parallax) is deemed extremely inconclusive. He used the wrong math, made only one observation, used only one marker (proper experimentation requires many data sets), he did not consider important variables such as height of the observer, and he ignored effects such as atmospheric refraction, etc, etc. So he conducted a very sloppy experiment and made a lot of false claims, that his experiment did not actually verify. It’s basically the scientific equivalent to a sleight of hand trick; keep your eye on what he’s claiming, and ignore the actual details.
Upon peer review and proper recreation of the experiment, this experiment actually verifies Earth curvature, not the opposite. For a very recent recreation, check out the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it’s quite thorough and its conclusion is far more conclusive.
I hope that helps. Take care.
4
-
The topic of this video seemed to be more interested in why people come to believe Earth is flat, a discussion of the ideology, not so much the science. This isn’t really a science channel either, so not sure why anyone would expect anything more. Sometimes it’s just interesting to discuss the psychology or thought processes of a group mind set, seemed pretty clear from the title, that was more the point of this video.
Unfortunately, it is a bit more difficult these days to find videos discussing the science of this topic, so here’s a few channels I’m aware of that you could check out.
CoolHardLogic - has made a video series going through much of the core arguments, providing sources to good counter evidence.
Voysofreason - pretty similar to CHL.
Professor Dave Explains - same thing, with more of a focus on pointing out the many flaws of the FE model.
Bob the Science Guy - goes deep into the science and mathematics of Earth science, with demonstrations and thorough explanations.
Wolfie6020 - a commercial pilot from Australia, and an amateur astronomer, he goes deep into the topic of navigation and provides many astronomical observations.
Sly Sparkane - not sure of his background, but probably the best channel for recreating experiments and creating 3D models that put the geometry of each model to the test.
Jos Leys - a mathematician, who makes some very simple 3D simulations of the geometry for both models.
Soundly - a photographer who has worked with accredited professionals of engineering and science, to conduct curvature experiments and make observations of curvature.
Walter Bislin- not sure of his background, but he’s done many experiments testing Earth curvature and has created some of the best free curve simulation programs online.
You want answers, these are some of the better channels on YouTube tackling the actual science. I wouldn’t expect much from channels geared more towards presenting a few quick factoids and opinions, for mild entertainment purposes.
4
-
4
-
Boy…you’re not kidding when you said you’re not qualified in any way.
1. Rockets use liquid oxidizers as part of their engines, it adds oxygen to the fuel, keeping it ignited in vacuum. Most common oxidizer used is liquid oxygen, look it up sometime, it’s basic chemistry.
2. No hot air balloon can reach 23 miles high…the furthest any weather balloon can reach is roughly 100,000 feet, which is about 18 miles, but those aren’t hot air balloons, they’re helium or hydrogen gas balloons. Any hot air balloon for passengers, barely gets a mile off the surface…go much higher and the air becomes to thin. So get your facts straight please. You likely saw footage from a weather balloon, but look again because you can see curvature. It’s slight, but it’s there. To see it much clearer, you still have to go a lot higher, 20 miles really isn’t that high, compared to an Earth that’s 8000 miles in diameter.
3. The smoke from a steam train is making contact with the surrounding air, which is not moving with the train at the same velocity. So that steam and smoke is being slowed by drag force, air resistance. So you’ve made a false equivalence, our atmosphere rotates with the Earth, so it’s more comparable to a cigarette smoke rising straight up in a moving car with the windows up. It will move with the vehicle…go ahead and try it sometime, it’s a great demonstration of conservation of momentum.
4. A rotational motion isn’t going to cause parallax, so that’s a terrible way to determine depth. Wait six months when Earth has orbited the Sun to its opposite side, then look at the stars again and compare them to 6 months prior. You’ll see a lot of stellar parallax then…which is how astronomers determine their distances.
This is why you really shouldn’t reach conclusions on a subject, if you’re unqualified and under educated on the topic.
4
-
@alexanderhugestrand Oh I’m no expert of GR, so apologies if I gave that impression, you probably know more about GR than I do honestly. I largely agree with your point, I was just pointing out that science should be viewed as more a tool and its findings as more a collection of current knowledge and understanding that’s free to be updated as we learn more, rather than an infallible institution with all the answers, that can never be questioned.
I’m knowledgeable on general physics, but my experience is more in astronomy. Nothing accredited, just as a hobby making my own observations. I’m aware of a few recreations of the Eddington experiment, the most recent I’m aware of that was published for review being one from an amateur astronomer and retired optical physicist Donald Bruns, done during the 2017 eclipse. He made his observations and data available for public, I’d share the link but YouTube doesn’t really allow outside links anymore. Just search ‘Gravitational Starlight Deflection Measurements 2017’, the paper is archived on arxiv dot org.
As for your other quandaries, I would say Quora is a better place to ask those questions, you’ll find actual accredited physicists to help you out there.
Anyway, hope that’s been helpful.
4
-
4
-
Lol, what are you talking about? I’m a digital artist, so I happened to have a good grasp on spacial geometry and the laws of perspective, and I’m an amateur astronomer who’s travelled the world, so I’ve made observations all around the globe, like the southern stars for example. Many of the people I’ve seen chat with you, are also hobbyists/experts in other fields, like Frankie the mouse, pretty sure he’s a sailor, with knowledge and experience in actual navigation. He can elaborate more if he’s reading this. Many others I’ve noticed over the years are engineers, pilots, physics teachers, mathematicians, etc. You’ve been chatting with experienced experts Yester...so don’t kid yourself.
But even if we were all just “skateboarders and gamers”, we’re still RIGHT at the end of the day...sooooo, if that’s what you choose to believe, then it’s worse for you, cause it means your arguments are so flimsy, you’re being proven wrong by average joes. xD
4
-
"Did the pilot use a gyroscope on the ball?"
All pilots make use of gyroscopes on their flights, they make up many of the instruments they use to help them fly safely and efficiently, one being the horizon indicator.
"How does a gyroscope work on a ball?"
What kind of question is this? Gyroscopes work on anything...doesn't really matter where they are, they will function.
Here's a better question to ask "if the Earth is curving, how does a gyroscope used on these planes curve with the Earth if gyros remain rigid in 3D space?". There, now that's a good question, the answer is they make use of what are known as pendulous veins. What these do is make use of gravity, to drop hinges on the gimbles on the gyro, that allow air inside to let a sensor know the gyro is out of alignment. A motor then kicks on to provide a torque, that resets the gyro level with surface, until the hinges fall back into place. These hinges open when the gyro drops out of alignment due to curvature or precession. Do some research on pendulous veins, mechanical gyros used on planes in their equipment, make use of these to remain level perpendicular to surface, and they make use of gravity to do it.
I think what you're really asking though, is whether this pilot took his own gyro on a plane to see if it tilts with curvature or not. Well, you'd have a problem again, because all mechanical gyros have friction issues they can not overcome. This friction in the gimbles causes a torque on the gyro which causes a precession, which basically means they fall out of alignment naturally over time no matter what. So even if he did bring his own gyro, there is no mechanical gyro in existence that can overcome friction precession, so the gyro would tilt eventually no matter what...and when it does, how would you be able to tell which is occuring? Precession or curvature? I'm afraid it's not that simple.
4
-
4
-
@rolandgerard6064 In just a few hundred years we’ve taken the Wolf and created chihuahuas…something that has more resemblance to a small rat, than it does its majestic cousins the Wolf. So what do you mean it’s not observable? We see evolution everywhere, from the bacteria that keep changing and resisting medications, to the vast differences in species evolved specifically for their environments, to the vestigial anatomy left over from a previous time in their evolutionary chain. We also observe it in the fossil record, as the further back in time we go, the more primitive the lifeforms, with no overlap. It’s a physical mechanism of biological life, we see all the time…it can even be simulated…so why would we ignore something so blatantly obvious? 🤷♂️
Look I get that some would love to ignore the science and pretend it doesn’t exist, because it gets in the way of some fantasy they want to believe so very badly, but studying evolution has led to many advancements in medicine, as well as in bioengineering. So it’s proved to be quite useful…and that’s the whole point of science in the end, to unravel the mysteries of reality, so that we can apply that knowledge for our benefit. So the study has proven useful, what has denial ever achieved?
In any case, simply stating it’s not science, is just an empty argument. You’re likely not a biologist…so you’re not qualified to make that assessment, but you could at the very least provide a reason for why you’ve reached that conclusion, and a reason for why you think anyone should take it seriously.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@JessiQT17 The Moon takes on the colour of the sky, because we have to look through the atmosphere of Earth before we see the Moon. So it’s exactly like looking through a coloured transparency paper/lens, everything you view through that filter is going to take on the colour of that transparency. The atmosphere works the same way. So if I was to observe a person around a campfire, their back is black and blends in with the blackness of night, does that mean their back is see through? If I view them through a coloured transparency/lens, and the blackness now takes on that coloured hue…is this evidence that I’m seeing through them? 🧐 Seriously…where’s the logic in your argument?
How does that make the Moon a plasma? Plasma doesn’t maintain a rigidity that’s constant…there’s not craters on the surface of any plasma, that remain in the exact same orientation. The Sun is a hot plasma, and it’s surface is constantly shifting because of it…the Moon looks the same every night, with craters that are in the exact same positions every night…so clearly not a plasma.
No, Moon light is not colder…I know of the experiment you’re referring too, and the reality here is that Flat Earthers didn’t think to include a control for their experiment. So they didn’t properly isolate the variable they’re testing…so the experiment is deeply flawed.
Control experiments are a crucial part in good experimentation practices, because they help you isolate the variable you’re testing in the hypothesis. Their purpose is to remove hidden variables, that could also be the cause of your results. So in this example, a good control experiment to include, would be to conduct the same exact experiment on a night when the Moon isn’t out, like during a New Moon phase, where it’s not casting any light. So, same exact set up, a thermometer in open air, and one under something. If you get the same exact results, colder in the open than when under something, then it wasn’t the Moonlight causing this…it’s likely something else. Plenty of people have recreated this experiment, and have included a control such as this, Greater Sapien is good example you should check out. He got the exact same drop in temperature, on a night when there was no moonlight. Meaning it’s not the Moon causing this effect…it’s something else. The most likely candidate, radiative cooling.
So no…this isn’t a fact, you people just don’t know how to conduct a proper experiment. It’s also pretty dumb just on the physics alone…because all light is essentially energy. There’s no such thing as cold energy…energy is the source of all thermal heat, in the entire universe….it’s physically impossible for light of any kind to be cold. That would break thermodynamics laws…it’s just not logical. The Moonlight isn’t cold, you’re just bad at doing experiments.
No, they say the horizon begins at 3 miles if you’re standing at 6 feet viewing height…go higher in elevation though, and that extends. I’m sure you’re aware of how seeing over a hill works…climb higher and you can see over it, Earth curvature works the same way, go higher and you can see over the curvature. Any pictures you’ve seen of seeing hundreds of miles away, be sure to check what the observers elevation was…I bet you every time those observations are made from a few hundred feet in elevation.
So no…it really just proves how dumb you people are.
Zooming in on an object and bringing it back is just demonstrating the vanishing point effect. Your eye has a limit to how small it can resolve a distant object, that limit is called the vanishing point. A telescopic lens can magnify and resolve light from MUCH further away, meaning it can see beyond your natural vanishing point. But eventually, objects in the distance reach a point where no amount of zooming in will render it visible…this is when you know an object has reached the actual horizon. If you can zoom something back into full focus, then it hasn’t reached horizon yet…it’s that simple.
So again, you were just conned by a parlour trick. There’s plenty of observations you can find, where tens to hundreds of feet are missing from the base of ships and buildings, and thousands of feet are obscured at the base of mountains…no amount of zooming in will bring them back.
Watch those weather balloon videos again sometime, find one that doesn’t use a fish eye lens, then pause the video when the horizon is in the centre of the frame. Then hold a ruler up to that horizon…I guarantee you’ll see curvature.
Richard Byrd was not a flat Earther, he made no reference to a flat Earth or a dome.
Operation Fishbowl makes no reference to a dome either…have you even read the report? I’ll be willing to bet you just read the title then got a brief description. It was a nuclear test in upper atmosphere, to see how nuclear warheads react in upper atmosphere. When developing any new weapon, it’s pretty important to test it in as many environments as you can, to find out how they operate in these environments. They detonated 6 warheads in this experiment, and learned a lot about the effects. They learned that the radio blackout/EMP effect travels much further, as does the radioactive fallout. Pretty useful information to have, they now have knowledge of more creative uses for nuclear weapons. Like if you want to severely cripple an enemy, without destroying their cities and infrastructure, a nuke detonated over a city at higher atmosphere, is a good way to do that.
That’s why they conducted those experiments…there’s not a single mention of them trying to hit a dome, go ahead and actually read the report sometime, instead of blindly believing the paranoid speculations of an extremely biased group of numpty’s, who can’t read very far past a title.
You’re being fed misinformation my friend. Speculations, empty claims, bad science, bad math, misunderstandings, cherry picking, and in the worst cases straight up lies. Sure, they have a lot of it, but that doesn’t make it true. A mountain of bullshit is still bullshit at the end of the day. Get a better bullshit filter.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@streetsurvivor687 Well, first of all, the Sun is actually 109 times larger than Earth...that's what science says about it and the entire scientific community agrees, because it has been measured many times, in several different ways, all giving that same figure.
"How come the Sun gives light to the Earth but outer space is dark?
"
Because there is nothing in space...no molecules of air to reflect and scatter light, so nothing for light to bounce off of and back to your eye. The only light you will see from space, is the direct light from the Sun. The atmosphere though is different, there is gas in our atmosphere, molecules of matter for light to bounce off of before it reaches your eye. This is why the atmosphere appears blue, what you're seeing is the air essentially, all of Earths atmospheric gasses being illuminated by the light from the Sun, that bounces off of every molecule of air it hits and then scatters through that atmosphere illuminating it. There is no air in space, space is empty, so all you will see is the absence of light...which your brain interprets as black darkness.
Make sense? It's just how light works and how your eye interprets that light. This is one of our first bits of evidence that tells us space is mostly empty. From what we now understand about light and how our eyes work, this is exactly what we'd expect to see with a space void of matter.
4
-
4
-
@TheOricine Typical deflection when the pressure is on...good job.
One unanswered question can collapse it? Ok, if the Earth is flat, why are there two celestial poles, each with their own constellations and rotation around their own pole star? Why do the stars drop to horizon at a consistent rate by latitude? How does the tip of Africa, Australia, and South America all see the Southern Cross (two of which can even see it at the same time), if Earth is flat? How do pilots and sailors successfully navigate a flat Earth, while using the heliocentric model with two equal hemispheres? How does the sun set, if line of sight is never geometrically blocked? How does a Lunar eclipse occur, if nothing comes between the Sun and Moon? How do the shockwaves of every 8.0 Earthquake or greater circumnavigate the Earth and return to the epicentre? How does the South hemisphere get the same 24 hour midnight sun phenomenon in Antarctica as the North Hemisphere? How exactly do you hide simple geometry from 8 billion people, many of which are experts in fields working directly with that geometry?
Just a short sampling of questions we could ask of FE. You really think the model you’re supporting is air tight do you? I’m sure you don’t...I would hope you are well aware of these problems you have for the model you’re looking to support....I’m sure you’ll agree, even despite the many problems, you’re not about to give up on your model...now are you?
No...probably not, because you don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water because of unanswered questions. Often times, it’s more your own ignorance, that is the reason you THINK those questions are unanswered to begin with. Just because YOU don’t personally know the answers to the questions you have, does not mean they can’t be answered. I’m sure you have many ad hoc answers for the questions I shared just now for your model...the difference is, can you prove them? I could go through every one of your questions, I can answer them all, AND provide the evidence that supports the conclusions I have reached...but who has that kind of time?
Stop being an insufferable troll deflecting the argument when you can’t answer something...stay focused for a moment, stay on one topic long enough to at least CONSIDER where you might have gone wrong, actually LISTEN to what we might have to say or show you, you might learn that you’re in error...which could save you from falling into an online scam.
Up to you really. You’re being very unreasonable up to this point...and it’s likely because you’re scared to learn how you could be wrong.
4
-
4
-
@TheOricine Another misunderstanding. Aeronautics manuals (as well as any research paper), often simplify math equations, by removing variables that are not required, for the task they’re attempting to solve for in certain sections. When they do this, they have to state very clearly in the summary sections, what variables will not be included in the math to follow. For example, if they’re attempting to solve a problem for the vehicles wind resistance capabilities, variables like shape of the surface and Earths motion are redundant and just over complicate the equations. So they will remove those variables to simplify the math...when they do this, they have to tell the reader what variables are not being included. They do similar math simplifications, when running hypotheticals for a comparisons sake.
You’ll often find them worded like this “for this next section, we will be ASSUMING a flat non rotating Earth”. Key word there, “assuming”...they are math simplifications, not meant to be interpreted literally.
This is another example of cherry picking, looking at the words...but not understanding the context for which they’re being used. Another perfect example of how FE has fooled layman...who have no idea how to read and interpret those papers.
4
-
@squidly2112 Not sure why you’re getting so upset here, can we have a conversation without the insults? If I’m wrong, I don’t mind, but it seems you sure seem to mind. And you’re still throwing a lot of jargon at me without citations. There’s a lot of context you’re skipping over within those numbers you’ve cited; without any reference to where you got that information, I certainly can’t know for certain if your conclusion is accurate, or extremely biased, or fabricated. So it’s a bit pointless to mention them without sources or citations, so please stop with the numbers if you’re not going to provide citations, or I’m just going to ignore them. Because without a source, I have no way of knowing if it’s real…and you can’t expect me to blindly agree to something I can’t verify, pretty common sense I feel.
What I do know (or at least my current understanding) is that atmosphere traps (keeps energy in the system for longer) solar energy for a time, not indefinitely, it just acts as an insulator for the planet, recycling that energy back into the system (not creating new energy, just transferring SOME of it back in)…that’s pretty standard knowledge I feel. You’re making an argument that it doesn’t work that way,, which is the first I’ve heard of it. You can say it doesn’t…but even you agree convection is a thing, and it requires pressure. So it’s just odd how you can both agree convection requires pressure (which requires matter, including gases), but also think atmosphere doesn’t effect temperature. Those are pretty contradictory I feel…convection is proof that gases can and do insulate, it proves that gases do effect temperature.
Your argument with the black box at surface and then on top of a mountain is a pretty odd choice for your point as well…I’m sure you’d agree mountain peaks are quite cold year round…wouldn’t you agree? They also have far less air pressure. Ever consider there’s a correlation? 🧐 Almost like air density has an effect on temperature. Are you trying to argue that mountain peaks are actually as hot as desserts…because a black box (another thing you could provide a source or citation for) reads the same temperature? Ever consider it’s just measuring the direct solar energy, and not the actual surrounding temperature? Here’s where a citation cones in handy…cause maybe you overlooked something, so it’d be nice if I could review this experiment myself. But in any case, so why are mountain peaks cold? To my knowledge, it’s because the air pressure is lower…which lowers convection. That’s how I currently understand it…I don’t mind being wrong, but please explain how it actually works then, I don’t mind.
This is why I mention convection, because it’s a common misconception —among groups like Flat Earthers especially— that the Moons surface is “hot”, because the temperature is high. The argument being, that astronauts should burn up, and the lunar module should melt, because the temperature is so high…but this argument ignores something that’s required for both, convection, which requires pressure. So there’s a confusion here between the difference of heat and temperature, you’re right. The Moon has basically no atmosphere…so the surrounding temperature is actually very cold, because without atmosphere, convection can’t occur. Hence why nothing burns up or melts. That temperature is a measure of individual molecules and the direct solar energy…but without an abundance of molecules, convection can’t occur.
Also, from what I understand, the magnetosphere protects atmosphere from being blown away (as you mentioned) by solar winds, doesn’t have much to do with the actual temperature of the planet…the atmosphere however, does. You’re point doesn’t refute atmosphere effecting temperature, it’s more like a clever misdirection…ya, I know the magnetosphere helps protect atmosphere, how exactly does that refute that atmosphere insulates a planet? 🤷♂️ You’re not doing anything to falsify that atmosphere is directly responsible for a planets surface temperature…you’re actually doing more to verify that it is. And if you’re trying to argue that water vapour is more responsible for greenhouse effect (you’re right, it is) then how is Venus still incredibly hot…even though it has no water? 🧐
I worked on a rod truck and a service rig, and as an apprentice in industrial pipe insulation, so I’ve worked for the energy sector too…doesn’t make me an expert on the physics of energy. So what exactly do you do for these energy companies? Why do you think I should be rattled by simply mentioning you’ve worked for energy companies? For all I know you were a fucking janitor.
If you are more knowledgeable on the subject, then great! It means I could possibly learn something, and I’m all for that…not sure why you gotta be a dick about it though. :/ Currently I’m seeing contradictions in your points, and you’re not doing a very great job of clearing up those contradictions, or my confusion, whichever it may be…it just feel like you’re trying to win, by burying me in jargon, in hopes I’ll eventually go away. So less jargon please, unless you’re gonna provide citations. Would be nice. I don’t care if I’m wrong, just trying to have a discussion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@squidly2112 Alright, it felt as though you were getting huffy with me actually, so my apologies if I misread your actual expression. I am interested, that’s why I’m still here talking to you. But what you’re saying goes against something I’ve always understood as a standard about our planet’s temperature, that atmospheric density plays a big part in the overall temperature…gases, working like a greenhouse glass, trapping solar energy. You’re the first I’ve heard to argue it doesn’t, so I’m just trying to understand your argument, as well as question it.
It just makes sense to me, solar radiation interacts with gases, reflecting some of it away from Earth, as well as absorbing some of it into atmosphere, and causing a latency, as you put it. It makes sense to me that if you were to increase the density of certain molecules, it would trap more heat (not saying it’s trapped indefinitely, that’s not how I’m applying the word), causing an increase in overall temperature. Not consistent rise that rises exponentially or even a substantial rise, but just a slight increase from normal levels, which for us can cause problems.
I don’t see a contradiction of thermodynamics here, the energy isn’t being created or destroyed, energy transfer is not completely stopping; more solar energy is being contained from an increase in certain gases in atmosphere, essentially being recycled, that is all. It’s my understanding that every gas interacts with solar energy, that all matter does, so it makes sense that an increase in certain molecules would act as a sort of shield, deflecting solar energy back to surface (back radiation). Increase the density of that shield, trap more energy…seems rather simple to me, and makes sense.
So you have to understand, my understanding is the standard that most people I feel also have come to understand about the issue. I’ve never heard anyone try and argue that atmosphere doesn’t have an effect on a planets temperature…and you’re still not doing much to convince me it doesn’t. I am not a scientist, I’m just your average joe, with a base understanding of general physics and a lifetime of working in various trades…so if you are a scientist then great, help someone from the general public understand your argument here. I’m not saying I’ll outright agree, but it is interesting.
Though it is odd to me that a scientist wouldn’t share a source. This black box experiment obviously has a name for the experiment, something I could search…I don’t feel it’s too much trouble to share at least a name.
4
-
@squidly2112 You’re calling it a “global warming cult”…for what other reason than as an insult? Sooo…am I missing something? And I feel you’ve been pretty condescending, which is also insulting. But it’s fine, engaging in online debate or conversation requires a thick skin, I accept that and I can take it, just wish it wasn’t so prevalent. But I get it, I’m certainly not free from my ego either, so it’s unavoidable really.
In regards to the “global warming cult” comments though, that’s not being entirely fair. It is scientists who have warned us that we may be causing a warming effect that could be catastrophic…so are we in a cult, or just doing our best to navigate information that SCIENTISTS are giving us? I’ll tell ya, insulting people is not a great road to convincing them. From the general publics perspective, we’re just doing our best to trust that scientists are doing their jobs, that the information we’re receiving is accurate…so if you really are a scientist (though I don’t really believe you are) then blame yourself I guess? 🤷♂️ And the way I see it, if the hypothesis of global warming is wrong, then we lose what…exactly? But if the hypothesis is correct, but we don’t do anything about it…then we’re fucked. So it seems perfectly rational to me that the public would choose the safer option…even if it’s found to be in error later, better safe than sorry.
In my own experience, I can’t help but notice that forest fires have been increasing, in my area lately…and it’s been like this for over a decade now. We’ve now come to expect it, every year in the Summer we have a smoky season now…where air quality and visibility are low for (sometimes) months at a time, because of more extreme and more frequent fires. In the nearly 40 years I’ve lived here (Central Canada) I don’t remember our summers being like this, until recently. And it’s not just here, California, Greece, Australia, the Amazon (and that’s just from the top of my head) have all being experiencing far more extreme fires over the last few years, I’m sure you’ve watched the news on these events. So…I’m inclined to agree the Earth is warming, the increase of fires was part of the warning signs we would expect. Whether it’s man made or not, it’s happening, I don’t think it’s irrational or stupid in the slightest to investigate further, I’m sure you’d agree. The difference is, if I’m wrong, we don’t lose much of anything…if you’re wrong, then we are fucked. Either way, still not stupid in the slightest to investigate further…so you calling it a cult is just childish. We are right to investigate further, regardless of which side is right.
4
-
@squidly2112 Okay, so short wave radiation from Sun, long wave radiation from surface. So first of all, are you saying long wave has a net loss in energy? I’d agree, you’d lose energy not gain from surface, surface certainly isn’t providing more energy than the Sun. But, it doesn’t really matter, cause you’re not really getting it. I’m going to simplify a hypothetical as best I can; lets say we have 5 rays of long wave radiation (just humour me, I know that’s grossly over simplifying it), will a system be warmer over all if 2 of those rays are sent back into the system (back radiation) or 3? Obviously the latter, right? More energy, means more thermal energy overall, right? The argument of greenhouse gases is that less energy is allowed to escape, whether it’s short wave from the Sun or the long wave from surface, I feel that’s irrelevant…if less energy is allowed to leave, but more energy remains, that’s going to cause a rise in overall temperature, right? I’m not seeing how your overall point refutes this. The point is that at one point in time, our atmosphere allowed more energy to leave, rather than linger…now it doesn’t, because certain molecules that can cause a return have increased.
Also, it’s not like 100% of short wave radiation is absorbed by surface, a lot of it is reflected directly back up…especially by our ocean. So a portion of the energy reflected back by atmosphere is originated by the Sun. It’s a very complicated and nuanced system…hence why much discussion and sharing of information is required.
I also didn’t say atmosphere was the primary factor, I do not think in absolutes. I think we both could benefit from not assuming each others points too much. It’s a complex system, with many different factors. Obviously direct solar energy is the origin and a huge factor…but I don’t think it can be denied that atmosphere plays a big role in surface temperature. You said very clearly in a previous comment “gases can not insulate”…yet all an insulator does is traps energy for longer…and that’s exactly what atmosphere does. Soooooo…by extension, gas in abundance is very much an insulator…atmosphere is proof of that.
How is thermodynamics being violated? Energy is still transferring just fine…nothing is being created or destroyed, only kept around in greater abundance for longer, allowing for more convection and conduction.
4
-
4
-
Alright, I looked it up, the Rocket launched near Reno Nevada, July 14th, 2014, at 7:32 am. I put all that information in at time and date dot com, under there section for Moon light visibility, and it places the Moon over Fiji…not Indonesia, which is about 6000 km East of Indonesia (yikes, really stretched it there didn’t ya 😬). The Moon was visible in Nevada according to the visibility layout on time and date. Soooo…swing and a miss there. Did you think nobody would actually check? 🧐 Ohhhh right…cause we’re not actually “looking into it” like you are, I forgot…we’re the ignorant ones according to you. 🙄
As for the Moons apparent size, you know that cameras have different focal lengths, right? Which actually makes it very difficult to determine actual apparent size from a single image or video. The Moon is actually pretty small when we view it from Earth, your brain just tricks you sometimes when it’s closer to horizon, because of an optical illusion known as the Ebbinghaus illusion, aka size perception illusion.
Soooo…nope, not a checkmate…not in the slightest. But your intentions are clear now…you’re just trying win, even though at this point you have to know you’re wrong, you’re still trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. 🤦♂️ Human psychology is so fascinating…you’d rather double down on a false conclusion, rather than accept you’re wrong and have been duped.
As a bonus, look up the Yo-Yo Despin mechanism sometime, it’s how rockets like that stop their spin mid flight. The thud you hear is from the mechanism firing, you even see the cable in a few frames of the second camera, verifying the despin mechanism. It uses conservation of angular momentum to stop the rockets spin, pretty simple physics actually, you can test the physics on a a spinning chair with weights in your hands. Spin the chair, then fan your hands out with the weights, you’ll spin slowly, bring your hands in you’ll immediately spin faster, bring them out again you’ll spin slower. Shoot a weighted cable out far enough, and it would stop your rotation almost completely…using basic physics.
Get a better hobby dude…
4
-
@bensonmofo “…but we do know that the Earth is not a spinning, wobbling, tilted ball of water and land…”
But…in a previous a comment above you agreed that there are valid experiments with gyroscopes that have detected and measured Earth rotation, which also further confirms Earth’s spherical shape. So are you just ignoring those experiments now…after basically agreeing they exist and are valid? 🧐 The gyrocompass is used today on most modern sea vessels, and those devices use the Earth’s rotation as part of their function. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Are you so deep down the rabbit hole you’re willing to ignore anything that contradicts a belief you have? Why exactly? 🤷♂️ And why would you think we should bat an eye at your arguments here, if it’s clear that you don’t mind ignoring evidence, in favour of confirmation bias?
If you truly think Earth is flat, then go right ahead and try navigating across any vast ocean, without using the current global coordinate system to help you do it. Go right ahead, see how well you do. With how many Flat Earthers there are, why have none done this yet? Surely one of you has a ship or plane, or at least the resources to charter one. Don’t really even need to put in that much effort though, could just test the 1 degree consistent drop of Polaris to horizon every 60 nautical miles traveling South, or vice versa, the consistent rise going North. That would not occur on a flat Earth, and it doesn’t take much knowledge of geometry to understand why.
Flat Earthers don’t understand physics as well as they think they do…and that tends to be the real problem. But you don’t have to understand the physics of how it all works, a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations is all you really need to falsify flat Earth, and verify the globe. This is not a debate anymore.
4
-
@Vkarlsen Cavendish experiment is quite repeatable science, so not sure where you got the impression it wasn’t. Even grade school students often repeat it with just a few house hold supplies, and there’s countless examples online of people repeating it, so I think it’s pretty ignorant to say it’s not repeatable. If you disagree with what causes the attraction, that’s fine…but the experiment itself is repeatable, and clearly demonstrates an attraction.
Static attraction is pretty easily falsified by several factors. It effects different materials differently, electro static can and will also repel and this is never observed, and you can absolutely place the experiment within an apparatus that negates static and electromagnetic attractions, like using a Faraday cage or screens. And the experiment will work regardless of the materials used.
Here’s a great recreation that uses boxes of sand with bottles of water, with a faraday screen placed between them https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. The attraction still occurs and he even demonstrates the effectiveness of this screen in negating the static attraction. So what’s causing the sudden oscillation?
I’ve heard a lot of attempts at falsifying the Cavendish experiment, but most just bring up the same static attraction argument…without realizing the experiment already accounts for this variable. So I’ve not heard a valid falsification yet…and again, it’s very easy to repeat the experiment, so I don’t understand the ignorance on that.
4
-
@zquest42 No worries, I’m not too fond of attacking people for religious beliefs they hold. This is mostly a discussion of science, of physical reality and how it functions, which is more my knowledge base where I can offer insights, so as long as the chat stays in that realm for the most part, then we can have a good discussion I feel. Many flat Earthers do try to “prove” flat Earth with scripture though and that is where you’ll lose a lot of us, cause we’d rather focus on what we can physically test and see. It’s the same reason I don’t like arguing the moon landing conspiracy or faked space...cause I can’t test much of it directly for myself, I can mostly only speculate. I try to draw a hard line between speculation and evidence, but again, I won’t condemn anyone for having religious beliefs, I can’t prove or disprove God, so I stay out of it for the most part...just starts to lose me when the Bible is used to argue science is all.
It’s good to be cautious, and I’m sure you have been. I just know how tough it can be to overcome bias, and a strong distrust in authority is a powerful bias. It causes one to put more value on the source of information, rather than the information itself...which isn’t a good mind set to have I feel, if you truly want to be objective. It is harder and a longer process to absorb information from sources you don’t trust, but it’s a requirement to remain objective unfortunately. I’ve always used this piece of wisdom to help with that “it’s the mark of true intelligence to be able to entertain an opposing idea, without necessarily agreeing with it out right or at all.” I can’t remember who said that exactly, but it’s how I like to remind myself that the information should hold more value over the source, in the process of objective analysis. We all have our bias and what sucks most about them is we’re often not aware of them. Judging by your points made so far, I do feel you tend to overlook or simplify information from the systems of authority you distrust, possibly creating suspicion where there is none. Which is pretty normal really, I think we all tend to do that with things we distrust...but it does create a bias.
As for the flat Earth society, I understand that it’s been completely excommunicated from the core flat Earth movement, seen now as merely a controlled opposition, and who knows really...they’re sure not doing much to fight that claim. But, at least they have an answer/replacement for gravity that’s actually grounded in some physics...where I feel the core of flat Earth with their “density and buoyancy” argument, really don’t have much going for them there. That explanation just keeps everything about gravity they like and then cuts out the parts they don’t...in the end, it just creates more questions, cause it’s taking established science and, basically cutting it shorter...it’s not very logical, it’s just arrogant, forcing the science and ignoring large portions of it to make it simpler...which isn’t being objective at all, objective doesn’t mean you just get to cut out the parts that are inconvenient for you, that’s not how it works.
The electromagnetism argument does a better job, except it ignores the fact that science already considered this option and has long since falsified it. There are hundreds of different ways to falsify electromagnetic attraction as the true force that keeps us to the surface, so it takes a lot of ignorance in basic physics to reach that conclusion as well.
Anyway, though I’d agree the Flat Earth Society is just as nonsensical, they did take Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and worked it into their model in a clever way, that does actually do more to answer for the gravity problem the rest of flat Earth struggles with. Not to say it’s a perfect answer however, it’s just as flawed when you really get into it as well, so yes, I do agree it’s just as ridiculous in the end.
But yes, feel free to share any experiments or conclusions you’ve reached so far, I don’t mind offering some further insight from the opposing perspective, if you’re interested to hear it still.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That wasn't the point of this video...it's pretty apparent from the title, that this was just intended as a discussion on HOW and WHY people fall for this particular scam. It is a psychological analysis of the people who believe in Flat Earth, not a video that delves into the science. He shared those two experiments in particular, because they best illustrate how people fall for this con job...by being lazy and scientifically illiterate. Both the level on the plane and the Rowbotham Bedford level experiment are examples of inconclusive experiments, but for some reason people still think these experiments prove a Flat Earth....so he shared those examples, to illustrate how scientifically illiterate people fall for scams online....by being fooled with inconclusive experiments like those two.
Some of us have reached the conclusion that Flat Earth is a scam, now we're looking for discussions that break down HOW and WHY people fall for that particular scam. So if you are still looking for evidence on the subject, then this video wasn't made for you. I suggest looking up these content creators, if the science is what you're looking for. Sly Sparkane, Wolfie6020, Soundly, Walter Bislin, just to name a few.
3
-
@opxchaos5757 Now, I’ll let you know of some problems I see in his explanation. Continued from part 1.
So he compares the Southern star trails to crepuscular rays, making a claim that it’s an optical trick of perspective that causes the second rotation. First of all, the stars are not seen as beams of light like crepuscular rays, so right away they have no real similarity to crepuscular rays, so he’s made a false equivalence fallacy. Second, do crepuscular rays converge to a point in the opposite direction and form a second visual Sun? No, that’s never observed in the real world. This is relevant because he’s basically claiming a mirroring effect of the sky, but if the stars are mirroring, then why wouldn’t the Sun? The stars are just as bright in the South as they are in the North, so why doesn’t the Sun exhibit a similar perfect mirroring effect? You could say it’s because East to West doesn’t do that, for some reason, but no, the stars are just as bright in the East as they are in the West also.
Also...this mirroring effect doesn’t really correlate with reality, because the stars are completely different in the South...it’s not a carbon copy of the North. For instance, Sigma Octantis (the Southern pole star), is not actually visible to the naked eye, where as Polaris is one of the brightest stars in the Northern sky. If it were mirroring, wouldn’t you at least expect pole star to be just as bright and visible? Then there’s the trouble of all the other constellations that you can’t see, while looking in each direction. You can’t see the Big Dipper in the South and you can’t see the Southern Cross in the North, just to name some examples. Again, if the perspective convergence is causing a mirroring effect, wouldn’t we expect to see the same constellations?
I’ve confirmed this for myself, I’ve travelled the world, I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere on two different continents now, on several occasions. As an amateur astronomer, I even joined a group photographing the star trails, during one of my visits to New Zealand. I’ve confirmed it, the night sky is different.
His explanation would suggest the stars would have to be perfectly mirrored...and they’re not.
So there are lots of holes in his explanation, that just do not fit with observed reality. Meanwhile the globe geometry fits and explains the observation with absolute ease. I imagine your trouble with the globe model is all the extra motions, the orbit around Sun, around galactic centre, etc, but we’ll get to that in a bit, I’d just like to focus on P-branes explanation a bit more for now.
FE likes to employ perspective a lot, when explaining things like the Sun and the stars, but they make perspective out to be this magical trick of optics that we can not test on a smaller scale or simulate in 3D...and that is a lie. I’m an artist for a living, let’s just say perspective is something I would consider myself an expert in, as perspective is an art fundamental that I’ve been studying for most of my life. It can be easily scaled down and tested, as well as simulated to scale with 3D software...the rules of perspective are not magic, they’re pretty easy to simulate. If they’re going to claim it’s perspective causing the effects we’re seeing, then why aren’t they doing more to actually test that?
So that would be the next step for FE, because like I said earlier, all they have here so far is a hypothesis. If you want to be a scientist someday, then this is important to know, you can not reach a conclusion from hypothesis alone. That’s not how science works. The next step is to test the hypothesis, you should not reach a conclusion until you’ve at least tested your claim. That can be done pretty simply, with either a physical scaled down recreation experiment, or with a 3D rendering of the model proposed.
P-brane claims the southern rotation is a trick of perspective, ok, then why doesn’t he simulate it or model it? He created not to scale visual aides, sure, but never once does he attempt to actually model the perspective to scale, to see if the perspective actually fits with reality, in an actual test. Yet he reached a conclusion anyway. Why would you think that’s good enough? That’s the problem I have with FE...I feel you tend to jump to conclusions a bit prematurely.
I shared two videos above, that conducted a digital experiment and a physical experiment, demonstrating how star trails work on the globe. Those demonstrations were then compared to real world observations, and they were shown to be a match in both. So does there exist similar demonstrations of the flat Earth “perspective” argument? P-brane certainly never made the attempt, so his video is merely the hypothesis. Doesn’t matter how much more it makes sense to you, it’s still only hypothesis, so you should not reach a conclusion from it. So let me know if there are actual modelled demonstrations of the perspective, otherwise, there’s really no reason to conclude his explanation as even plausible.
Now, it’s important to keep in mind that a single demonstration does not prove the hypothesis (the globe included), but it’s at least a start. What I’m getting at, is that FE has to start doing better. People like P-brane and Eric Dubay present hypothesis...but that’s about it. Yet people reach full conclusions anyway. That’s not very scientific, hypothesis is just the start...so FE has barely even begun.
Now, I’ll provide a few more points that support the Globe hypothesis. At some point in the video P-brane makes the claim that perspective would eventually drop Polaris to 0 degrees, where it’s now touching horizon, of course this would be at the Equator, because that’s what we observe in the real world. Ok, but there’s a problem with this on the FE model, because the drop of Polaris to horizon is consistent by latitude...that’s how sailors have used Polaris to find their latitude for centuries. See, perspective doesn’t work the way he’s claiming, he’s claiming that even on a flat Earth the drop of Polaris to horizon would be consistent by latitude. But in reality, on a flat surface, that drop would not be consistent, the apparent angle would drop less and less the further away you got. What I mean is, at first the drop would be quick and more apparent, appearing to drop towards horizon at a quicker rate as you travelled away from Polaris, but the further away you get, the drop would begin to slow, coming closer to horizon at a decreasing rate of apparent angle drop. Which is a problem for the FE model, because that geometry does not fit reality, Polaris drops at a consistent rate to the horizon in reality...so P-branes explanation of perspective causing Polaris to drop to horizon, doesn’t work, because if the surface were flat and Polaris never actually moves, then the drop would not be consistent. Do you see the issue here?
The same applies for the Sun, because FE also likes to employ perspective when explaining how a Sunset occurs. But have you ever seen the flat Earth Sun perspective modelled in 3D before? Here’s a fellow who thought to model it https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM. See how the Sun never quite reaches horizon? Notice how it also doesn’t travel at a consistent rate? These are real geometric problems, for the FE conclusion of perspective.
So here’s the problem as I see it, and I can’t stress this enough. FE hasn’t proven their claim of perspective, they’ve just slotted that answer in and called it a day. When you actually challenge this claim by actually putting perspective to the test, you find there are many problems they are ignoring, when it comes to perspective. They are ignoring some pretty fundamental rules of perspective, it simply does not work the way they are claiming it does and testing it yourself quickly verifies that. The stars drop consistently by latitude, this is something we’d expect to occur, if the Earth were spherical, the geometry fits. Here’s a pretty simple diagram https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle. You can even test the geometry pretty simply, with a globe and a camera, it checks out. Meanwhile, the Flat Earth model continues to have problems.
That being said, if there are any actual attempts to physically test this perspective claim, feel free to share. I’ve seen a few, but none so far that I would consider unfalsifiable.
Feel free to respond and offer some rebuttals, I’m really curious to understand your point of view here. Perhaps you can help explain a bit more, what it is about P-branes explanation that you feel is more convincing. I’ve explained why he doesn’t convince me, because it’s simply not good enough, he barely has a hypothesis from his explanation. That’s my feelings on that, and typically that’s always been my problem with FE, jumping to conclusions before actually testing them. Not in every case mind you, but in this one for sure.
Anyway, feel free to respond. Again, this was in no attempt to delve into the other motions, it was merely a focus on the basic geometry of the surface. I can delve into the motions of the planet and explain how they would not effect the star trails, in a separate comment.
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
-
@drvincentthomas68 It’s fine to disagree, I wasn’t expecting to change your mind of anything, just pointing out some glaring issues I am personally seeing in your arguments. It’s also fine to question established science, in fact it’s actually the one thing I admire about Flat Earth, but you’re being a bit of a hypocrite, if you somehow think that YOU are somehow the exception, acting as if you’re infallible and we shouldn’t question you. You think we’re blind and never listen? Try arguing with a Flat Earther...seriously, for a group claiming to be more open minded, you sure shut those minds off tight when anyone attempts to challenge your claims and offer some information you might have overlooked.
I think you do it more out of spite, because you have a strong distain and distrust of modern science, a great deal of contempt for scientists. But, to be fair, if the conclusions of modern consensus don’t add up for you, then by all means, continue to question anything you don’t feel is accurate. Just don’t expect others to turn a blind eye to your claims, expect that when you make claims, they will be challenged. Respect that we have reached our own conclusions, that we feel is accurate, through our own research and experience, and you might find a more engaging conversation. Respect our intelligence and others may respect yours in return. Keep your mind open and consider the possibility that you may have overlooked something, and we might do the same.
I wasn’t trying to force you to accept what I was saying, just sharing some information, up to you in the end what you do with it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ZighyBlue Don’t suppose you have pictures or video you can share? But no, doing the math it works pretty well. Including even just a standard refraction, you’d see the lighthouse just fine, and we all know refraction is much higher over large bodies of water. So it’s completely possible. This is the math I use for these observations https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. There’s a great section on refraction as well, which is always present, especially over water https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/.
My next question I suppose would be if you see the light itself or just its beam? Shouldn’t have to tell you that a light houses beam of light would diffract through the air and be visible for several miles beyond seeing the direct light source itself. But no, this does not invalidate the globe. If it was 100 km distance, then perhaps, but your distance, height of object, and observation height work out just fine.
3
-
3
-
“The Mayans were advanced mathematicians and astronomers who never doubted that the earth was flat.”
How do you know that for certain? Cause a documentary on YouTube told you that? Are you an archeologist or historian? Even if they did believe the Earth was flat, so what, they were clearly wrong. You don’t think ancient civilizations could be wrong? What is it with people romanticizing ancient civilizations and thinking after a few ancient aliens documentaries, that now somehow makes you an expert on these cultures.
“Remember that water seeks its level and the surface of water is always flat.”
Flat to YOU because of how tiny you are in comparison to Earth, it’s basic geometry and perspective. And water doesn’t “seek level”, it seeks lowest possible elevation. On a sphere, lowest possible elevation is towards centre of object, gravity works the same way, pulling to centre of mass, which forces water to seek that centre and form around it, it’s surface then maintaining equipotential distance from that centre. A bubble does the same thing, so does a water droplet thanks to different forces squeezing them in towards a centre (pressure and surface tension). Spheres are the most rigid shape in nature, because the surface is at equal distance from a centre...gravity is a force that pulls to a centre, and so that force can and will keep water at equipotential distance from centre. If you want to even begin arguing here, you’d have to first successfully falsify gravity...and good luck with that.
“Don’t forget that it would be impossible for a layer of air (“atmosphere”) and vacuum (“outer space”) to exist side by side.”
And yet, it does, so not impossible at all really...we’ve seen it, we’ve measured it, a misunderstanding of basic physics doesn’t make clear observations and measured science just go away. Even Flat Earthers have sent weather balloons up into near space, and the balloon pops due to being in vacuum conditions. Soooo...YOU people have already measured the vacuum of space as well, and it’s right next to our atmosphere. But wait...first you claim you don’t agree in the idea of a “dome”, but then you make the “atmosphere can’t exist next to a vacuum” argument? So what’s holding in atmosphere then by your logic? Are you even listening to yourself?
I think you’ve been listening blindly to way too many conspiracy and flat Earth docs on YouTube bud. They’re feeding you a lot of really bad science and you’re just nodding and agreeing for some reason. None of what you’ve shared is evidence of your claims, they’re just speculations and misunderstood physics.
Here’s some real evidence for you, give this an honest look over. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
What you have above are misunderstandings and assumptions. Can’t do much with either.
3
-
3
-
3
-
All good questions, so I don’t mind sharing some information that might help answer them.
The Van Allen radiation belt is really not all that harmful to life, especially with proper shielding, which is achieved pretty easily with simple materials. It presents an increased risk to certain cancers over time, but it’s certainly not as harmful as you’re assuming it to be, it’s not going to kill anyone immediately or even guarantee cancer development later in life. So a crew can pass through this field just fine, it just increases risk a bit, but luckily they don’t have to spend much exposure time here, they can pass through it pretty quickly. The larger problem we face today though, is the harm it does to our more sensitive computing systems today, microchips, magnetic strip data storage, that kind of stuff. See this wasn’t a problem during the Apollo missions, because the systems were all analog, which weren’t damaged by strong electromagnetic fields. So this presented an engineering challenge, because they’re gonna want more advanced systems so they can achieve more on their missions, but they kind of need everything to work without failing, so new computer innovations needed to be developed. Which fun fact is largely why we have better solid state technology today, which currently makes up your phones hard drives.
They didn’t lose all their data, they lost the telemetry data for a few Apollo missions, that’s about it. Telemetry data is really only useful in the moments during a mission, it helps the ground crew keep the astronauts on course, if they veer off for any reason during maneuvering. It’s really not all that useful after the fact, so it didn’t have very high importance for preservation, once those data reels began to deteriorate. It had some uses for learning more about orbital mechanics and improving future missions launch trajectories, but they’ve got so much data now from probes and satellites, it’s really not very useful to keep those old telemetry data reels, so it was likely a budget cut or two that led to those getting scrapped. NASA is a corporation at the end of the day, if their pencil pushers don’t see any need for spending money where it doesn’t need to be spent, then they won’t, so many things get scrapped like that, it’s pretty normal in any big company.
They can go beyond low Earth orbit any time they want and they are, just look up the Artemis program. The confusion here comes from an old documentary on a lunar module they were designing not to long ago, that at the time couldn’t go beyond low Earth orbit. That was because of the engineering hurdles I mentioned above, the microchips and data disks they wanted to put on the systems, were easily damaged in the electromagnetic fields found beyond low Earth orbit. So, what happened was, people took those words out of context and blew it out of proportion, confusing it as somehow meaning NASA has never been past low Earth orbit...so it’s a classic misinterpretation of what was really said. Get that idea rolling around enough conspiracy networks, all of a sudden it’s remembered as “NASA said it can’t go past low Earth orbit”, see how that works? It’s like a rumour mill, grossly misrepresenting the actual facts, by repeating a misunderstanding enough times, until it becomes truth to many people.
Anyway, let me know if that information helps answer some questions. If there’s anything else you’d like to know, feel free to ask, I might be able to provide more insight.
3
-
3
-
@OSUBucknado We got a bunch of people continuously spreading misinformation online, believing bullshit over facts, happy to trust every word from some stranger on the internet, over actual experts…the hostility is pretty necessary, this spiral of misinformation and pseudoscience needs to stop. Seriously, what has happened to society, that many will educate themselves through memes and YouTube videos, then call that research? 🤷♂️ Did the education system just fail horribly in western culture? Right this very second, there are millions of people successfully navigating the planet, using a system of navigation built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical…you think they’d be able to do their jobs at all, if didn’t actually know the true shape of the Earth? 🤷♂️
I know a lot of trust has eroded for government and systems of authority, but has it really gotten so bad that you’re ready to believe anything the crack pots of the world are saying, without question? You think I enjoy sharing information that should be common knowledge? No…it terrifies me how ignorant the world has become lately. We’re supposed to live in the information age…but it’s more like the misinformation age now, where fear, distrust and paranoia rule, where people are happy to believe anything, so long as the government didn’t say it.
The age of the crack pots we used to all laugh at…great, can’t wait to see how that plays out…what are they credited for inventing or accomplishing again?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, I feel it actually matters a great deal, and I’d rather not take that knowledge for granted, because we all benefit from it more than many seem to realize.
Also, we are a part of nature just as anything else is, creating things from the materials provided by nature, so quite literally nothing is “unnatural”. Are ants or bees, who also build their own mega structures for survival, anymore natural than us? No, it’s all part of nature. We just do it on a grander scale…that’s the only difference, but it’s all natural my dude. It’s part of our nature to build, explore and learn. It’s against our nature to just sit in trees and do nothing. Maybe that’s good enough for other species, but we’re not them, so I don’t think it’s good to pretend that we are.
To each their own though, do what makes you happy, but what might make YOU happy, is not the same for all of us. I personally do find joy from creating things, which adds to my happiness. For me, happiness isn’t one single absolute thing, it’s just a byproduct of living my best life. Doesn’t give me license to destroy nature, it’s good to harbour an appreciation and respect for it, I 100% agree, but there’s nothing wrong with learning and creating, it’s a big part of our nature, and for many it does also help their happiness.
3
-
@Nehner Boy, that’s a long way of expressing incredulity. Nothing you spouted in those two novels of ranting, falsifies the fact that motion itself is not felt, we feel acceleration, not motion.
Placing a person outside of a moving vehicle, you’ve now introduced drag force from the air outside that’s not moving with the vehicle at the same velocity. That’s not motion you’re feeling…it’s drag force, the air smashing into you. So you’re making a false comparison…and ignoring the fact that you don’t feel the motion of a 500 mph passenger jet while travelling inside of it. This doesn’t seem odd to you? Why don’t you feel that motion? Why ignore that? Your argument against that is a deflection from the obvious…we do not feel motion itself, we feel accelerations.
This is an undeniable fact about motion…sorry, but no amount of calling people idiots is ever going to change that. Drag force is not motion itself, quite frankly you’re an idiot if you think it is…or if you think we should agree that it is.
The air does rotate with Earth, you then claimed there would be a head wind. But you’re not quite understanding how relative motion works I’m afraid. Try this experiment; get in a passenger jet, once at cruising altitude, start tossing a paper airplane back and forth. With the planes motion or against it…the paper airplane will glide effortlessly in both directions, no 500 mph headwind going against its forward velocity. Also, are you throwing the paper plane at 500 mph? No, obviously not…so how is it keeping up with the plane? 🧐 Maybe because the laws of motion and relative motion are in fact very real. 😳
It’s the same exact physics occurring when the plane flys against rotation…relative motion creates an environment that behaves as though stationary, an inertial reference frame of motion.
So again…you’re just not quite understanding relative motion is all. No amount of calling us idiots, changes the fact that it’s actually you who’s the idiot here…sorry.
And finally we have your pages long word salad, trying to force us to agree that linear velocities (mph, m/s) are more important to centrifugal forces, than rotational velocities like revolutions per minute (rpm’s). 🙄
I can demonstrate how you’re wrong here with one simple thought experiment. Picture yourself in a race car, travelling at a constant 200mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s only 1000 metres in circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force here? Yes, you would, in fact it would be near impossible to stay on the track, the centrifugal force would be so great. Okay, now picture yourself in the same car, same 200mph velocity, but this time the track is 1000 miles in circumference. Would you expect to feel the same centrifugal force as you did on the smaller track? Nope…in fact you probably wouldn’t feel a thing this time, the track would curving so gradually, it would feel almost straight.
So same 200mph linear velocity…different centrifugal force? 🧐 But why? You made such a big deal about linear velocities…yet they don’t seem to have much of anything to do with that force. So what’s really different about the two examples? The rate of rotation, the revolutions…not the linear velocity. In the first example, you’d be completing several circuits every minute, in the second you’d be completing 1 circuit every 5 hours…greatly reducing the rpm’s, which reduces the rate of angular velocity change per second…which is the true cause to centrifugal force.
You even know this…you mentioned it yourself. You mentioned how a carousel or that disk was rotating at 23 rpms…yet when you got to the Earth, you conveniently left out the Earth’s rpm’s, which is roughly 0.000694 rpm’s.
See you’re trying really hard to get us to agree with your incredulity…the core of your claim is that linear velocities are more important to centrifugal force, but any physics student knows that’s not the case at all…it’s rotational velocity that matters in a rotational motion. Earth rotates at 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, which is roughly 0.000694 rpm’s…hence why we don’t feel its rotation. 😳
Scream all you want…you’re not changing the facts, the laws of motion are pretty simple to understand and to verify. That’s why it’s usually the first thing you learn in any physics 101 class…they are without a doubt the easiest scientific laws to verify for yourself.
So…your entire argument is just…stupid, really, there’s no other way to put it. We do not feel motion itself, we feel acceleration. This is a fact, not an opinion.
So I’m sorry bud, but your argument is moot. In all those hours of research…you never once thought to learn the laws of motion? 🧐 Could have saved you a lot of headache.
Conduct these experiments please, then you can argue about whether Earth is in motion or not.
- Foucault Pendulum
- Foucault Gyroscope
- Coriolis drift
- Measuring Earth’s centrifugal force
- Ring Laser interferometer measuring Earth’s motion
Then research the Gyrocompass. This is a navigations tool used on most large sea vessels today, that actually males use of Earth’s rotation in order to function. So basically, if Earth was not rotating at the rate we know it is, then this device would not work as designed. So Earth’s rotation is an applied science today…meaning it’s pretty much undeniable. We are rotating. So look it up sometime, not hard to find its engineering specs and plenty of videos explaining how it works.
Call us idiots all you want…we’re not the ones ignoring simple physics, to make incredulous arguments.
3
-
Navigation is only possible, once you have accurate information of the surface you’re navigating…pretty common sense. The geographic coordinate system used by every pilot and sailor in the world uses the globe model. That is a fact, not an opinion. If this system was using the wrong model, then it simply would not work. It’s that simple.
Evidence for rotation can be found in experiments such as the Foucault pendulum and gyrocompass experiments, the ring laser interferometer, Coriolis and Eotvos effects, astronomy data, take your pick. The gyrocompass is probably the best evidence however; the gyrocompass is a device used on modern sea vessels today, that finds true North (in apposed to magnetic North). It actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. So quite simply if Earth was not rotating, then this device would not work as it is designed.
That’s how you spot true science…..it works. On the flip side, that’s also how you spot junk science and bullshit…it doesn’t work, it reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is. Flat Earthers talk a lot and make a ton of empty claims…but it’s no coincidence that none of them are actual scientists, engineers, inventors, with actual working achievements under their belts. You know how you spot a huxter?
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
-
"People at the beginning of the world did know the world was flat. Helio theory came along later. Round earth is newer."
Yes, everybody knows that...but just because something is older, does not mean it is correct. All that time and Flat Earth still hasn't have a working map or model...how much more time do they need? The people of old were wrong...it's pretty simple.
"How does a ane land ina place if the world is spinning?"
Conservation of momentum and relative motion, the science of motion...learn some physics.
" Earthquakes make sense on a flat earth."
How? What is causing the plates to shift? Are you a seismologist? How much do you actually know about the science of seismology? Did you know that every time an Earthquake hits (which is hundreds of times a day around the Earth), the seismic waves that travel through Earth tell us a lot about the shape and composition of Earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA&t=182s
"How do we have a horizon? Things disappear after a certain distance because we can only see so far."
So why is that when you go higher, you can all of a sudden see further? Why is the horizon at 3 miles when at 6 foot elevation...but get in a plane and suddenly you can see for hundreds of miles in all directions? Seems your "we only see so far" argument has some holes in it. The horizon exists because the Earth is curving away...there wouldn't be a horizon on a Flat Earth. Learn some geometry. Here's how a horizon works on a sphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Vz9r2yWO8&t notice how flat that horizon is at the start while the camera rests on the surface of that very large sphere? The closer you are to a sphere, the flatter it will appear...it's basic geometry and perspective.
"Long story short we believe what we've been told."
You mean like the bullshit you've been told about Flat Earth, from con men online, who actually convinced scientists are lying to you? Meanwhile scientists still create EVERY technology you use today. Can you build your computer from scratch? Can any of those flat Earth "experts" harness electricity and build the electrical grids that power your house? No...but guess who can...trained and experienced experts, scientists and engineers. They're not building this technology with magic...they're using the knowledge and science we have acquired over centuries of hard work, that Flat Earth is now telling you is all lies...and for SOME REASON you are just blindly believing them without question...while meanwhile taking full advantage of that progress. :/
"A compass doesn't make sense on a globe"
Why not? Explain your reason.
"The way sun rays hit the ground wouldn't make sense on a globe"
Have you ever thought that maybe things don't make sense to you...because you're not very smart? Does that ever cross your mind?
Sun rays actually do a lot to confirm the shape of planet. Here's a few great observations and experiments that help to verify what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgFT9Yu0JY
It's actually the other way around...Sun rays when actually measured do not support the conclusion of a Flat Earth, they actually verify a Globe. As those videos help to demonstrate.
"We believe scientists because we're told their the smartest people."
We believe scientists, because their work has brought results. We don't trust conspiracy theorists, because they're paranoid bullshit doesn't produce any results...see the difference yet? You're making use of technology that only exists because of those scientists...you should be more grateful.
"A rainbow proves the dome over it."
How exactly? Provide your evidence for this claim. A rainbow is just scattered light through water droplets...that's why you only see them form after and during a rainstorm. Here's a video explaining how they form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cVX3eq6NUQ
"All the spinning and tilting makes no sense. Why don't we feel it? If you spin around do you feel it?"
Finally, a good question of physics. We don't actually feel motion, it's a misconception of most people that we do. What we actually feel is inertia. Inertia is created by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion...but when it comes to motion itself, we do not actually feel that. We feel inertia. In the case of you spinning, that is a centrifugal inertia, and what matters most about this inertia, is the rate in which you rotate. You feel that inertia when you spin around really fast...because you are making many revolutions per minute (RPM's), which means your angular velocity is changing very rapidly as well...which creates more inertia. The Earth however, completes ONE rotation every 24 hours, so the rate of velocity change per second...is VERY tiny, much less then when you spin around on the spot really fast. So that's why we don't feel that Centrifugal force of Earths rotation.
That last one is a very good question that most scientists ask when they're first learning about the physics of motion. You see...if you didn't have such a hatred and distrust of science, then you'd learn these things...and then they wouldn't be a question for you anymore.
Much of your questions are simple physics questions that are easily answered...if you'd just take the time to research the physics and LEARN it first hand.
"just because they show you pictures and videos don't make it true..heard of Hollywood and fx?"
It doesn't mean they are fake either. To conclude they are fake without evidence to verify that, is called confirmation bias...and it is a fallacy of logic. We must avoid following bias at all times, it will not lead you to any real answers. Scientists know that EVERBODY has bias, they actively practice doing all that they can to remove bias from every conclusion...Flat Earth needs to learn the same, or they will continue to reach false conclusions.
3
-
Because it’s not just about distances, it’s also about what kind of traffic airports are capable of handling. Most small airports can only support international flights, to larger airports. Cape Town is a pretty tiny city, compared to New York…so its airport isn’t gonna be very good. You know planes aren’t magic…they can only operate within designated airports, but not every airport is LAX or London or New York or Hong Kong. They simply can’t handle traffic for every location around the world…certainly not smaller cities either. Make sense? The North has more land, so more cities and population, so the North has more infrastructure, so smaller airports have to reroute through larger networks that can handle the traffic. This also helps economically, as you’ll pick up more passengers in larger population centres.
So there’s logistical and economic reasons for things you have to factor here. That said, how exactly do you know for absolute certain they don’t? 🤷♂️ You could just be making that claim…or the person you heard that from did. I’ve seen a few examples from flat Earthers, where they found flights they first claimed didn’t exist, but then they denied they were real…so it’s pretty dodgy a lot of the time it seems.
I say, learn to navigate if this interests you so much. It’s an entire system built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. So why not learn? It’s not difficult, plenty of tutorials snd lessons to be found online. Then…put it to the test, you just try navigating somewhere, and finding a direct longitude and latitude point, without using the globe model to help you do it…see how well you do.
In any case, you really should stop listening to crack pots online, with zero experience in these things. Not a single pilot or sailor uses a flat Earth model for navigation…so you know, millions of people. That’s for a good reason. But learn to navigate, go ahead, why bother with anything else when you can test it more directly for yourself?
3
-
@1FeistyKitty 1) It’s fine to question, but you’re not disproving those distances with personal misunderstandings…where I come from, if you didn’t understand something that everyone else understands pretty easy, it meant you’re stupid…when did that change? 🤨
2) Then try watching a few from a user called Wolfie6020, he’s made several observations with solar filter lenses on his telescope, getting super clear shots of the Sun, and then he tracks the Sun for a full day. You know what happens in every video? The Sun maintains the exact same apparent size throughout the whole day…then sinks into and under horizon. You’re watching blurry videos, that don’t know how to work an exposure setting to control glare. I’ve seen the same videos, and they’re garbage…and for good reason, it’s how they trick you, it’s basically a parlour trick. Try watching the Sun with a filtered lens…go right ahead.
3) Do this simple experiment for me sometime; get a heat lamp, place it 90 degrees to a surface, place a thermometer under it, take a reading. Now tilt the heat lamp 45 degrees relative to that surface, place a thermometer in its light again, same distance from its centre as it was at 90 degrees, take a reading. You’ll notice the thermometer is cooler when placed in the light at an angle. Why? Because when it’s at 90 degrees, the energy is focused on the surface in one spot, when it’s tilted, that same thermal energy is now spread out over a wider area…essentially dispersing the heat rather than focusing it. That’s how it works on our Earth…the Equator gets more direct solar energy, the poles get that same energy at a far steeper angle…because of Earth curvature.
Don’t forget about the South pole now…they get the same 24 hour Sun during their Summer, in winter Solstice around November. It’s well documented. How exactly does that work on a flat Earth? 2 hemispheres with 2 midnight Sun observations? 🧐 The globe accounts for both very easily, Earth’s axis is tilted relative to the ecliptic, so as it orbits one pole points more towards the Sun at certain periods…we call them the solstices.
4) Ya…cause that’s exactly what they’re designed to do. It’s a pretty simple mechanism really, uses gravity. When the gimbal drifts for any reason, weights on the gimbal drop open, which opens valves, that allow air into a chamber, signalling that they’re out of alignment. A torque is then applied to precess it gently back into alignment. Had you really done your research better, instead of stopping on e your bias was confirmed, you’d have learned about the pendulous vanes. And you tell us to look into it. 🙄 I suggest searching it, plenty of videos on YouTube explaining the pendulous vanes and their function.
And no…we think of curvature in terms of degrees, not miles. It takes 70 miles to cover 1 degree of Earth’s surface, a passenger flying at 500 mph covers that distance in about 8 mins. So it’s pretty easy for the mechanism to do its job gradually over time.
5) Then be more specific dum dum. Flat Earth can’t even account for a Lunar eclipse at all…soooo, not sure how you can think you have a stronger position here. 😄 So you’re referring too the Selenelion lunar eclipse no doubt. Are you aware this only occurs in places observing eclipse slightly before sunset, or after sunrise, so right on the terminator line of Earth’s shadow? Are you also aware that it only occurs if refraction index is high enough for it to occur? So this event actually does fit the Globe model…Flat Earth however, sure have a hard time with the lunar eclipse, and love ignoring that problem by deflecting to a single rare phenomenon…that the globe still accounts for if you actually bothered to research it beyond your bias. Oops. 😄
6) Oh boy. 🤦♂️ Moon phases aren’t caused by Earth’s shadow, that’s a lunar eclipse….you seriously need to learn how Moon phases work champ. Very basic stuff indeed…watch the video I shared in previous comment.
7) You can’t find it…because it’s a lie you made up. And instead of admitting that…you’re now deflecting, back to argument 1. 🙄 You’re a special one…but now I know who conned you, good ol’ Eric Dubay, king of the numpty’s.
8) Ya…cause that’s what it is. 😳 I’m an amateur astronomer who has spent a good deal of time observing planets. Focus the camera/lens right, set the exposure right, and you see the surface features of planets just fine. You’ll even see their shadow phases, sometimes you can catch their moons casting shadows on the surface, some even have rings, etc. You’re an idiot who fell for blurry out of focus video. Good job. 👏
9) Yup…they did, cause you’re all blind leading the blind…you don’t even know that moon phases aren’t caused by Earth’s shadow, so ya, I don’t expect any of you to know how to conduct a proper experiment. I’ve watched several of these “cold moon light” experiments, NONE thought to include a control experiment to isolate the variable they’re testing. A control for this experiment would be to conduct the experiment again on a night when the Moon is not casting light, during a New Moon phase. If you get the same reading, then it’s not the Moon causing this…it’s pretty simple. There is one guy who thought to do this, named Greater Sapien, look up his results sometime.
I’ll address 10 in a separate comment.
3
-
@1FeistyKitty 10) It’s the whole point of science to explain HOW physical reality operates. So ya…it is kind of important to explain gravity and figure out how it works…or else why even bother? :/ You can thank the scientists who agree with me, because every invention YOU make use of today, is thanks to those efforts…from people who felt it’s pretty important to figure things out, instead of staying on the surface of things.
Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume. A force is required for all changes in motion. When you drop something, is it not immediately put into an accelerated motion towards Earth? Yes…is that falling a motion? Yes…does the dropped object make a choice and then use energy to cause that motion? No…okay, so a force is present causing it. Pretty simple. 😳 Basic physics of motion, and the basic defining principle of a force…something that causes a change in motion. We just gave that force a name…cause it’s pretty helpful to label things we discover, so we can all be on the same page when discussing it. Gravity is very real my dude…and you used to know that too, before Flat Earthers (somehow) conned you to believe it’s not a thing, even though it’s the easiest fundamental force to prove….drop something. You have to hit your head pretty hard to be convinced gravity isn’t a thing. :/
Do we know everything about gravity? No…but that’s why we keep digging deeper, until we do…that’s the whole point of science. One thing is for certain, things fall when you drop them…only a force can cause that motion…physics 101. Density is not a force, it does not cause motion, so your argument is extremely ignorant of basic physics fundamentals.
Small masses do attract, all mass attracts other mass, look up the Cavendish experiment sometime. But small masses are gonna have a difficult time attracting, when a much larger mass is right next to them…the Earth. That’s why testing gravity on smaller scales is so difficult…but not impossible, the Cavendish experiment is very repeatable science, so try it out sometime.
Space is expanding, not mass. Why is it expanding? Nobody currently knows for certain…welcome to the fringes of known science. We do not know everything, but that’s perfectly okay.
That’s what tends to happen when you leave gravity to do it’s thing over time. Shake up a bottle of oil, water and sand, then just let it sit…over time, gravity takes that chaotic system and organizes it. Come back to that bottle a few days later, it’ll be back in balance…gravity’s pretty cool huh. 😎 We’re essentially living in the period of time after gravity has cleaned up all the chaos…what’s left over is balance. Takes billions of years, but you know we have simulated this in super computers. Look them up sometime, they’re pretty fascinating.
Gravity does a lot more than explain why things fall…it quite literally explains, everything! What do you think really kicked off the scientific revolution? Once gravity was realized, the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes, everything suddenly started to make sense. It explains why everything in space forms a sphere, shy they orbit each other, it explains galaxy formation, planet and star formation, it explains nuclear fusion and how stars burn, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on.
Meanwhile…a bunch of numpty’s online, who have never contributed anything to applied science, and can’t even work out how moon phases work, think they’re incredulity and ignorance is an argument against reality. 😅 Strange times we live in. And it’s no secret why Flat Earth intentionally denies gravity…because it’s not very convenient for their argument.
Centripetal force doesn’t keep the Moon in orbit…it’s forward velocity does, its inertia. All things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force…first law of motion, known as the law of inertia. An orbit is basically a balance of an objects forward velocity to gravity, causing it to essentially fall around the source of gravity, like a coin spiralling around a funnel. Because there’s no air in space, it means no friction (an apposing force), so unlike a coin in funnel, it’s forward velocity doesn’t slow down, it continues moving indefinitely.
The Moon isn’t the only celestial object tidal locked to its gravity host, it’s actually very common in our solar system. A lot of the other Moons from various planets are tidal locked to their planet…it happens when something orbits really close to a powerful gravity well. Even Mercury is tidal locked to the Sun…and in a few billion years, we will be too. It’s what gravity does over time. I’m sorry if you find that odd, but your incredulity isn’t an argument I’m afraid. Actually though it does wobble, so we do see a bit more of it over time, I believe we see about 58% of the moons surface over a years time…it’s very clearly spherical.
Well…you believe in a Sun and Moon that’s somehow floating above us with…magic I guess? 🤷♂️ Soooo…flat Earth has plenty of things it asks we just believe without any explanation.
11. Boy you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel now. I’ll check it out…but you know I’ve done this too, eyeballed something and guessed its distance from me, only to find I was way off. It’s pretty normal. Fraid it certainly doesn’t cause us to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry bud.
3
-
3
-
Walt Sandford Look man, I have no trouble with people exorcising their spiritual faiths, but when faith alone gets us into space colonizing other planets, let us know. Until then, I’ll put my faith in the scientific method which has got us to where we are today, where this conversation is even possible in the first place.
I have my own spiritual beliefs I cultivate, they can be a strength like no other, but I’m not going to be naive and ignorant about things and claim that mans achievements were just handed to us out of faith. No, that’s just arrogant...we didn’t achieve everything by just hoping and praying, we achieved everything we have today by getting off our knees and making use of some of the best tools God gave us, our minds, our will and our curious creativity.
I just feel it’s arrogant to spit in the face of science...while at the same time, you’re still happy to make use of every technology that method has made possible and provided for you. I get that things are grim these days, lot of misinformation and uncertainties clouding our minds, but maybe put a bit more faith in your fellow man instead causing more rifts and we might see things improve for the better eventually.
3
-
@Globeisahoax Because to get that shot, from the angle required, would require them looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere. They’d also need a camera, capable of zooming in with such precision, that it could visualize a single person, and I’m not aware of any that are capable…especially since seeing through that much atmosphere would make it virtually impossible anyway.
So your argument is stupid Kangen, it’s ignorant to the technology and what would be required for such a shot. But let’s say they could take that picture, and so they do. So they go through all the trouble to appease just a few numpty’s online, and even after all that, even if they got you exactly what you’re asking for, you would just say it’s fake anyway….so what’s the point? 🤷♂️
They already took pictures of Earth, and they continue too still today. It’s spherical in all those photos, that’s good enough for the rest of us.
3
-
Why would they apologize, for something completely out of their control? Maybe you’re not too familiar with how information gathering works, but because we don’t know everything (and likely never will), it means old information will always have the potential to change, as new information is acquired...it’s just the way it is, nothing we can do about that.
So science doesn’t, it doesn’t set out to prove things, it doesn’t operate in absolutes, only in percentages of certainty. It just sets out to collect information, then it compiles a conclusion from all the current data and evidence. New information is coming in all the time, so old information has the potential to be changed from that new data. That’s the way it will always be...science is a long process of refinement. They don’t start with a conclusion, then set out to prove it, they gather evidence and form conclusions from that evidence. They create hypothesis and then set out to FALSIFY it. Science is really all about falsification. If they can’t falsify it, then it’s very likely true...but they won’t conclude anything with absolute certainty, because new information found later might falsify old information. So they can’t conclude anything with absolute certainty, hence why they chose to call their conclusions, theories.
This presents a bit of a problem though, because the general public doesn’t like uncertainty, it demands definite answers. Best science can do, is provide the most plausible answers...so that’s what they do. It’s not their fault society doesn’t understand how things work...so they shouldn’t have to apologize, hence why they don’t. You see it as lying...but no, science is always pretty up front about things, the general public just doesn’t really listen...likely because most people can’t think in nuance and shades of grey, only in black and whites. It’s a problem, but more often then not, they don’t owe you any apologies...learn how things work instead how’s about? Science has provided you with every modern comfort and luxury, from the power that heats your home, to the water that comes directly to you, to the car you drive, to this computing device we’re exchanging messages on, you should be more grateful.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dominiccharvet546 You believe in a literal magical being…that conjured reality into existence using literal magic…and you think it’s the rest of us that believes in magic? 🤨 That’s some powerful delusions you got there bud.
Here’s some basic physics for you; any change in motion requires a force to cause it. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is…so there’s a force present to cause it. You’re suffering from personal incredulity, but even you can’t deny that we clearly observe things falling towards Earth when you drop it…a motion occurs, that’s free from your control, meaning it’s a phenomenon of reality, and it’s the whole point of science to understand how physical phenomena of nature works. To do that, we start with the basics; change in motion requires a force to cause it…pretty simple. They just gave that motion a name, just like they named the upwards motion buoyancy. Makes it a lot easier to discuss these things when we name and label them…what would you prefer they do, ignore a very obvious motion that’s occurring? 🤷♂️ Skip over giving it a label? 🤷♂️ Truly…where’s the sense in that? 🤷♂️
Your other quandaries ignore the physics of motion, namely the laws of motion, and relative motion. Earth doesn’t have any trouble keeping up with the Sun, because everything in motion stays in motion, first law of motion, law of inertia. It’s moving relative to the Sun, so that’s its inertial reference frame. Gravity helps too, but it’s mostly just conservation of momentum and law of inertia. You can test this physics at any time, next time you’re in a moving vehicle, try tossing something straight up…and watch as it goes straight up then straight back down into your hand. But hold on a second, think about that now, let’s say you’re moving forward at 100 mph…if you toss something straight up, how exactly does it maintain that 100 mph, keeping up with the vehicle, to land back into your hand? 🧐 Because all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force…basic physics of motion.
You’re making a lot of ignorant arguments, that you wouldn’t be making if you just learned some basic physics. :/
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ienjoyapples Yes, but they completely skip the process of peer review, which has helped science greatly in removing bias. It’s difficult to see where you go wrong, if you never consider that you can be wrong, that you might have simply overlooked something important to reaching the objective conclusion. Bias is very real, it keeps a person from seeing their own errors, leading them to false conclusions.
We all have bias, and it’s often near impossible to notice our own bias, it’s often only our peers that can recognize another individuals bias. So by ignoring outside opinion, comes with a drawback, flat Earth is currently demonstrating the dangers of confirmation bias, by completely ignoring the process of peer review, just asserting they’re right in every claim.
3
-
@joaopintovb Yup, because it’s testable, repeatable and it works when the knowledge is applied. That’s how you know your conclusions in science are accurate, when you can apply that knowledge, and it works, every single time. On the flip side, that’s how you spot junk science…it doesn’t work, and has zero applications. You can pretend you’re smarter than experts all you want, but they’re currently using this knowledge you feel is BS, to build every technology you use today. You should be more grateful for the work they’ve done, but instead you’re arrogant and ignorant, and take it all for granted, as if everything you have just popped into existence on its own…it’s quite sad. 😔
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think you you're just misunderstanding how gravity actually works and it's that misunderstanding that's leading you to some very false conclusions. Little hard to expand on knowledge, if you don't have the foundations correct...so have you ever considered the error isn't with the model, but really in your understanding of that model? Or do you just assume you have it correct and have never thought re-examine your current knowledge on the subject? After reading your comment here, it's pretty clear to me that you're understanding of gravity is a little flawed and that's why this doesn't make sense to you. My guess is you're the same as most Flat Earthers, thinking that gravity pulls south...and not to center, but hard to tell for sure from just this comment alone. All that's clear is that you have misunderstood gravity, I would need further context to know for sure exactly what that misunderstanding is, but it is your error here.
Planes fly what is called a great circle route, which is the shortest path between two points on a curved surface...so it's not a straight path they're flying, it's a curved path. Here's a video you might be interested in that clearly illustrates what actual flight paths look like when plotted on flat maps of Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUklHodcho The question you should be asking yourself is, if Earth is Flat, then why are these paths curving? Why aren't they direct straight line routes? Why are planes flying these needlessly longer routes? If Earth is flat...shouldn't they just fly straight to their destination? If you watch to the end, he then places those same flight paths on a Globe, showing you what the circle routes are. Much more direct when the same paths are placed on a Globe, and it explains the curved routes...because they are flying over a curved surface. Here's another interesting video on the topic of travel distances you should take a look at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4
Anyway, I don't mind sharing some further insight on gravity. I do feel you're misunderstanding it a little bit and that's why you're reaching the conclusions you currently have.
3
-
Rockets actually work better in space, because there’s zero wind resistance and they’re not fighting gravity. They don’t propel forward the same way as other vehicles, cars use friction, boats propel off the water, planes use air to generate lift, all of these require a medium to move through or on...but rockets instead use the basic laws of motion, mostly the 3rd law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Do you think a gun kicks back because it’s pushing off the air? No, of course not, just like a gun firing, a rocket propels forward by the action/reaction of the gas igniting, the force generated pushing off the walls of the container it’s being ignited from and the tank then also pushes off of the ignited gas...they’re pushing off of each other, using each other to go opposite directions, action reaction...it’s basic physics of motion.
You can demonstrate the same physics with a medicine ball (or even just by simply pushing off something). Toss a medicine ball from chest level with both hands, if you don’t plant your feet, you will feel notice yourself being pushed back as you throw it, essentially pushing off the ball itself, you going one way, the ball going the other. Now pick up that ball again, but this time instead of throwing it, push it against the air as hard as you can...push all ya want, you won’t feel nearly as much counter force on your body, until you throw it.
They even burn just fine, using liquid oxidizers. Space rockets generally have a two part rocket fuel, one part gas the other part oxidizer, there are tons of different chemical combinations they can use, it’s just chemistry. Basic chemical reactions coming together to create extreme reactions.
So rockets work just fine in space, in fact they work even better, it’s basic physics of motion that makes it possible, so I hope this info helps shed some light on some details you might have missed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rickusmaximus2435 Well, bias is born from your emotional stake in beliefs, people, institutions, etc. We all have some emotional connection to something or someone, so we all have bias…to be completely unbiased would require someone forfeit their humanity, you’d have to be a robot to be unbiased, and nobody is, so we’re all biased in someway or another. So when you say to approach a topic without bias…I’m just letting you know, that’s pretty much impossible. Even if you’re not aware, you have some prior belief or emotional stake in something, that will have some sway on your conclusions, no matter what the topic is. It’s why peer review is so important in science, because our peers typically don’t share the same biases, so they’re able to catch things you may have overlooked due to bias.
There’s some great researchers on the opposite side of Flat Earth, providing lots of great evidence against Flat Earth. Wolfie6020, Jos Leys, Soundly, Walter Bislin, just to name a few that haven’t yet been black listed by YouTube’s algorithm. You could start there.
Big channels like Nat Geo, PBS, Discovery…they cover general topics for entertainment purposes, they only scratch the surface of such topics, rarely do they really do a good job of getting to the core of any topic. So ya, they’re easy to refute…cause they’re garbage television, they’re really only interested in keeping people watching, and the little details are often too boring to air, so they tend to do a really poor job of relaying information.
But there are smaller channels that are more focused and dedicated to challenging the claims of FE and other conspiracies, they just get lost in the noise…sadly.
3
-
@rickusmaximus2435 8 inches per mile squared has no variable for height of the observer and does not represent line of sight…so it’s the wrong math. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
Here’s the correct geometric math you should be using, that accounts for line of sight and Earth curvature.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= radius of Earth
d= distance to the object
h= height of observer
8 inches per mile squared is just a basic parabola equation…it’s only accurate if your eye were directly at sea level. Which of course is never the case, so it’s the wrong math. That’s part of how Flat Earth has conned a great many people…by exploiting their lack of mathematical literacy, and providing you with an equation that’s pretty much useless for what you’re using it for. It’s basically the equivalent of a sleight of hand trick. The equation above is far more accurate.
I’ve seen many long distance observations over water…I’ve never seen anyone bring a ship back with a telescopic lens, at 80 miles away. 3 miles though, ya, that’s more accurate, but that’s not horizon they’ve being brought back from, it’s just vanishing point…which does occur before horizon. Vanishing point is the limit of your eye to render objects visible due to angular resolution. A ship will reach your eyes vanishing point long before horizon…a zoom lens can resolve images much smaller, making it possible to see beyond your eyes vanishing point. But eventually, everything reaches a point on the horizon where no amount of zoom will bring them back…and they begin to sink into horizon. That’s when you know they’ve reached the actual horizon. So Flat Earth is lying to you here…another sleight of hand trick as far as I’m concerned.
Mountains I’ve seen from pretty far away, but these observations are never made at sea level, the observation height is typically several hundred feet elevation, and you don’t see the entire mountain. It’s pretty common sense I’d imagine, but the higher you are, the further you see…but why would you need to go higher, if Earth was flat? It makes sense on a globe, because you’re looking over a curvature, so going higher extends your field of vision, over that curvature.
So you’re making a lot of claims that I know are false. Bring me any example of a ship you saw from 80 miles away…go right ahead, and I can almost guarantee you just got the distances wrong. I’ve been debunking Flat Earth for a lot of years now…there’s a lot they’re not telling you.
3
-
Electromagnetism is also just “a theory” in science, but you’re currently using it to send and receive your internet data over wifi. So you’re not quite understanding the basic language of science. They chose that wording for a simple reason, because we don’t know everything and we likely never will. So this means that old information always has the potential to change as new information is obtained…that’s just the reality of our situation. There’s no getting around that, we are not infallible or omniscient…and if you think you are, or if you think you could do things better, you’re delusional.
So as much as the scientific community would love to have the power to conclude everything with 100% certainty, they simply can’t, so science doesn’t operate in absolutes, it prefers to think in percentages of certainty, conclusions backed by evidence that for the moment couldn’t be falsified. Calling the main conclusions theories, leaves them open to be updated as new information is obtained. Hence the use of the word…but it’s far from the layman use of the word, hypothesis is what takes the place of theory in the regular usage, and nothing graduates past hypothesis without rigorously tested and verified evidence. Theories are proven, and they work.
Gravity is also a law in science though, were you aware of that? Look up Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation sometime.
Anyway, point is, you’re just doing more to telegraph your scientific illiteracy to everyone, when you say something is just a theory. You should be forfeit from any conversation of science, if you don’t even know the basic language used and why it’s used.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Flat Earth didn’t create that map, it is a globe projection map, a globe flattened from a reference point, in this case from North pole. Flat Earth just hijacked it and called it theirs, cause they don’t have a working model of their own. The UN uses that projection cause it has the most balanced composition and it doesn’t favour any one nation, it’s centred on a neutral point, the Arctic circle, so it was likely a design choice. The UN represents every nation on Earth...little hard to represent every nation of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D flag, so a map projection has to be used, if you’re going to represent every nation, which is what they wanted.
Flat Earth likely took that map for the same reason the UN did, because out of all the Globe projection maps, that one is the most pleasing to the eye, it has the best balance...humans are naturally drawn to balance and pleasing composition, even when they’re not aware of these things. As an illustrator for a living, I’ve done lots of logo design, that map has the best composition, so if I was to design their flag, I’d probably use the AE projection as well, it’s a no brainer.
Here’s a simple video that helps visualize how they create projection maps https://youtu.be/9Wq3GiJT2wQ.
3
-
"Not an equation or device is made still 400 years after the concept!"
Sure....except for the basic equation for calculating weight; W=mg. Or buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Or calculating air pressure at surface; P=pgh. Or calculating a ballistic parabolic arc trajectory; y = (tan θ0)x – gx2/2(v0cosθ0)2. Or calculating a planes lift to thrust ratio; ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g. Notice the little 'g' in every single one of those equations? Guess what that is. It's also used in calculating an escape velocity, an orbital path, a fusion reaction, time dilation, to how much longer it will take for water to boil at certain altitudes, etc, etc, etc and on and on and on....gravity is used in quite a lot of equations within engineering, mathematics and physics.
So not sure what you're talking about....thousands of devices, some you make use of every single day, were only made possible because of our detection, measurement and understanding of gravity today. Do you have a smart phone? Guess how it knows which side is up, guess how it flips its screen. The tiny gyro within its structure is built with gravity physics...engineers could not design that clever device, without our current knowledge of gravity. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Seriously...why do people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about, love to assume they know everything...about the things they clearly don't know anything about?
You have questions, that's perfectly fine...but it's dangerous to assume, and you're sure doing a lot of it.
3
-
@multymind4744 You're asking questions, but lets be clear, questions are not evidence. You don't prove something is wrong by simply asking questions...you prove it with evidence. I'll do what I can to answer these questions, but just wanted to make that clear, you're not sharing evidence here currently, you're just asking questions...there is a distinct difference.
i) They actually do eventually travel sideways, pay attention the next time you watch a rocket launch. They will start their launch perpendicular to surface, and then they will over time fly parallel to it. They do this for the very reason you've pointed out, they use Earths gravity to help them achieve orbit, rather than fight against it constantly. It's pretty standard to rocket science and orbital mechanics, rockets do fly sideways, so look again.
ii) No, a jet uses the air pressure around it to generate both thrust and lift. A rocket does not, rockets propel forward, from the same physics that causes a gun to recoil, by Newtons third law of motion; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So a jet can not enter into space, because the higher you go, the thinner the air becomes. Since it requires air to generate thrust and lift, it can only fly so high. They're also not generating enough velocity for an escape velocity, only a rocket can achieve that kind of velocity. Jets are not rockets, they use engines that take in air, just like aeroplanes do, just at a much higher rate. Rockets also fly in much thinner atmosphere, so higher velocities can be achieved, because they're not experiencing as much drag force...nowhere near as much in fact.
iii) The force we would feel is a centrifugal force, but our Earth does not generate a very powerful centrifugal force. You can deduce this yourself, by going a bit deeper into the physics of centrifugal force. First of all, 1000 mph is a linear velocity...we do not measure rotational motion with linear velocities, we use rotational units, like revolutions per minute (RPM's). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation, every 24 hours. That's about 0.000694 RPM's. For a comparison, the Gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at about 25 RPM's, hence why you feel a great deal of centrifugal force on that ride. It's the rate of angular velocity change per second, that increases centrifugal force output...not the linear velocity. Linear velocities have pretty much nothing to do with centrifugal force.
You can test that with this simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself driving in a race car, at a steady linear velocity of 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that's only 1000 meters in circumference. Would you expect to feel any centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, there would be so much, you'd barely be able to stay on the track! Now imagine yourself in that same car, moving at the exact same 200 mph, only this time the track is a perfect circle that's 1000 miles in circumference. Would you expect to feel any centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would be arcing so gradually relative to you, it would likely feel like you were driving down a perfectly straight road.
So what changed? It wasn't the linear velocity, speed was the exact same in both examples...but one would obviously have more centrifugal force than the other, right? So what's the difference? The difference is the rate at which you're completing a complete revolution. In the first example, you'd be completing several laps around the track in a single minute. In the second, you would complete 1 lap, every 5 hours. See the difference? It's not linear velocities like miles per hour that you should be focusing on, its the rate of rotation. Earths rate of rotation, is VERY slow, 1 complete rotation every 24 hours.
So that's why we don't feel anything, rate of rotation is actually far to slow to notice. The other part of this, is that we don't actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. That's what we feel. 1000 mph may sound impressive, but you know a passenger jet fly's at roughly 500 mph cruising speed, and people can still get up and walk around the cabin of a plane just fine, even at that velocity. We do not feel speed, we feel CHANGES in speed, that's key to understanding why we don't feel any of the motions of Earth.
For your last part, there's actually a great Minute Physics video on that very topic, so I'll just share that. https://youtu.be/urQCmMiHKQk
Apologies if this comes off as condescending, but you're telling me you understand physics...but then you're demonstrating the complete opposite. It seems to me you skipped the basics of physics, cause you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the physics of motion and what we physically perceive. That's physics 101 stuff...that's some of the first lessons you learn in any physics 101 class, the laws of motion. Centrifugal forces are a bit more advanced, but it's still pretty basic stuff in the grand scheme of things.
That's my problem with FE and those who push it. They tell me all the time they understand physics, that they have a firm gasp on the subject....yet I always have to repeat such basic physics to them. Your questions always seem to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding in basic physics...which just tells me that you don't really understand physics very well. Which is largely your problem...take a physics class, or brush up on the basics here on YouTube, then you probably wouldn't be asking these questions. It just feels like everyone in FE skipped physics 101 and went straight into General Relativity...and I just find that, odd. No wonder you have so many questions, you seem to have skipped over a HUGE portion of the physics that helps you answer those questions.
3
-
3
-
@sammylong3704 Sure, first of all you’re misunderstanding the physics of centripetal forces. Centrifugal force has very little to do with linear velocities and everything to do with rate of rotation. 1000 mph is a linear velocity, but Earth completes one rotation every 24 hours. This is a very slow rotational velocity, exactly two times slower than the hour hand of a clock. We don’t use linear velocity to figure out a centrifugal force output, because it doesn’t mean much to that effect. A better unit for that is a rate of rotation like RPM’s. For example, a gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at a rate of about 24 RPM’s. By comparison, the Earth’s rate of rotation is 0.000694 RPM’s. Meaning centrifugal force on Earth is VERY minuscule. If you do all the math actually, it only negates about 0.03% of gravity at the Equator. Fun fact though, did you know everything actually weighs slightly less at the Equator for this reason? Here’s a neat experiment that verifies this https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o.
Centrifugal force is an effect of rotation, because of the rate of angular velocity change per second...that’s what causes it. So rate of rotation is what matters, nit the linear speed. Stop looking at the big numbers and assuming things, and instead learn some physics please.
I can prove to you why linear speeds don’t matter here with things you’re familiar with. Here’s a great thought experiment that might help you out here. Imagine yourself in a race car, going around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 metres circumference, at a steady speed of 200 mph. Would you expect to experience a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact you’d have a heck of a time trying to stay on the road you’d be experiencing so much centrifugal force. Ok, now let’s just increase the length of the track, to 1000 miles circumference. Driving the same car at the same 200 mph, would you expect much centrifugal force in this example? No, you wouldn’t expect to feel any, in fact the track would feel almost like a straight road to you, it would be way easier to cruise down this track at that speed.
Pretty simple thought experiment, now let’s examine it. So what changed? The linear speed remained the same...yet centrifugal force was different in both examples. So what does this tell us? That linear speed has very little to do with centrifugal force. The thing that really changed, was rate of rotation. The first example, the driver would complete several complete rotations every minute, while the second example, would only complete 1 rotation every 5 hours. This drastically reduces the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is what causes centrifugal force.
Earth completes 1 rotation every 24 hours...hence why nothing is flung off the Earth, the rate of rotation is far to slow.
See this is how Flat Earth cons people...by using their lack of physics and mathematics against them. They do this across the board, getting you looking at big numbers, without explaining anything. Then you run with your assumptions, instead of figuring things out. You’re asking great physics questions...but then you seem to think they can’t be answered.
Now when it comes to gravity, you’re forgetting that it’s directly proportional to an objects mass. The bigger something is, the more mass it has, the more it’s effected by gravity. So a tiny bird or butterfly, has less mass, so it requires less energy to resist gravity, pretty simple. But actually, a toddler and a fly aren’t really defying gravity...if they were, then they’d easily be able to leave Earth and go to space...that’s defying gravity. Last I checked, they’re barely lifting off the surface, gravity still contains them both.
The difference between them and an ocean....is that oceans are not alive. So they have no means of creating energy, they then put into muscles, they then use for motion. Motion that can be used to resist gravity for a little while. I mean...it’s pretty simple stuff. You are aware that oceans are not living things, right?
Anyway, hope this information is helpful. Feel free to ask me anything else you’re having trouble with, I don’t mind sharing.
3
-
@sammylong3704 Mathematical concepts are built from scientific experimentation....you do realize that, right? Examine a formula, we’ll use the formula for weight; W=mg. There’s two variables here, ‘m’ for mass ‘g’ for the downward acceleration of gravity, both discovered and measured within scientific observation and inquiry. Objects have mass (the little m) and they’re measured to drop towards Earth at a steady 9.8m/s^2 (little g). Take both together, you can accurately calculate an objects weight. Couldn’t do the math, until you have physical perimeters figured out first...that’s what science is for. Science comes first, we study physical reality, until we have deduced certainties, those certainties of nature become variables in mathematics...which then makes them useful for us. That graduates them to applied science. Applied science is the end goal of all science....then we can build things like your computer. That’s how it works...so mathematical formulas are not abstract, they’re built on physical premises...that’s what each variable is, a physical perimeter that is verified science.
Point is, do you ever consider the possibility, that you’re reaching a great many errors in understanding...because you don’t really know much about science? Does that ever cross your mind? I get that things don’t make much sense to you, but does that automatically make them wrong? No, it doesn’t.
Back to your question though. So first of all, weight does not exist without gravity, that’s your first error. Weight is actually just another name for gravity actually, feel free to look that up, it’s well understood in physics. This matters, because it’s why you’re misunderstanding things. Objects always have mass, your mass never changes, but weight depends on gravity and other forces. It’s why you weigh less in water, because buoyancy force is countering gravity a bit. Mass is what you have, weight is product of the downward force being exerted upon all of all that mass.
Gravity really isn’t that strong on Earth, it’s just constant. Where’s the water going to go, if not towards the only force attracting it? It’s pretty simple. The only reason the ocean is heavy, is because it has more mass...gravity is proportional to mass.
You have gravity all wrong, why would anything be crushed here? Gravity is really not that strong here...but it’s always here, it never shuts off, so it attracts anything that’s near to it...like our oceans. Water is inert, it’s not alive, so it has no means of producing energy to use against gravity, so it’s just gonna continue being drawn to it.
Why people have this notion that gravity is so powerful it will crush you...is beyond me.
Facts are simple, things fall towards Earth, this falling is measured to be a constant rate. It’s a fact that matter can not move without a force, falling is a motion, nobody is going to deny that...so it’s simple deduction at that point. Objects are in motion when falling+motion requires force=a force is present putting matter into motion. It’s not difficult. That motion of falling, we have named gravity...we could have called it anything, doesn’t matter, doesn’t change the fact that it’s there.
The example is Earth and other planets, we observe Earth and we observe planets. From these observations, we learn a lot about gravity. It’s difficult to scale down gravity, because it depends on mass. But yes, we can observe gravity in smaller quantities, here’s a great experiment testing it in smaller scales https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
Anyway, I hope this information is helpful. You need to understand that gravity is applied science at this point...so it’s far from belief, this knowledge has helped build the modern world around you, far more than you realize.
3
-
3
-
@gysgtholpp Trouble is, you don’t really have evidence when it really boils down to it…just misunderstandings and broken physics. You have questions…but since when did questions equal evidence? 🧐 It’s like people have forgotten the difference.
Nothing you shared in your original comment was evidence, they were false conclusions you reached because you lack some information, not much more than that. It’s typical of confirmation bias…and your bias is pretty clear, you’re religious, that’s always been a powerful bias. The Religious have been ignoring details to confirm their bias for centuries…it’s nothing new, but it’s still just as frustrating as it’s ever been…forever slowing human progress and hampering objective investigation.
That’s how I see it…Flat Earth is just another movement of extreme confirmation bias, seeking only the information that supports the conclusion you’ve already reached, rather than allowing the actual evidence to form your conclusions. Flat Earth always conveniently leaves some small details out…so allow me to provide some further context by sharing the information they won’t.
Boyles law has to do with gases under containment, and is limited in application when talking about atmospheric pressure. That’s why they’re called IDEAL gas laws, they really only apply when the ideal conditions are met. In physics, gas pressure (gases under containment) and atmospheric pressure (gases held by gravity) are treated as separate. You can look this up anytime, the ideal gas laws are a model for gases under containment, where a known volume can be determined, that’s why volume is included in the equations for the ideal gas laws. In atmospheric pressure equations, volume can’t be determined, so the downward acceleration of gravity replaces volume (9.8m/s^2). There’s nuance here that needs to be made clear, I’m not saying the ideal gas laws don’t apply in atmosphere, they’re just limited in application. This is usually made pretty clear in any general physics classes discussing gas pressure, gas pressure and atmospheric pressure are two separate things, with their own models and equations. But Flat Earthers certainly won’t mention that…it’s always conveniently ignored, even though it’s pretty important to understand the difference in physics.
Our atmosphere doesn’t expand out into space, because of gravity. Gravity is also what creates the pressure gradient we measure. That’s the evidence…the fact that we do measure a pressure gradient in atmosphere, verifies a tenant of gravity causing atmospheric pressure…we’d then expect a pressure gradient, ordering in line with the gravity vector (down towards surface)…and we do, so that’s evidence. And as mentioned before, we’ve also measured the vacuum of space, and so have Flat Earthers, with every weather balloon they send up that pops in vacuum…they supply further evidence for the vacuum of space.
Yet no evidence for this dome you feel is up there…just a broken understanding of gas pressure physics. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to demand so much evidence from science…but then you don’t seem to think the same standards apply to your own conclusions? 🧐 Sorry, but you’re not the one exception to burden of proof, nobody is.
There’s also the broken understanding of thermodynamics physics…but do you realize our globe Earth allows for thermodynamics to occur? We shed gas and energy every single day actually, and our open system allows for that, and it’s really not a problem for us, because we get a constant source of new energy back into the system every day…from the Sun. This is actually more of a problem for the Flat Earth model I’d say…I’m sure I don’t need to explain what happens when a pressurized container is held to a constant flame. But then…the bigger problem for Flat Earth is the lack of actual evidence. You think there’s a dome above…so where’s the evidence? 🤷♂️ Surely you don’t just reach conclusions from words you read in a book…you do understand what constitutes as evidence, don’t you?
This is the problem with Flat Earth…they don’t really have evidence when it really comes down too it, most of the time it’s just your own personal misunderstandings. Sure, you got a lot of misunderstandings…but that’s a you problem, it doesn’t make the Earth flat. It’s just confirmation bias from what I’ve seen so far…empty claims and half truths, paraded as evidence…then we’re all just supposed to nod and agree, without question. despite the glaring holes? 🧐 Then you’ll call us the indoctrinated…it’s pretty ironic. You do realize religion is an indoctrination system, right? And I very much doubt you knew what Boyles law was…before you watched a few conspiracy videos on YouTube fill your head with further nonsense.
Also…what does 9/11 have to do with Flat Earth? 🤷♂️ That’s another problem…you think in such absolutes. Even if the 9/11 conspiracy could be proven beyond any doubt…it doesn’t then make the Earth flat by default. All you’re doing is revealing another bias you have…an extreme distrust in authority.
Sorry dude, but from what I’ve seen Flat Earth is just another bullshit conspiracy built on confirmation bias…and you’re certainly not doing much to change that conclusion, just providing further evidence for it.
3
-
You’d actually have to have an agreed upon, standard, scientific model, that works and is actually used in applied science today, before she could ever really strawman anything. It’s not like we’re arguing an opinion here, this is about objective reality...and Flat Earth lost that debate pretty much immediately once mankind started analyzing the Earth with any real effort.
At least the accelerating Earth hypothesis had some logic and physics to it....the “density and buoyancy” argument the majority of you numpty’s seem to agree on, is just gravity...but chopped up to remove that word and removes the explanations, measurements and experiments that explain and verify the downward acceleration we all observe. It’s just denial...ignoring what you don’t like, so you can convince yourselves you’re right....ya guys, real winning strategy you got there. 😂
Let us know when flat Earth has a working model and is actually useful. Until then, you’re just fooling yourselves.
3
-
Point of this video wasn’t to delve deep into the science, it was just to discuss the ideology. The topic of this video is asking WHY people come to believe FE. Most people with a basic education can understand for themselves, why the level on a plane experiment is a bad experiment. He shared that example specifically, because it’s in obvious error, but if you can’t see that error, then that’s part of why people come to believe Flat Earth.
He was demonstrating that part of the reason why people become flat Earthers, is because of their own lack of knowledge and experience, their own misunderstandings. They don’t understand how a bubble level is subject to gravity and always maintains level to centre of gravity, so without this knowledge they jump to an erroneous conclusion, from their own misunderstandings.
So it serves the purpose of the video. Both experiments are flawed, but Flat Earthers can’t see why or how…that’s part of why they become Flat Earthers. Get it now? I do agree a little though, he could have provided a few more details, just to help anyone who might still be confused…not everyone is great at retaining science they learned back in school, doesn’t mean they can’t still learn and understand it. So he probably should have provided just a little more information, you’re right.
But this isn’t a science channel, so that’s not really what he does here. If you want a few more details, I don’t mind sharing some info though.
3
-
@danielzhivkov1187 Both experiments he shared are examples of an inconclusive experiment. The first one ignores gravity physics, the bubble would remain flat on both models, so it’s not a good experiment, it’s inconclusive. The second one is a good experiment, just done poorly. The original experiment didn’t do enough to reach a conclusive result, it ignored variables like refraction and height of the observer, and didn’t take enough data. Used only one marker, over one observation...it basically only went so far as to confirm a bias conclusion, and then he stopped experimenting. Making it an example of confirmation bias and inconclusive. This experiment has been repeated many times over the last couple centuries, here’s a modern recreation http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is far more conclusive, verifying that Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
The purpose of this video wasn’t to prove or disprove FE, it was to discuss why people come to believe FE. Bad experiments with inconclusive results, are an example of how people become flat Earthers. You didn’t recognize how those experiments are inconclusive...guess how many flat Earthers didn’t either? That’s part of how they fell into this mess...hence why he shared those two experiments.
I’ll admit, he could have done more to explain the experiments better, he did gloss over them a bit much, seems to have led to a bit of frustration. Hope I was able to help provide a little more info.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Anyone can prove the Earth is a sphere...observe any sunset, then just try your damnedest to make sense of that on a Flat Earth. Or talk to a pilot or sailor sometime, and ask them what model they use to navigate around the world successfully...spoilers, it's not a flat Earth model. So we're talking millions of people, who find their destinations every single day, using a Globe model mapped with TWO equal hemispheres in 3D. Should be pretty common sense, but it's a little hard to find a destination if you don't have an accurate map...these people would be fucked if they didn't know the true shape of the planet they navigate. Or travel to the Southern hemisphere sometime and observe the different night sky and the second rotation of stars around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis...then try and make sense of that on flat Earth.
Stop letting huxters on the internet fill your head with bullshit...scientists and experts have ZERO reason to lie to you about this, but con men selling t-shirts, documentaries, con tickets, and collecting ad revenue from watches on YouTube, have a lot to gain by suckering you.
3
-
3
-
At least the rising Earth hypothesis makes an attempt at accounting for the accelerating motion observed and measured from falling objects...the density argument makes no attempt at all to explain anything, just asserts it’s correct and calls it a day. Do you really think that’s how science should be conducted? I don’t think you quite understand just how useful the current understanding of gravity has been and is for much of modern society. And it’s very ignorant to claim it’s “never been proven”, it’s one of the most rigorously tested concepts in all of physics, and it proves itself accurate every time we use the constant of gravity in equations to make predictions in the real world, everything from orbital mechanics, to rocket science, to flight aeronautics, or even buoyancy equations used in the engineering and mechanics of submarines. You’d have to ignore a LOT of modern engineering and exploration, to conclude gravity has never been proven.
The big problem with the density argument is this, it does nothing to explain how or why matter falls at all, or why it’s always in the same vector direction, always at the same rate of acceleration? It’s best answer is “it just does”, and I’m sorry...but science can’t really do much with “it just does”. So basically, the density argument stops short, it just takes gravity theory and chops out the bits it doesn’t like...which is just extremely bias and ridiculous, it’s lazy science and it’s ignorant.
What it’s ignoring is that falling is a motion, when something is dropped, it is then put into an accelerating motion, that is free from any other influence. Which makes it a physical phenomenon of nature...which is what science is for, figuring out how physical reality works. It’s the motion that matters here, what is putting matter into motion? The first law of motion states, that nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it. So it’s pretty simple, forces are required to put matter into motion, dropped matter is put into an accelerating motion, so doesn’t take much to deduce that a force of some kind is present that is causing this.
Density is not a force, it just a property of matter, it has no means for putting matter into motion, and certainly not in any specific direction. So the density argument doesn’t answer anything, it just stops short. But understand that gravity wasn’t the top contender right away, it took awhile to reach that conclusion for certain. There were many other hypothesized answers before gravity was ever considered, like electromagnetism, static attractions, air pressure, etc, but the only one that held up was gravity under the idea that mass attracts other mass, through a yet to be determined mechanism (we understand it to be the bending of space time today). The experiment that first verified mass attracting mass was the Cavendish experiment, which has been recreated many times over the last couple centuries. Here’s a really great demonstration of the experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
So it’s not as simple as you seem to think it is and it’s a bit ignorant to claim that gravity “has never been proven”. I think the confusion here stems from the language that’s used, you probably think that because gravity is a theory, it must mean it’s never been proven. To which I think you could really benefit from learning the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o, they’re not the same thing. Scientific theory’s are basically proven concepts, nothing graduates to a theory of science, until it’s been rigorously tested and is the only model left standing after the process of falsification concludes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Atmospheric refraction can and does effect what we see at distances, this is an example of extreme atmospheric refraction allowing much more of those rigs to be seen than would be geometrically possible without refraction. Plenty of examples of those same oil rigs photographed on a day where refractive index is lower, and in those photos you see much less of those same rigs.
Look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it has a whole section on atmospheric refraction, explaining what it is, how it works, and then demonstrating the effect over a frozen lake. There’s even a short video you can find here of a time lapse observation of the lake, verifying refraction.
Now some in FE would then argue that horizon is impossible to determine thanks to refraction, but refraction is very well understood in physics today, and under very low refractive index it barely effects much at all, and even it can be calculated. Metabunk has a great calculator for refraction index, as does the Walter Bislin blog.
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
-
3
-
@Lordani66 Again, science gains nothing from giving illegitimate fringe movements a platform to expand their nonsense. The only one who has anything to gain is Dubay, of course he wants to debate a big fish like Neil, it opens him up to an audience count he could only dream of. On the flip side, he runs from every debate call from his opposition here on YouTube. Guys like Reds Rhetoric, Fight the Flat Earth, Conspiracy Catz, Sly Sparkane, they’ve all offered to debate Dubay, but to my knowledge, he’s never accepted. This is for two reasons as I see it, the first reason being that there’s not going to be much of an audience, so he feels there’s no way of expanding his “empire”, which is all he really cares about. The second reason is that these guys are his direct opposition, they study flat Earth specifically and have been for awhile and they know his arguments inside and out, he’d likely only end up losing followers debating these guys...so he doesn’t dare.
Neil is wise not to debate a known conman, it just gives them what conmen really want, an audience to market too.
3
-
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
-
The point of this video was not to prove or disprove anything, this is not a science channel, so he’s not going to discuss the science here. All he was doing here was offering his opinion on a group mindset, looking at it from a psychological and philosophical point of view. But, just like the Bedford level experiment, the level on a plane experiment is inconclusive, because it completely ignores gravity physics. This is an example of a bad experiment, using these tools and that set up, there is no way to reach a conclusive result for either model. So it’s just a bad experiment, that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of basic gravity physics.
The reason he shared both experiments in his presentation though, was to illustrate the kinds of people we’re dealing with in FE. These are experiments that FE actually believe supports their conclusions, but even a basic understanding of physics and the scientific method, reveals how poor these experiments are. It means the people in FE are not very scientifically literate, because these are both clear examples of inconclusive experimentation, yet they use them in their arguments anyway.
So since this was a video discussing the thought processes of this particular group of people, it was good to share some examples of their scientific capabilities...which by those examples, proves that they’re extremely lacking.
3
-
@RT-oc6iu No, ships sink hull first into horizon. If you can bring a ship back into focus with a zoom lens, then it has not reached the horizon yet, it’s just gone past your eyes vanishing point. Eventually, objects reach a point where no amount of zooming will bring them back…that’s when it’s gone past the horizon. What Frankie is saying is true, there would not be a horizon line, if Earth was actually flat, everything would just fade off into the distance. And we wouldn’t observe hundreds of feet of buildings and mountains, sinking below eye level, their bases obstructed by a clear horizon line.
Flat Earthers clearly have a very low opinion of science, if they honestly think scientists never once thought to use a telescopic lens in their observations of things going over horizon…that’s exactly how they make those observations in the first place, they weren’t using their naked eye. Vanishing point is caused by perspective, it’s the physical limitation of your eye to render an object visible due its distance and size. But this can and does occur BEFORE horizon…and that’s what Flat Earthers are demonstrating when they zoom something back into focus. Eventually, objects reach the horizon, and then they start to drop from line of sight.
Plenty of examples of this online, where objects are obstructed at their base, and no amount of zoom will bring them back. So we’re not trying to be difficult, we’re just pointing out details we feel Flat Earth has overlooked. You can chalk it up to ego if you like, but why should we ignore claims made, if we have information that falsifies them? You make claims on a public platform, you shouldn’t expect that they will be challenged. You’re not free from peer review and burden of proof, so don’t pretend like you are.
3
-
3
-
T Brown You shared a video with some heavy refraction occurring, then ignored that refraction was occurring, and then called your work done. How is that debunking anything exactly? You’re just ignoring everything you don’t like, which means you’re arguing from ignorance...ignoring the variables you don’t like and then forcing your own bias conclusion. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, but arguing from ignorance is a logical fallacy...and a pretty clear one at that.
Refraction is very real, it does occur, so it can not be ignored in these kinds of long distance observations. A video was shared with you that went into great detail debunking your observation of those two oil rigs, explaining refraction and sharing another photo of those oil rigs when refraction index was far less...and it doesn’t appear like you even watched that video. So you’re just ignoring any evidence or explanation presented to you. So again, how is anyone supposed to have a rational discussion with someone, who won’t even look at the evidence when they ask for it?
Is that really unreasonable to ask that you actually look at the evidence presented to you? How can you honestly think ignoring it is an argument against it?
If you’d like to understand why refraction is a valid variable to be considered in long distance observations, I suggest you watch that video that was shared with you already, the one from BlueMarbleScience. Here’s another great source of information on the subject walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is a far more controlled observation of curvature, it is an in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. Pay attention to the entire second half of this report, where it goes into great detail on atmospheric refraction and also demonstrates pretty clearly why it’s important not to ignore this variable.
3
-
3
-
T Brown No, not the end of the model at all. You’re assertions are not changing the fact that the Globe is established science...more than that, it’s an applied science. We’re not navigating the world using a flat model. We’re not predicting solar and lunar eclipses decades in advance using a flat model. We’re not designing communications and infrastructures using a flat model.
Truth is, Flat Earth has no working model...heck it can’t even properly explain a simple sunset, let alone conduct experiments that verify any of the proposed explanations. You keep asking for evidence...but where’s the evidence from Flat Earth for how a sunset works? Do you somehow think your model is free from the same standards of review you currently place upon the Globe model? Here’s another experiment you ignored, this one from Sly Sparkane that accurately measures Earth curvature using Sun shadow angles, and also verifies that light is arriving parallel to our surface. https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422 Just watch from where I have it qued up, in just two minutes you can learn about some pretty concrete evidence for the globe.
A globe answers for every observation with absolute ease...meanwhile the Flat Earth has to really work hard to ram that square peg into a round hole. Either way, it’s a pointless debate, the Earth’s true shape has long been settled, you’re not changing that in these comments.
3
-
T Brown Wow, little Nathan Oakley junior here. Got your deflection tactics all mapped out for ya eh...what a good little Flat Earth soldier you are. XD
If you bothered to actually watch that video, you’d learn that it goes a bit further than just a simple Eratosthenes recreation. It’s true that if you only take 2 shadow measurements, you can then only assume a sphere. He assumed a sphere, because the Greeks had already deduced the Earth was spherical...it doesn’t take much either, observing a simple sunset is enough to realize Flat Earth does not fit with reality.
In the experiment I’ve shared, they take it a step further, and take several more measurements from all around the Earth, during the Equinox. When you take anymore than 2 measurements, you can actually use that data to pinpoint the accurate location of that Sun in 3D space. When that data is plotted on any flat Earth model proposed so far, it does not pinpoint a local Sun...heck it has no idea where the Sun is. Here’s that data interpreted on many different proposed models of flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t Guess what happens when they model the same data on a Globe...it fits, and fits perfectly. You should be more honest and ask yourself why that data fits perfectly on the Globe model. The angles recorded here can then be used to calculate the radius...just like Eratosthenes did, some 2000 years ago.
Independent variable of this experiment are the sticks you place perpendicular to the ground. The dependent is the sunlight. As I’m sure you know how this works, the independent is the variable the experimenter manipulates to test the dependent. So, independent and dependent verified, making this a valid experiment. Another independent variable of course is time, the experimenter chooses the time of day and the time of year, to test the sunlight (dependent) for that time and day.
Taking these measurements gives you data, that you can then apply to a proposed model or hypothesis, to see which model the data fits with. Upon all recreation of this experiment, the data fits the Globe...while the Flat Earth fails horribly.
So there you go, pretty simple stuff. Now, where’s your experiment that successfully falsify’s those results? I’ve never seen a Flat Earther even attempt at falsifying this experiment with tangible evidence and their own data....shocker, I wonder why? Cause it’s just easier to argue from ignorance, that’s why.
You people are a joke.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Alright, I’ll bite.
1) Evidence to what end? That it’s well documented people figured out the Earth’s geometry hundreds to even thousands of years ago, or that this history is not proof in and of itself, that Earth is a globe? I assume you mean the latter, because the former (that being the history of events), can be verified with citations and sources documenting those past events. But to the latter I agree, just because there is hundreds of years of documentation verifying that science had largely concluded the heliocentric model as accurate, is in no way evidence that they’re correct in that conclusion.
I see that argument from flat Earth all the time as well, and it irritates me to no end, stating that flat Earth is true, simply because ancient cultures like the Egyptians and Mayans believed the Earth was flat thousands of years ago, so it must be true. It’s just frustrating, because...no, history of a belief existing, is not evidence for that conclusions scientific accuracy. So depending on the context of your point, I’d agree. That being said, experiments and methods of observation were also documented in history, and many of them still hold true today. So there’s tons of easily repeatable experiments and evidence, documented through history.
2) Two things, this video was not intended to prove anything, and this is not a science channel. You’re not likely to see him ever conducting experiments with any level of thorough examination, because that’s not what he does here on this channel, so you shouldn’t expect he would.
This video was more intended as a psychological examination, of a group of people and why they believe what they believe. It’s an opinion piece, that’s all. He was conducting that experiment on the plane mostly as a joke, for entertainments sake. Most people can understand pretty quickly why the spirit level on a plane experiment is inconclusive, with just a basic understanding of physics, so that’s why it’s funny...it’s a small poke at Flat Earthers who don’t seem to understand why it’s inconclusive. It’s relevant to his point as well, it illustrates what we’re dealing with here, a group of extremely stubborn people, reaching a great many false conclusions, from there own personal lack of knowledge, experience, and understandings. They’re reaching full conclusions, from inconclusive experiments without realizing it, that was the main point.
The trouble is that many in FE do look at that experiment and think it’s a perfectly good experiment...in reality it’s inconclusive, it is ignoring the model it’s setting out to falsify, namely the physics of gravity. Denial is not science, it’s that simple...they can’t just ignore the physics that is occurring to make that bubble centre itself, then conclude Earth is flat, that’s not how it works. It’s a bad experiment, designed only to confirm bias, ignorant of the model it’s refuting. Conducted as it is, it will always be inconclusive, because it’s ignoring gravity physics entirely.
This is apparent to many people right away, so for the audience he was likely targeting, there was no need to explain it further. We already get it, explaining it further would just waste time in his examination, and cause the video to drag. YouTubers are in the business of clicks and retention time, and keeping their subscribers interested, that often requires sacrificing details, in favour of what has more entertainment value. This channel is mostly just for quick facts and tidbits of information that some might find interesting...it’s not a physics or science channel dedicated to explaining and demonstrating the laws of gravity to people, so it’s not going to ever do that.
So I hope that helps answer your questions a bit. If you’d like a more in depth explanation for why that experiment or the Bedford Level experiment are inconclusive, feel free to ask, I could shed a bit more light on that as well.
3
-
They do not use the word theory in the same way layman do. In science, hypothesis takes the place of theory in the regular use of the word, and theory becomes a collective knowledge of verifiable facts and understandings of reality. Nothing graduates past hypothesis until it has been verified in experimentation and then rigorously peer reviewed, only then does something move on to become either a Law of science or a scientific theory.
People also wrongly assume a law of science is more important or more factual than theories of science, but that’s simply not true either. Laws only describe WHAT is happening, they do not attempt to explain HOW or WHY a phenomenon of nature behaves the way it does, that’s what theories are for. For example, there is the Law of universal gravitation, describing what occurs with gravity....but it’s the theory of gravity, that delves into HOW it works. Since being able to explain how something operates has the most use in applied science, a theory of science actually holds a higher standing, and thus has more importance.
So, nothing really goes beyond theory in science. It is the highest position any concept of science can achieve. They are basically certainties, having the most evidence supporting them.
They chose to call these conclusions theories for a good reason though...because we do not know everything and we likely never will. There’s just too much to learn, to many unknown variables, that can effect outcomes. So for this reason, old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired, that’s just the reality of our situation, there’s really no way around that. So they called them theory, because we do not know everything, sometimes we learn new things that completely change the outcomes of some prior knowledge. So calling them theories, gives them room to change, as new information and data is acquired. The theory of gravity again fir example, has changed many times over the centuries.
Many layman see these as errors that should mean we can’t trust them...but that’s ignorant to the reality of science. It’s a long, never ending process of refinement. Science is about refining information, that takes time to do. Scientists are actually pretty happy when they’re wrong about something, it means they have a chance to find something new...and that’s where careers in science are made. You think Einstein is famous today for toeing the line? Hardly...he challenged the work of Newton, and pretty much rewrote the science of gravity. That’s why he’s famous.
As for the letters that represent numbers they can’t prove, go ahead and show me one equation, that is used in applied science today, that makes use of a variable that’s not known or measured. These equations only work, because these variables are accurate. If they weren’t...then they would not work, when applied, it’s really that simple.
So it’s fine to have an opinion, just know that it’s an ignorant opinion.
3
-
@vohannes Questions are perfectly fine, but no, we don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water, especially not when “theories falling apart” is actually just misunderstandings that you have. I can wrap my head around the possibilities just fine, but I’m not in the habit of listening blindly to people without evidence to back there claims, and I’ve yet to hear a flat Earth argument that I couldn’t falsify. So I’m not just going to roll over and agree with you blindly, if I know exactly where you’re going wrong, neither will science, nor should it.
The fact remains that flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science. Pilots and sailors aren’t navigating with flat Earth geometry and scientists aren’t building and innovating our modern world with flat Earth understandings, that’s a fact, not an opinion. So let’s be real and call it like it is. You are layman, who have convinced themselves through ignorance, that you’re somehow the true experts of the world...even though you’ve contributed to nothing of significance. You’re only fooling yourselves...cause the rest of us are facepalming pretty hard on the daily, while we watch you people continue to demonstrate just how ignorant and scientifically illiterate you really are.
But alright, I do prefer to give you a chance first, so let’s shift gears from the dick waving and get to some science. I don’t mind hearing what you have to say.
3
-
3
-
Several things wrong. First of all, how would you confirm any of these are actually real events? He’s certainly presenting them as facts, but are they actually? Never just blindly believe a dump of claims at face value.
Second, they’re cherry picked examples that just happen to fit his model, where’s the control examples to make comparisons? Are there a few examples he could share that better fit the globe that don’t make much sense on flat Earth? I mean there’s thousands of flights per day, so the probability is actually pretty good that you’d find several flights that fit any map or model better. A good example fir the globe being the direct flight from Perth Australia to Johannesburg South Africa (yes, that’s a real direct flight). On his AE projection map (aka the Gleason) that flight would be MUCH longer, actually it would be impossible to do if they took a route over the ocean like they do in reality, they’d run out of fuel. The more direct route on his map goes over land, over India, the middle East, and much of Africa I believe. Does he mention flights like that? Nope…because they don’t support his claim. An objective research absolutely would though.
Third, are there logical explanations for each example he has shared? For example the first one he shares Doha to Buenos Aires; first of all he didn’t actually use a globe for his presentation, he used a different flat map projection, it looks like the Robinson projection, but could also be the Winkel Tripel projection. In any case, he’s not actually using a globe, he’s using a flat map (basically the Mercator, but with curved meridians)…why wouldn’t he use a globe if that’s the model he’s trying to refute? So are those distances the same on the actual globe? Go to google Earth to find out, it’s a free online software that uses the WGS84 globe model, which is the most recent complete and accurate survey of the Earth (it’s also used in all systems of navigation I might add). On the Globe those distances aren’t the same, Rome is roughly 11,100 km, Doha is roughly 13,200 km, a difference of 2000 km. This matters, because he’s trying to paint it like they’re exactly equal distance, so why fly to Rome to refuel? But they’re not actually equal distance, Rome is a shorter distance by 2000 km. So maybe the jet they’re using for that flight isn’t fuel rated for that flight. But it’s still out of the way to go an extra 4000 km to Rome, so is there another logical reason for that? Yup, there is, see planes aren’t magic, they can’t just land anywhere, they need the proper infrastructure to operate, they require airports. Airports aren’t magic either, every airport is different, most airports simply can’t handle the traffic. Essentially, most airports are small, they can’t receive direct traffic from thousands of smaller airports, so what they do to manage this flow, is they will instead ONLY receive international traffic, from major airports…like the one found in Rome, which is a huge airport, with the infrastructure to handle traffic from thousands of smaller airports. So they didn’t just fly to Rome to refuel, they flew there because Buenos Aires probably doesn’t take direct flights from a tiny city like Doha. There’s also probably a LOT more customers in Rome as well, flights also need PAYING passengers to make them economically viable, they can’t just operate flights with 2 or 3 people on board…they gotta pack those jets, how many paying customers you think are leaving Doha to go to Buenos Aires? Probably not a whole lot, Doha to Rome though, ya, probably quite a few. Is there a major hub airport that’s closer? Maybe Johannesburg, but they still don’t have nearly the population as Europe does…and sadly, not exactly the same level of wealth, so not as many customers that can afford it. Though I’m sure there probably is direct flights from Johannesburg to Buenos Aires, but the other problem is…do the flight times line up? Or, is the jet that left Doha even rated for a trip to Johannesburg, which is further than Rome?
See there’s a LOT of logistics that goes into a connecting flight…they’re not magic, they can’t just fly anywhere and land anywhere. Unless you got a private jet, then you’re stuck using the transit system, and even then, private jets can’t just go anywhere they want either, only so many airports that can handle private traffic as well.
Point is, he’s ignoring all the logistics and economics, and he’s asking you to ignore it all as well…and painting a picture for you. He’s taking you on a ride of his design, cherry picking an example that happens to fit the map he likes, and then using a few subtle suggestion tricks to get you to go along with it without question. If that’s not basically an example of a sleight of hand trick through clever misdirection…then I don’t know what is. The first red flag there though is his claim that the distances are exactly the same, and then his second claim that they went to Rome just to refuel. Neither claim is actually true, Doha is actually farther by 2000 km, and there’s plenty more economical and logistical reasons to stop in Rome, than just simply refuelling. So why would he lie? Because it helps sell his main argument, and those lies are subtle enough that you wouldn’t catch them immediately. For me though, that’s enough to shatter his credibility.
Does he ask any of those questions? Nope, he just adds it to his list of “evidence”, regardless of how flimsy it is when you really dissect it. But he knows basic human psychology pretty well (most conmen do), he knows your average person doesn’t want to do any of the actual heavy lifting or research, they just want their biases confirmed. Most people will just sit on the surface of these claims, but to really refute or confirm them, then you have to dig into them a bit. Another tactic he’s using is called gish gallop, it’s essentially dumping a bunch of weaker arguments and evidence all at once, to essentially overload your ability to respond to each, because to do so would take time…time you don’t have in a setting like that. That’s why he shares multiple examples all at once, not just one. In debating it’s seen as a deceptive tactic, and it’s not allowed in controlled debates. But it’s something we all do in arguments actually, it’s pretty common, quantity over quality essentially…it works, sadly.
That’s just a few things off the top of my head that are wrong with his argument here. Main point is, don’t just take him at his word…he has a horse in this race, so he’s most definitely bias. Or worse, he’s a conman…can be difficult to tell the difference sometimes.
I’d say, try also plotting that flight from Taiwan to LA on google Earth. It has a handy ruler tool that creates the most direct route…see for yourself if that flight actually flew closer to Hawaii than Alaska, cause that’s a big one they love lying about. If you’re not familiar with it, an emergency happened mid flight and they had to land at the closest airport, they landed in Alaska…Flat Earthers will claim Hawaii was closer. It’s the easiest of their flight route arguments to debunk though, just plot the route on an actual globe yourself…takes maybe 10 seconds of your time to learn that these people actually kind of lie about a lot.
Anyway, hope that information is helpful. Take care.
3
-
@falcor1969 You're misreading me and creating a strawman argument. Forces are required for motion, nothing moves out of a state of rest without a force being applied too it, it's the law of inertia. You generate energy which generates a force, that you use to move your body...your car does the same thing. Motion requires a force...this is well understood in physics. There are many different forces, not just gravity...you are aware of that right?
Magnets also produce an invisible force that can and does put metallic matter into motion. This is a pretty odd phenomenon wouldn't you agree? Why couldn't an equally as odd force exist that keeps you to the ground? You act like it's magical, but things fall...that is a motion, motion requires a force. Physics is just the study of the natural world, and it's just recording what it observes. Falling is a motion, and so we gave a name to that falling motion, we called it gravity. We've also measured it and that measurement is used in practical applications.
Yes, things can still move in vacuum....apparently you've never seen things fall in a vacuum before? I suggest you look up vacuum drop tests.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It was a sloppy experiment that ignored variables important to the observation. He basically only did as much as he needed to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking…that’s just confirmation bias, science has to do better. Upon peer review (which is why science conducts peer review, to catch errors and weed out liars like Rowbotham), it was found his experiment was very poorly done, ignored variables like refraction, used the wrong math, didn’t take enough data sets, had basically no controls, etc. So it was extremely inconclusive, making it pretty much useless.
It was a good idea for an experiment however, so it has been properly repeated many times now, every proper recreation actually in support of the globe. Here’s a good example of one such recreation of the experiment https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. That is how thorough science needs to be, in order to render a more conclusive and objective results. Rowbotham pretty much just took one observation, then called it a day. Very sloppy science.
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
Because of buoyancy, gases are technically classified as a fluid, so they operate similar to gases in water, rising upward, because of buoyancy…and they’re not exempt from gravity, buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. Displacement occurs when more dense matter pushes less dense matter out of its way, but it doesn’t happen without a force to start that motion. Gravity is what starts the motion, buoyancy is end result of a chain reaction caused by that starting motion. Gravity pulls matter down, attracting it to surface, the more dense matter will occupy lowest point first, this pushes less dense matter out of its way, upward, in the same vector as gravity, but in the opposite direction.
So nothing is free from gravity, gravity directly causes density displacement, which causes buoyancy. This well understood in modern physics, verified in a number of different experiments, from simple drop tests, to density columns put in zero g, demonstrating zero displacement. That’s why gravity is included as a variable in the equation for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. That little ‘g’ is the downward acceleration of gravity; 9.8m/s^2. Remove that variable, and engineers designing ballast tanks for ships and submarines are gonna have a heck of a time.
Anyway, hope that information helps. I’d suggest researching more on the physics of buoyancy, you’ll find that gravity is directly linked.
3
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Everything can’t occupy the same space all at the same time, correct? If you’re sitting in a chair, another person can’t also sit in that same chair, your matter is already occupying that space, so anything that tries is repelled by the matter of your body. In buoyancy displacement, less dense matter is pushed out of the way of denser matter. Since that denser matter is pulled down to lowest point, it occupies that space first, which means the less dense matter has nowhere to go, but up, where it’s less dense. It travels in that direction, opposite too gravity, because everything around it is all rushing down as well, so until it’s at a level where nothing denser can push it out of the way, it’s just gonna keep rising.
But understand that if nothing is moving, if dense matter is not attracted downward, if it’s not moving down…then why would it occupy lowest point? If there’s no force causing any motion, it’s just gonna stay where it is, stationary from wherever it’s placed, in upper atmosphere or at surface, wouldn’t matter, if there’s no force pulling it down, then it’s not gonna go there, it’s just gonna remain stationary. Gravity puts it into motion downward, that motion causes it to move into the path of other matter, if it’s more dense than that matter, then it’s gonna be pushed out of its way, displacing it. Gravity starts the motions, that directly causes buoyancy.
Gravity really isn’t that strong of a force here on Earth, but it is constant, it doesn’t shut off. Dead inert matter like molecules of gas, liquids, solids, have no means of resisting gravity, so they are almost completely bound by it. Living things on the other hand, can burn calories to produce energy, that energy they can then use to help them resist gravity for short periods of time. A bird flaps its wings, using energy to resist gravity for awhile, but what happens when it stops flapping those wings? It falls to Earth just like everything does. It’s not free from gravity when it fly’s, gravity doesn’t shut off when it’s flying, it’s just able to resist it by creating energy, to flap its wings. The updraft of air isn’t free from gravity either, it’s just a pressure system fluctuating due to temperature differences, causing a flux as hotter air moves more rapidly than cooler air, it’s just chemistry and fluid dynamics.
Hope that helps.
3
-
3
-
Actually, we do see a completely different set of stars during different periods of the year…I’m sure you’re aware of the zodiac constellations, these are known as seasonal stars, and they are seasonal for the very reason you pointed out above, because they lie along the ecliptic plain and so they’re periodically blocked by the Sun. The stars we see year round are the circumpolar stars, they are located at both poles, and are never blocked by the Sun…hence why we see them all year round. You’re not thinking about this in 3 dimensions my guy…and you could benefit from learning a little basic astronomy.
While you’re focusing on the stars though, here’s a great evidence for the globe you seemed to miss or ignored. Each Hemisphere does have its own circumpolar stars…for example you can’t see Polaris or the Big Dipper in the South, but you can see the Southern Cross, and they have their own pole star, known as Sigma Octantis. So why exactly does each Hemisphere have its own stars, if the Earth is flat with only one sky? 🧐 I’m sure you’d agree, it doesn’t add up. Does however make perfect sense, if Earth is spherical.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@elpacho....9254 A merry go round rotates at roughly 10-15 RPM’s, the Earth rotates at roughly 0.000694 RPM’s…that’s a big difference. It’s centrifugal force that you feel in a rotational velocity, and that is directly caused by the rate of rotation…not linear velocity. Earth completes one revolution every 24 hours, so it’s angular velocity is very slow, so centrifugal force output is very very low, far to small for you to feel. Linear velocity (mph) is very different from angular velocity (RPM’s), that’s where you’re going wrong here, you’re treating them as the same thing.
The linear velocity at equator is fast, but it’s also constant with no sudden or rapid acceleration or deceleration. While Earth’s rotational velocity is very slow, hence why we don’t feel it, it’s far to gradual a change over time. But we do experience some of the effects from a rotational velocity, such as Coriolis drift.
3
-
@elpacho....9254 “how is an airplane able to land on such a fast moving ball?”
Because of conservation of momentum, the laws of motion. All things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force. So the plane was on the surface of Earth, moving with it, it maintains that momentum even while in the air, moving with the rotation.
You can prove that physics pretty simply, with this simple experiment. Next time you’re in a fast moving vehicle, going straight at a constant forward velocity, make yourself a quick paper airplane, then toss it gently from back of the vehicle to front, or vice versa, front to back. You’ll notice it will glide gently through the air, then land on the floor or seat no trouble (I mean provided your throw is good, it’s a bit crude because of course your plane doesn’t have a pilot, engine, or wing rutters to keep it steady). But now pay attention to a few things, let’s say you’re moving at 60 mph, can you toss anything at 60 mph? Most people can’t, and obviously you didn’t throw it that fast in this example, you threw it gently, yet how exactly did the paper plane glide from the back of the vehicle to the front, without any trouble? How did it keep up with the vehicle (60 mph), yet also outpace it to reach the front? The answer is because it’s already moving at 60 mph, so that momentum is conserved, your throw just adds velocity. Throw it the other direction, against the forward motion, your throw now reduces that velocity just a bit.
Give it a try sometime, it’s a pretty clear demonstration of conservation of momentum and relative motion. It’s the same exact physics that occurs with a plane in flight. And since the plane is moving with the surface, landing on it is really no problem. You could do the same test with a drone inside a moving vehicle, and you’d have no trouble landing it gently. Thanks to conservation of momentum.
3
-
3
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez Here’s a question, if you don’t trust any space agency, then why bother asking for photographs from these organizations at all? If every photo I or anyone could ever show you, is just brushed off as fake, then why bother asking? You’re just going to conclude every photo is fake, before putting in any work proving that they are, simply because you don’t trust the source. So don’t you think it’s kind of pointless to ask? 🤷♂️
I could have pointed you towards the millions of photos taken by geostationary weather satellites in orbit currently, but I figured you’d prefer photos taken before CGI was even possible, because I know you’d just say they were CGI if I showed you anything more recent. Apollo was one of several examples of Earth photographed on regular film, long before CGI, so I figured you’d find them to be more credible.
You asked for photos, so I pointed you to where you could find some, that’s all. Why bother asking if you’ve already concluded they’re all fake, or if you’re not even gonna look? I’ve always found that odd behaviour from those arguing for FE.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@-Redemption- Just not seeing any clear Atheist connection is all, lots of ancient cultures believed Earth was flat as well, plenty of old paintings and carvings from cultures like the Mayan, Norse, Egyptian, etc, and they had plenty of their own theistic beliefs, these people were far from atheist. You’re claiming with absolute certainty, that flat Earth is a largely atheist concept (past and present) and I’m just curious what led you to that conclusion? Any evidence, or is it just a belief you have? You seem to have a clear distain for atheists, I’d be willing to bet you blame them for a lot of things without much effort, so that’s a bias you have. I get the feeling you don’t really spend much time trying to really understand atheists, just assume a lot about them instead.
Truth is, flat Earth is pretty universal, wasn’t created by any one group, it’s popped up independently from all types and many different cultures past and present...but in my experience, the majority has always had a clearer religious motive behind the belief, even in modern times. Chatting with them today, you’ll find a lot more theistic flat Earthers than atheist. So I just find your conclusion doesn’t really fit with what I’ve experienced so far, I think you’re being a tad bias, driven by a distain for atheists.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dtraub1 They do sloppy demonstrations, not really experiments, mostly tricks with distorted glass, that are not to scale and don't actually replicate the real world. What they're doing is creating demonstrations that replicate what they WANT to be true, and then once they get what they're looking for they stop and then tell the world "this is what's happening"...that's not how an experiment works. A true experiment has to correlate with reality. You have to go out and actually see if reality itself works the same way.
So it's a trick really, they trick people with these demonstrations (and I think they trick themselves as well). What sux is that it works, because people are bias and are only looking for ways to confirm their bias. Once they see a magic demonstration that supports their bias, they accept it with open arms and stop looking closer. That's the real problem with Flat Earth...as I'm sure you're aware by now, it is rampant with confirmation bias.
I've seen those demonstrations as well, one in particular was very convincing at the time I first saw it, one done by a Karen B, a prominent Flat Earther in the scene. She did a demonstration with a thick piece of distorted glass where she made a candle set on her coffee table.
It's convincing when you first look at it...but hold on, where are the details to the experiment? What glass did she use, what are its specs? How far away did she place the camera, how high and at what angle? How far away was the candle and how tall was it? The glass appeared to be designed to refract images downward, but in the real world we know refraction to make distant objects to rise up, not down.
She essentially shared ZERO of those details, which makes her "experiment" more akin to smoke and mirrors. A magic trick to fool a person at a glance and make them think this is actually possible.
Aside from that, the experiments are also never to scale...and do not match with their "models". Even Flat Earthers believe the Sun to be thousands of miles up and at least 70 miles in diameter...this matters. And it's very convenient to me how they'll deny refraction one minute with long distance photography, saying it doesn't needed to be included in the math...and then they'll do demonstrations that are basically refracted light through a distorted glass pain...that are designed to refract light the way they want to get the results they are looking for.
They are con men...not scientists, not experts and they're not doing actual experiments. They're JUST doing bias research, experiments designed to get the results they are looking for and then they just assert "this is how it works"...without doing any further work to fit it into their model or to actually test ACTUAL reality under the same conditions.
The trouble is, it's not simple to point these details out to a person, who just checks out after the first sentence. To point out the flaws of their perspective argument, at the deeper levels, requires some effort and explanation, there really is no simple way to cut through it I'm afraid, you have to really get down to the meat of it...most Flat Earthers will not listen to that explanation.
In the end though, when you really look at the details and think about them longer then any Flat Earther is willing to do (because they stop thinking the moment they get what they're looking for), it becomes pretty clear that they're bullshitting and a sunset still remains one of many of their biggest problems...it does not work. The Sun would not set on a Flat Earth.
Best you can do I'm afraid is just point out the errors, keep asking the questions they refused to ask while conducting their experiments. Just keep reminding them that they have to do more...a LOT more and not just stop once they've confirmed their bias.
3
-
@dtraub1 Yes, a lot of them do believe every word that they're saying, I'd say a majority even. But they are bullshitting, not just to us, but to themselves as well and that's more the problem. I think they're currently demonstrating the power of confirmation bias...they're so deep in it, that they don't realize it's happening to them. This is exactly what science has worked so hard to overcome, it's a flaw of mankind, to chase bread crumbs that aren't really there...because we get excited when we think we're onto something big, which makes us over confident. That's exactly why science developed the peer review system, to help weed out that over confidence. A person doesn't really like seeing their failures, but our peers sure do...we love tearing each other down, this actually works pretty well countering confirmation bias, but Flat Earth has zero oversight like this, so that's why it's spreading like a wild fire among the under educated, not properly trained in the full scientific method.
So I agree, in my experience most of them 100% believe these demonstrations of theirs are real science, that they are perfectly valid and don't require any further analysis. It's that blind confidence that has helped this movement spread so rampant, people are easily roped in by that confidence...even by themselves. People will rationalize just about anything to themselves when they don't know any better...if they'd just slow that excitement even just a little and take the time to listen when people point out their errors, maybe they'd finally realize how they've joined in on the con, but I think their drunk on the power it gives them believing their actually onto this big secret.
Anyway, I wish I could tell ya how to slow them down to help them see where they went wrong, but most of them are just too far gone. Once they're on forums like this spreading the same misinformation, it's pretty much to late for them, they've swallowed that pill and now think they're a bunch of Neo's. It's a mental health problem more then anything, not easy at all to snap people out of a delusion that makes them feel like they finally have some control over everything. I'd say it's harmless, but it's not really...if kids start believing this shit, then we're going to have fewer scientists and experts in the future, which essentially cripples our ability to advance further. So I suppose that's why I keep commenting, just trying to be a voice of reason, I find treating them civil is the best way to reach them, telling them what they're doing right and then critique their errors, people are more open to hearing you out if you treat them with respect...as hard as that can be sometimes, it's really the only way to get through to em I've found. Shouting down at them just makes them double down...though some of them really don't deserve anything less.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jacklynwood2008 No, there isn't...because there's no debate here anymore. Flat Earth just contradicts so much modern physics and applied science. We have satellites in orbit right now.....they wouldn't be there, if the Earth was flat, because that technology is built and works thanks to our current knowledge of the world being accurate. Gravity as we understand it would be impossible on a Flat Earth...and again, orbits would also be impossible...satellites are in orbits, that's how they stay up in space, that requires gravity and a spherical geometry. A sphere just makes absolute sense, because it's the most rigid shape in nature and gravity pulls to a center point, so when you build up mass around that center...what shape does it form? What shape is a snowball for the same reason? A sphere...you crush a snowball in toward a center, to make the most rigid shape there is in nature, a sphere. So just like a snowball, a bubble, or a raindrop, which all have forces squeezing them toward a center point...a sphere just makes absolute sense for the Earth. It makes sense of our moons shape, the other planets, the Sun, the stars....ALL spheres, for a very good reason....because of gravity, a force that pulls all mass to a center.
So the biggest reason there are no flat Earth scientists...is because when you start learning science, to become a scientist, you learn first hand how a flat Earth is absolutely impossible, while a sphere Earth makes perfect sense of pretty much EVERY piece of modern science. You prove it to yourself, you go from a layman who was ignorant about most things before, where flat is possible...too an expert who knows how things works first hand, who's building satellites and putting them into space, who understands perfectly why flat Earth is an impossible shape for Earth to have, it does not fit with reality. These people know for certain what's what...because it's there job to know. So there is no Flat Earth scientist, because these people know for certain, after going through the process of becoming a scientist...it removes all doubt.
It's the applied sciences that are the hardest to argue against, the technologies that exist, are only possible because our knowledge is accurate. Satellites can't work...if the Earth is flat. That's just a fact. They can't orbit without gravity...that's just a fact...it's a key ingredient in orbital mechanics. Gravity can't exist on a flat Earth at our scale...it would collapse into a sphere, because gravity bends space to a center. Scientists put satellites into orbit and so it's just nonsensical to think the Earth is flat then....if this technology requires the Earth to be a sphere with gravity, in order to work as designed.
Anyway, so there's a very good reason why you won't find any flat Earth scientists today...there is probably nothing in science they are more certain of, then the shape of the Earth. You learn that in the process of becoming a scientist.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You do realize the Earth is a sphere right? So you don't think if you were standing near the top or bottom of the Globe, that like you standing on top of a hill, you would be able to see the Sun on one side and the Moon the other? In those photos of a Full Moon while the Sun is still up, I'll be willing to bet they're always taken just before sun set or sun rise and the Moon will always be on the opposite side of the sky from the Sun, both of them sitting damn near on the horizon. Refraction plays a part sometimes as well, which does cause light to bend upwards, causing you to see things beyond the horizon, there is also the fact that the Moon does not lie on the same ecliptic plain as our planet is to the Sun, it's tilted a bit, meaning it’s sometimes higher sometimes lower from the ecliptic plain. This is also why lunar and solar eclipses don't happen more frequently. There's a lot of geometry at work here, but I assure you, it is possible from the perspective of you standing on the surface of a sphere.
3
-
@nickmerix2900 Oh boy, you give Tyson far too much credit. He’s a big celebrity in science, sure, doesn’t mean he’s the smartest, with the most accomplishments under his belt….far from it. He’s a great personality to put in front of a camera, that’s about it, hence why he’s so well known, his career has been as more of a tv personality….but even he would be quick to admit and point out, that he’s FAR from a “high priest” of anything. Either way, Tyson has stated many times he has no interest in debates, so he’s under no obligation. But plenty of other scientists and experts are more than ready for such a debate, they’re just not celebrities…cause science is typically a pretty lonely profession, with very little acclaim outside of circles of science.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@OlamideAdelaNCC Ok, but you're just stating the obvious and it's just empty rhetoric for the most part. It goes without saying, there's still a lot to learn, it does not really bare repeating. The point still stands, we can only reach conclusions on evidence, we should not conclude anything on belief alone. The Globe model is not difficult to deduce, not anymore it isn't, there's far too much evidence, it's applied science now.
Just sayin, you can learn how we know things, or you can remain ignorant...the latter is not very useful.
3
-
3
-
@kaptainkrampus2856 I don’t much feel like unpacking any math at the moment (I’ll just briefly mention I’ve done the math for that particular observation many times, the globe checks out just fine…if Earth was flat, you’d see a LOT more of that mountain, not just the peak). I also don’t care to speculate on space programs I have zero first hand experience with, but I can quickly answer the questions you asked in your third point.
I'll explain what Flookd is referring too. The North hemisphere has different (circumpolar) constellations from the South hemisphere. A great example is the Big Dipper, you can’t see the Big Dipper in most Southern Hemisphere locations. Same for the North, we can’t see the Southern Cross, which is their most prominent (circumpolar) constellation, so much so that many Southern countries depict the Southern Cross on their flags. I’ve travelled pretty extensively in my life, I’ve confirmed this to be true.
Then there’s the seasonal constellations, you know many of them, they are the zodiac constellations. These constellations lie along the ecliptic (between the poles) and they change every month. Has nothing to do with Parallax, everything to do with our orbit around the Sun.
This is all geometry that fits perfectly in the globe/heliocentric model…neither make much sense on a flat Earth. Because we'd expect to see 2 different night skies with 2 different hemispheres…but how exactly does that work on a flat Earth, with only one directional sky? 🤷♂️ And we'd expect to see different constellations along the ecliptic as we orbit around the Sun, the Sun blocks different points of space from our view as we go around it…but why and how would these stars change on a flat Earth? 🤷♂️
That's not even mentioning the midnight Sun at both poles, and the two separate star rotations for each pole, each with their own pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South.
Polaris drops 1 degree to horizon every 60 nautical miles travelling directly South. That’s a fact, that’s how every line of latitude is determined…it’s how sailors use the stars to navigate. This only makes sense if the surface is curving like a sphere, because that curvature would be consistent, so it would change your angle relative to the stars at a consistent rate. Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the Equator, touching the horizon, how would that occur if Earth was flat? You could say “it’s just perspective” that causes this, but perspective has rules…one of them being the inverse square law, which means the drop of Polaris wouldn’t be consistent, it wouldn’t drop to horizon at a consistent 1 degree every 60 nautical miles, it would inversely square with the distance. Meaning, the angle would be less and less every 60 nautical miles, not a consistent 1 degree.
Why does Polaris stay where it is regardless of all our motions? Well, each motion is different; Axis is pointed directly at Polaris, so that’s not gonna do anything. But the other motions won’t either, because of Parallax. Distance has a profound effect on perceived motion…to cause a noticeable parallax, you have to travel just as far as something is away from you. Further something is from you, the further you have to travel to make any noticeable difference in parallax. The stars are trillions upon trillions of miles away…how far do we travel in our orbit around the Sun? Well, if the radius is roughly 93 million miles (1AU, distance to the Sun) then times it by two to get the diameter, so roughly 186 million miles. Compared to the distance of stars, that’s nothing, Earth might as well not even have moved.
Now, we can argue all day on the distance to the stars, I could share countless stellar parallax observations, but it would get us nowhere. Best evidence is really in the lack of parallax…if the stars were closer, then we’d see noticeable parallax shift in stars, just by travelling along Earth’s surface. The fact that we don’t, is evidence that the stars are really far away…in fact that was the first clue that led astronomers to that conclusion.
It’s fine to question the globe, but you’ll find the further you go, the more it actually is the only model that fits with everything we observe. Can’t say the same for Flat Earth.
What do you mean Flat Earth doesn’t have to prove anything? If they’re gonna claim the Earth is flat, then they absolutely do…that’s a claim they’re making, so they have a burden of proof.
You can pretend to sit on the fence, but I think you’re really a flat Earther that’s just realized it’s easier to argue from ignorance than to admit a side. Just my speculation, but I’ve seen it a lot from FE trolls as a tactic, called plausible deniability. Huxters and conmen have used it for centuries to spread disinformation…so I do hope that’s not your intent.
But, hope this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Oh I understand just fine, but outside of a plane you’d be met with drag force, air that’s not moving WITH the plane. When air moves WITH a system of motion, all that remains is conservation of momentum…proven time and again with any vehicle you travel with. Earth’s atmosphere moves WITH the Earth, in all its motions, including rotation. So it’s more accurate to compare Earth to the INSIDE of a vehicle, not out. If you really think about it, Earth is basically a vehicle, transporting us through space, all the air moves with it.
So again, you’re just reaching a false conclusion, through ignorance of basic physics. What’s worse is you people actually think you’re finding holes that science somehow overlooked…when in reality, you’re not saying anything that hasn’t already been considered and figured out. Just cause you stopped at page 1, doesn’t mean the book doesn’t keep going. It’s great that you guys are finally taking an interest in science, but can you please catch up.
3
-
3
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Depends on whether the treadmill gradually built up to 1000 mph, or accelerated far to quick for you to match its speed. But you’d also have to do it in a vacuum, because obviously the air around you won’t care about the treadmills motion, so it now becomes an opposing force, drag force. The air would more what you’d have to worry about even if a treadmill did slowly accelerate to 1000 mph. The Earth doesn’t have the same problem, because of two reasons; 1) gravity, and 2) all of Earth’s atmosphere was created at surface by biological processes, so it’s already in motion with the surface, so it conserves that motion.
So in a passenger jet, is the floor of the jet you’re standing on not moving? Obviously it is…so how is it different from a treadmill? Both are examples of a floor beneath your feet in motion…so why can you get up in a moving jet just fine, and not be thrusted backwards?
Ever hear of the Concorde? It’s a passenger jet that flew at Mach 2, roughly 1500 mph. There’s plenty of video online of flight staff serving drinks at Mach 2…never once do they have to worry about that speed, because they are conserving the momentum of their environment.
You’re arguing against basic physics…you’re certainly not the one to debunk the laws of motion. 😄
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
-
@elfalte Mmk, just gonna deflect and share a link to something unrelated then eh…alright. Have it your way.
Ah yes, the Convex Earth documentary…so you see a bunch of footage of people claiming to be scientists, doing science things, and then you immediately believe that they are what they claim to be? They certainly make a lot of observations and make a lot of claims, but where’s their work published? Why would you so quickly believe their claims, without any work to support it?
I think you should look up the blog, flat Earth lunacy. They have a whole section on that documentary, going through every claim, debunking each one. They even provide evidence verifying that these people were not actually scientists or engineers as they claim. One guy in particular, the head researcher Urandir Fernandes de Oliviera, also claimed to be a psychic, claiming he could bend spoons with his mind, and that he was in contact with Aliens. Before Convex Earth, he released another bullshit documentary about his contact with Aliens, he claimed he was talking to an alien named Bilu. He also spent some time in jail for fraud…he is a known conman.
So you really shouldn’t believe every conspiracy documentary that pops into your YouTube feed.
This is what I’m talking about…you weren’t asking those questions to learn something, you were presenting them as evidence. You’ve already made up your mind, you’re not really here for a conversation, you’re here to spread misinformation.
3
-
3
-
No, that’s what some people think though, but only because they don’t know enough to realize how they’re wrong. We don’t feel motion itself, we feel CHANGES in motion, this is well understood in physics...it’s part of the laws of motion and relative motion. If you knew anything about this physics, you’d know how stupid your comment is. As for the stars, you’re not thinking very intuitively. Parallax effect more than explains why the stars do not appear to move each night, but astronomers have been tracking them fir centuries now and it is confirmed today, they are moving, just very slowly. Either way, your being extremely ignorant...all the evidence points to the stars being extremely far away, which means parallax effect is why they don’t appear to move.
Hence why your senses can’t be trusted...because honestly, they’re not very good. You wanna talk about magic, Magicians make a living out of fooling your crappy senses, exploiting the blind spots in every trick. Math isn’t magic...but you’re sure gonna think it is if you continue to remain ignorant.
You could benefit from learning some physics and math...then maybe you wouldn’t fall for online scams like Flat Earth.
3
-
3
-
SpaceX says Scientist: Instead of just making a single quick observation that confirms a bias, he keeps watching with the binoculars, sees the ship still dip into the horizon, disappearing slowly hull to stern. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDdwP0Ucomk Realizes that people who made these observations in the past, were not doing it with the naked eye...they were likely making these observations with the aid of a magnifying lens like a telescope or binoculars...and THEN they'd observe the ship going over horizon. Hands the binoculars back and asks the Flat Earther to keep watching, asks that he don't just stop looking once a bias is confirmed.
Flat Earther: "HISSSSSSS Indoctrinated shill! I know everything! I'm smerter than everyone!" Then makes claims that he's more open minded...even though he's not listening to anything we have to say that questions his claims...thus being the very opposite of open minded.
Jokes aside, the boats over horizon observation is wildly misunderstood. Flat Earthers seem to think that we reached our conclusion here on naked eye observations of ships disappearing bottom first...which is not accurate, cause a ship will reach vanishing point of your eye long before it reaches horizon and vanishing point does not make things disappear bottom first, it converges equally from all angles. Vanishing point is not the same as horizon, vanishing point is just the limits of your eyes ability to render an image visible due to perspective, it can happen in any direction. Horizon is the point where land blocks your line of sight and it will cause things to disappear bottom first and at a predictable rate.
Though ships are a bit tricky to discern, given that it's hard to know exactly how far away they are, and there's a lot of atmospheric refraction near horizon, makes it hard to reach a conclusion on this observation alone. Better to make observations of objects that remain in place, such as towers, mountains, or these wind turbines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=32s So how exactly are so much of the bottoms of these turbines missing, if there is no curvature? He's zooming in, do you see these turbines coming back into focus completely? Do you think zooming in any further will bring them back into view? Why doesn't zooming in work here?
But that's still childs play, cause Flat Earth will just claim these anomalies occur due to convergence. That's fine, but how exactly are they dropping? And what about mountains that drop by THOUSANDS of feet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
Call us indoctrinated all you want, I personally don't think Flat Earthers are being very objective about things, I thin your grossly misunderstanding a lot of science and your being misled by confirmation bias.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yestervue4697 1) Of course not, I just prefer not to think in absolutes. Just because someone lies often, does not mean they lie ALL the time, thinking in absolutes like that, will only lead you towards further bias. In science, to remain truly objective, you have to put more value on the information, rather than the source. This of course requires more time, and it’s more difficult to do, but I feel it’s the better way to think and reason. Yes, governments lie...but you lean too much into that paranoia and let it get the better of you, and you’ll become more prone to following bias and speculations, over evidence and objective reason.
2) Are you referring to this video, or something you shared? Yes to both, I watched the video (several times actually) and I checked your links, but if I missed something, feel free to let me know.
I agree actually, it used to be a lot easier to have a civil conversation a few years ago. That being said, I do find that’s generally still the case with in person conversations. I think we’ve all just been spending more time online, and it’s easier to be harsher when you can’t see the person you’re talking to. But since we’re having these chats more and more online, rather than in person, I think it’s skewing our reality. Spend a lot of time online arguing, it’s going to have a psychological effect, where you start to think that’s how it is in general. But I don’t think it is, I still find conversation in person to be far more pleasant, though I’m sure even that varies depending on where you are. Perhaps we all need to less screen time...it’s just difficult, as it’s a highly addictive platform. But I’d be willing to bet, spend far less time online, you’ll probably find the world a little less insufferable.
I looked at your images, my position is still the same. We’re discussing the basic geometry of the surface in this argument...so it’s physical reality, which falls under science. So scientific evidence will hold the most weight in this particular discussion. You’re not going to change anybody’s mind, with scripture and ancient drawings...we want tangible evidence. You started with an observation of the Moon, that was a good observation, which is why I decided to interact with you, it had some scientific grounds that I felt could be interesting to discuss. I fired shots though and I apologize for that, but I did have a point, you were missing proof for your claims, that was my only gripe at that time.
But yes, sorry it couldn’t be more productive, but I’m afraid I am only really interested in scientific evidence, not so much past relics. So if you’d not to interested in discussing science, then I suppose we’ll leave it at that. Take care out there, though I disagree with your conclusion, I do respect it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
They don't definitively prove anything in their experiments though, what they're doing is more akin to smoke and mirrors. Showing you what they WANT you to see, then hiding the details that refute their conclusion. It's sloppy science, and it works on people looking to confirm a bias. What's your bias? Well you obviously have a deep hate and distrust of authority, so you're looking for any other reason to hate them further...so you're not really looking for objective truths anymore, you're looking for only the science that supports a bias you have.
There is no peer review on YouTube...so I know you watched a few videos and now you think you're an "expert"...but it's not that simple. Flat Earth is currently demonstrating WHY it was so important that science implemented the peer review system into the process of science, to weed out this kind of bullshit, to stem the flow of misinformation. But the internet has cracked that shit wide open and misinformation is now free to flow.
Once you go deeper into the science, once you go past your bias, you realize that they're reaching false conclusions...cause they're intentionally hiding details, doing only what they need to, to confirm a bias. Science isn't easy, and Flat Earth is fucking it up a lot of the time, because they're not trained at conducting proper experiments designed to seek objective results. That's what is really happening, if you'd like I can go through a few experiments with you and point out their errors...and illustrate for you WHY peer review is so important in the process of science.
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
-
@pantheraleoromanus6241 Lot to unpack here, no time to tackle all the gish gallop, but I will answer one of your questions....cause it’s one that annoys me as an amateur astronomer. You asked why the stars don’t appear different in a 6 month period when we’re on the opposite side of the Sun, I’d just like to point out that they actually do. You have to keep in mind how a 3 dimensional spherical geometry works. There are two types of stars and constellations, there are the circumpolar stars, which are the stars locked to the polar axis, these are the stars that don’t change, because the Sun isn’t between them at any point in our orbit. Then there are the seasonal stars, these are the stars that lie along the ecliptic plain, and they do change a lot. You even know many of the seasonal constellation names, they are the zodiac constellations.
You’re reaching a false conclusion here, from an overconfidence in your knowledge on the subject. Any astronomer will tell you that the stars in fact do change along the ecliptic...as we expect they would, on a spherical Earth that orbits its Sun. It’s actually one of the things Galileo noticed, when he was realizing the geocentric model makes zero geometric sense, when it comes to the stars and planets.
You’re reaching a lot of false conclusions here, from very similar holes in your knowledge that you’re not aware of. Likely because your sources of information, haven’t been very honest with you.
3
-
3
-
Flat in the context of elevation, which is measured from centre of Earth, making a surface with all points that are at equal distance from centre, in a large square area. This is known as an equipotential surface. A spherical bubble for example has an equipotential surface, a bowling ball, a water droplet as well, any spherical object really, with all points on the surface at equal distance from centre. A salt flat is just a land elevation that’s basically an equipotential surface. It’s not technically flat though, they just call it flat because we perceive it as flat, because of how large the Earth is compared to us.
Sea level is defined the same way, it’s not level as in flat, it’s level in terms of being equal distance from centre, at equipotential.
Anyway, let me know if this information helps. If you have any more questions feel free to ask.
3
-
3
-
It’s not exact, it fluctuates a lot actually and it can even have the opposite effect, bending light upwards…it’s just something that can’t be ignored, because it is a real thing that occurs in our atmosphere, it’s more than confirmed at this point. Here’s a pretty clear demonstration https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA, pay attention to how much the horizon rises up, as refraction increases throughout the day.
Science has to remain objective, that means factoring every known variable. Refraction is a very well understood phenomenon in physics, verified and rigorously tested and observed. It would only seem convenient to a Flat Earther pissed off that it’s something they overlooked in their research…meanwhile it’s common knowledge among scientists, and they’re just being objective…cause that’s how you conduct good science practices. Ignoring variables because they’re inconvenient for a bias you’re trying to confirm…that’s bad science, it’s confirmation bias.
3
-
Alright, here's a simple little experiment that can help you out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs This demonstrates pretty clearly that as the air density is increased, light refracts and makes it possible to see objects beyond a curve.
Refraction is a well known effect in physics, you see it all the time in fact, whenever you look in a pool of water and see an image shifted or distorted. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftwistedsifter.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2Flight-refraction-physics-is-fun.jpg%3Fw%3D800%26h%3D602&f=1&nofb=1
Basically, light slows down and deflects as it passes through a denser medium, like from air to water, or from less dense air with low humidity into more dense air with high humidity. The air closer to the surface is always going to be the densest where gravity creates the most density, especially over large bodies of water, where the air is humid. Since horizon is closest to surface, this means light is bending down and over that curve, which causes objects beyond that curve to appear higher then they actually are. Here's a great a video that explains it further, in the context of flat Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLufSkz-et0
So refraction is something that occurs, and so it is a variable that can not be ignored in long distance observations. Luckily, there exists mathematical formulas that take an index of refraction and tell you by how much something will rise at what distance, given that level of humidity in the air. Here's a great experiment for curvature that was done pretty recently, that did several visual tests on several different days with differing refraction index. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Here's a photo from that section that helps to illustrate why refraction must not be ignored in these observations. https://ibb.co/Fh6Qm3x
Anyway, hope that helps. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@IrelandVonVicious I’m no expert in modern cosmology, in fact I know very little about it aside from a few general details, so I’m not about to argue something I know very little about. But you know what can be easily falsified? Flat Earth...with just a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations, FE is easily proven bullshit. Just an online hoax, perpetuated by numpty’s (with an extreme lack of spacial awareness) and the con men who feed them the bullshit. Meanwhile, the heliocentric model accounts for every observation, fits with all collected data, from every field of research and makes sense of everything, while also surviving all attempts at falsification...so that’s why it’s the leading model of Earth science. The empirical evidence in support of the heliocentric conclusion, is overwhelming.
My original point was simple though, science is best done through the process of falsification, through a long, never ending process of deduction, refining the current models as new information is acquired. Even Nikola Tesla would agree to that...he did it a lot. Though as Kevin pointed out, Tesla was far from flawless, he was a very stubborn man that refused to admit when he was wrong and that stubbornness did not serve him very well later in life. Tesla was a genius, nobody would argue that he wasn’t, but he was not infallible...nobody is.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@1FeistyKitty Why would I think that’s impossible? 🧐 People believe a lot of crazy things, so it’s pretty standard. 6 years I’ve been talking to Flat Earthers, I’m more of a globe Earther now than I ever was, because now I know exactly how that conclusion was reached…and it’s because it’s accurate. I’ve learned that these “1000s of things we can’t explain” is really just a few people stubbornly unable to listen (or grasp) when they are explained. You’re just another movement of confirmation bias, sifting through information with blinders on, with religious zeal.
Again, it all comes down to what you actually have that can be applied. We have a model that works and is actually applied in the real world, every single day. So this is not a debate anymore. I don’t mind answering questions and hearing your arguments though, so feel free, I’m actually among those who admire that people are willing to ask questions regardless of the ridicule they know they’ll face. What I don’t admire is the level of ignorance…your questions have answers, you’ve just never bothered to seek them. It’s also a tad arrogant to assume that just because others reached the opposite conclusion, it must mean they haven’t seriously looked into it. You try navigating across an ocean a few times…and then you can tell a pilot or sailor what’s what, until then it’s arrogant to assert you know more than they do on the subject…when all you probably did was watch a few YouTube videos. Just one of many examples of arrogance. It’s no coincidence to me, that flat Earthers are not experienced experts on any of the topics they argue…you’re right, the simplest answer is often the correct one, paranoia, distrust, and scientific illiteracy is the backbone of Flat Earth.
But go ahead, share your best evidence, I don’t mind discussing it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lexluther919 It's admirable to try, in fact I encourage it and so does science. Falsification is the true key to science after all, not verification. So feel free, but another huge tenant of science is peer review, and that's what we're doing as well, so I will also continue to point out what you're missing.
First of all, Solar wind is not the same as the wind you experience here. It's not a physical matter of air being pushed by more air to generate a wind upon you, it's not moving air, it's solar radiation they're talking about, which is very different. So your error is assuming words have the same meaning in different contexts. That's not how the English language works, you know that. Depending on context, the same words can mean multiple things. Solar radiation is basically light, light stretched from the visible spectrum into a much more volatile frequency, like gamma or ultra violet, also known as solar radiation. These winds don't blow...it's just the wording they chose to use, but it's not the same thing, so your just misunderstanding the science here and they're meaning. Admittedly I can't really blame you I suppose, you hear wind and since you only have experience with the wind you know here on Earth, you assume it's the same thing. It's not, solar radiation does not blow like a literal wind...and we generally don't even call it solar wind anymore, that was more a term used in the days when we were trying to verify or falsify the Aether. We've since falsified the Aether, Solar wind is mostly just known as solar radiation these days, though it is still used in some cases I suppose, especially when talking about our magnetic field which interacts with it.
When stars explode, they're not exploding in the same way a regular explosion occurs. An explosion is defined as "a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave", my guess is you assume an explosion always has to be caused by a combustion of some kind, a fuel and an oxidizer. It does not, an explosion is anything that expands outward in a violent expanse of energy. That can be used to describe a star exploding as well. Stars burn by nuclear fusion reactions, there is no oxidizer present here, just molecules of Hydrogen put under intense heat and pressure (caused by the stars own intense gravity), which forces them together until they're forced to fuse, which creates helium and also releases a lot of energy. You know how we know that? Because we've recreated fusion in labs today. We couldn't have done that, if our math and science and understandings, were inaccurate.
Yes, rockets supply their own oxidizer...what part about that is so hard to understand exactly? Are you making a claim that oxygen can't be in a liquid form? I'm sorry, but are you a chemist? Just because you've never seen it before, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is just an argument made from ignorance and incredulity, and not much more. Go out and talk to a rocket engineer sometime, or track down a chemist and see liquid oxygen for yourself. Or just watch it here on YouTube, whatever you'd prefer. Until then, this is just ignorance.
It doesn't always have the 666 in it, you're just programmed to seek that number...even when it's not really there. I've seen religious people stretch and lie about numbers, just to make that number appear...so they can convince themselves it actually means something. It's nothing more then seeking patterns that are not there, inventing them even if need be. It's a waste of time and energy and does not prove anything.
The oceans do reflect our rotation, it's called tides. The Jet stream and the great ocean current also reflect our motion, they're directly linked to it. So not sure what you're talking about, the oceans are constantly moving and shifting and so is the sky. If the Earth were still, what would cause these effects? Today we understand it to be a lot different factors, from the opposing gravity of the Moon and the Sun playing tug a war with every fluid on Earth, to the differing hemispheres creating a Coriolis effect due to latitudes moving at different linear rates of velocity, to the land masses and differing heat and pressure systems, to friction and fluid mechanics...a lot of this is tied to the Earths rotation. Even the spinning of our Core, which is required to generate our magnetic field. Lot of science here you know nothing about, that you're reaching a lot of bias assumptions with or ignoring. So why is there periods of calm? Have you ever heard of an interference pattern? When two opposing waves meet, they cancel each other out, essentially creating a moment of calm. Earth aint much different, think of every variable effected by motion like ripples in a very complex intertwined system, at some point you will get interference patterns that cancel each other out, creating periods of calm in normally chaotic systems, but they never last do they? This is exactly what we'd expect to see occur, on a sphere that's rotating. Motion is relative and conservation of momentum does create the feeling of a stationary system, but it's not perfect and there are effects we experience that are directly linked to our motion, we see it in waves, tides, winds, currents, all kinds of things.
There is no top and bottom to Earth...that's why you fail with that argument. You seem to think there is a top and bottom and the truth is, in space, there is no up or down. The only thing that creates a feeling of down for us here on Earth, is inertia, inertia created by the gravity that pulls us to center of Earth, making down for us ALWAYS toward that center, no matter where you live. North is not up, South is not down, you need to get that out of your head. I realize that can be a bit tricky to wrap your head around, because of how world maps have conditioned you, but it's really not that complicated. In truth, down is toward center here on Earth, always towards the surface, so as long as your feet are on the surface, you are always right side up, gravity creating an inertia upon you that your body is evolved to absorb from head to feet, that you can withstand best while standing.
Gravity is not just my answer, it's THEE answer. You seem to think science is going to budge on this one, but things fall when you drop them, gravity is quite literally the easiest force to verify. It exists no matter how many times we have to explain it. Nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it, that's the first law of motion. Density is not a force, it does not put matter into motion, it has no means of doing that. Buoyancy does not occur without a downward force first causing the displacement of matter by density, so it doesn't happen without gravity and density columns in zero G environments verify this. So if neither of these two things can start the accelerating motion of matter falling...then WHAT is causing that motion? We know enough to give it a name, we called it gravity, we didn't invent it, we just observe it and measure it, what would you prefer we did, ignore it?
Birds fly because they have wings evolved for flight...you do not...do I really need to explain that to you? If you had wings large enough to overcome your mass, YOU too would probably be able to fly, but you don't...soooooo, no flight for you. Pretty simple stuff.
All kidding aside though, I get where you're going with that, but you're misunderstanding a key principle of how gravity works. It's mass attracting mass, the more mass something has, the more gravity it has to resist, meaning the more energy is required to resist it. So it's actually easier for smaller things to fly, it's not fighting nearly as much gravity so not nearly as much energy is required to overcome it. That being said, birds have evolved a LOT more then just their wings in order to fly, their bones are also less dense and their feathers have a lot of surface area, which traps more air and generates more lift, meaning less energy wasted on each flap. Lot of science here...tons of variables that make flight possible for birds, from physics, to aerodynamics, to evolution. But yes, gravity plays it's part, but generally the less mass something has, the easier time it will have against gravity, that's a basic rule of thumb. If you wanted to fly, you'd require a MUCH wider wing span to do it, at your current mass and you'd need to expel a LOT more energy.
I've heard it all before, I'm sure you do have plenty more, but these aren't new questions. In fact they're the exact same questions scientists once asked many years ago and have since solved, so the problem with Flat Earth is a lack of modern knowledge really. It's a bunch of people starting from scratch, asking the same questions as scientists of old, but doing their best to be contrarian about their conclusions...rather then allow objective truths to dawn on them. You're basically just going against the mainstream out of spite...which is not a very wise way to go about finding answers if you ask me, cause you're just going to end up being wrong, which isn't going to be useful for anything. But, I do admire them trying, so by all means. Science doesn't pretend to know everything, and like I said above, it's all about falsification and at the end of the day, at least somebody is out there still attempting at falsifying the science that everybody else has moved on from. Maybe you will stumble upon some answers we have yet to uncover, so I say go for it. But don't assume for even a second that we won't put your claims to task and challenge them. Peer review is just as important and NOTHING should ever fly by the radar unchecked and unchallenged. In some small way, that's all Flat Earth is as well, peer review from the untrained masses, the general public having their say.
3
-
3
-
@robertfish4734 You’re confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure, they’re not the same thing. Gas laws are used for gases in a closed system under containment. With a container, we can determine a volume, so that is included as a variable in gas pressure equations. With atmosphere, these laws and equations are basically useless, because no volume can be determined, so gravity replaces volume as a variable. Look up atmospheric pressure sometime, pay attention to the equations, you won’t find a volume in any of them…but you will find the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2).
You’re just misunderstanding physics, twisting it to confirm a bias. That’s all you’re doing. It’s annoying sure, but it doesn’t change physical reality.
Your inability to recognize the difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure, doesn’t change the fact that Earth is measured and observed to be spherical. Just go ahead and try navigating anywhere on Earth without using the current system of GLOBAL navigation to do it…see how well you do.
Let us know when you have a working model that’s actually used in any field of applied science. Until then, you’re only fooling yourselves.
3
-
@robertfish4734 “The maps are produced by using a flat plain…No one ever considers the curve.”
Yet every actual experienced expert of navigation that I talk to says they do, and I’ve talked with many at this point. And I personally know how to navigate with the stars as well, I took interest and learned how to navigate not to long ago…knowing the true shape of the surface you’re navigating, is EXTREMELY important information to have, for navigation. You learn pretty quickly in learning to navigate, which model is the true model of Earth. And you learn it for certain, when you go to apply that knowledge.
So I think YOU could benefit from looking into it more. Nobody is navigating the Earth, with a flat Earth model…they absolutely have to consider curvature over long voyages, or they will absolutely get lost. I saw a post in comments from a Navy man just the other day, that said he knew the Earth was spherical, because he had to recheck his coordinates every 2-3 hours, just to make sure they weren’t drifting off course due to Earth’s curvature.
So you are just lying to yourself if you honestly think pilots and sailors don’t factor curvature into their navigation. They absolutely do. Learn to navigate, seriously…you won’t be a flat Earther after that lesson.
The Mercator map is a projection of the globe, it’s distorted simply because it’s interpreting a 3 dimensional surface in just 2 dimensions. This causes distortions, because you’re losing a dimension in that projection. Just think about it for a few seconds longer than you have…if Earth was really flat, then why wouldn’t we have completely accurate flat maps? Why is every flat map distorted? Why don’t we have a perfect flat map of Earth? Why does the Mercator get less and less accurate the further you get from the Equator North and South? Why not just make it perfectly accurate?
3
-
@robertfish4734 Yes, I’ve watched that full 15 minute interview, a few times now. He also doesn’t mention anywhere in that interview a “dome”. He says “land beyond the pole bigger than the US”, but you can interpret that in many different ways. Did you know you can actually fit the entire landmass of the US, directly below the South pole? So how do you know for certain that’s not what he meant? You don’t, you can only speculate. Did you pay attention to when he describes Antarctica as “at the bottom of the world”? He uses that phrase at least 3 times in the interview…why doesn’t flat Earth pay attention to those words? Why do they ignore that? Seems to me what we have here is just classic cherry picking….so confirmation bias.
Allow me to make that clearer, here’s a breakdown of that interview; 1) Zero mention of a dome of any kind, 2) never once does he claim Earth is flat, 3) he talks about land beyond the pole larger than the US, but that’s true, you can fit the entire landmass of the US beneath the pole, it’s a massive continent, 4) he also mentions that Antarctica is at the bottom of the Earth, several times…yet FE conveniently ignores that?
So here’s how it looks from an objective standpoint. You’re cherry picking one phrase, and spinning your own speculations upon those words. He does not mention a dome, nor does he state that Earth is flat, not in this interview, or any of his writings and other TV appearances.
So what you have here is empty speculations…not actual evidence.
And then you act like just because we disagree with you, it means we didn’t research it…no, we’ve seen the same “evidence” you have, we’ve done the same “research” you have, we’ve just recognized it as empty claims and speculations, so we’re not buying it. You can get pissed off all you want, but that’s how it looks from our perspective and that’s OUR conclusion after doing the same research. You’re chasing a trail of confirmation bias that’s been laid out for you, and your following that trail without question, because you WANT it to be true, probably because you hate and distrust all authority. It’s created a bias, that keeps you from looking objectively.
That’s how we see it. We’re doing the same research on the topic you have, you’re not sharing anything many of us haven’t already seen before. Where you see evidence, we see endless speculation. So the real question is, who’s right?
Well, I asked for evidence of the dome, as in something tangible, an experiment that’s repeatable, data that I could look over, physical samples, etc….and so far your “evidence” has been a nuclear test that never mentions a dome, and an old explorer hired to explore the poles for potential military usage, that also never once mentioned a dome, in anything he’s ever said. So you’ve given two very paper thin sources, that you can only speculate on……do you honestly think that speculations are good enough?
It seems to me that people have forgotten the difference between speculation and evidence. That’s all I’m seeing…and you’re not the first. Fact is, I’m not going to blindly agree to speculations. Evidence…that’s what matters. Your speculations don’t mean anything to me, when I can go outside and plot a navigation route and then successfully sail or fly it….just like millions of people do every single day.
3
-
@robertfish4734 Does inverse square law eventually reduce to zero? No, it doesn’t, the number gets smaller, yes, but zero is never achieved. But thank you, that’s finally something better than speculations, that’s actually doing the numbers, so that’s something. Though I very much doubt you’ve caught something that all other astronomers and mathematicians somehow overlooked. It’s far more likely to me that there are just variables you’ve overlooked. The stars are quite dim, it’s not easy to see most of them, without better equipment to help. The stars we do see regularly, are far brighter and bigger than our Sun. The star you mentioned, Alpha Centauri, you actually can not see it with the naked eye…so bit of a poor example. You know they’ve actually used the same inverse square law, to determine a stars size and distance…so you are far from the first to use that equation here…except you’re working backwards, reverse engineering, but if you overlook a variable, of course your figures aren’t going to match. That’s why we have peer review in the first place, it’s easy to miss things.
And from my understanding, sonoluminescence only lasts for a fraction of a second, and is not sustainable. In any case, it’s just a false equivalence, comparing apples to oranges and assuming they’re the same thing, it’s ad hoc, slotting in an answer you feel solves your dilemma, but without any sufficient evidence to support it. The light produced looks like a star, so you conclude that must be what it is…no further analysis required. It’s a hypothesis at best, but a hypothesis must be testable, so I wouldn’t even call it that.
With Spectroscopy, we can accurately determine the Suns atomic makeup (mostly hydrogen and helium), as we can also do with the distant stars. Is it just a coincidence, they all share a similar light pattern when tested through spectral analysis? That’s pretty solid evidence that points to the stars being exactly like our Sun, do you have similar or greater evidence to support your assumption of Sonoluminescence? And what about stellar Parallax? Why do we measure a parallax that’s consistent with the size of our solar system and Earth’s orbit? Do you have a working model, that can accurately predict celestial events (solar and lunar eclipses), as accurately as the heliocentric model can?
3
-
@robertfish4734 Also…if you’re going to argue this stuff…why not share the more concrete evidence, rather than empty speculations? You insult our intelligence when you use only speculations you can’t prove, for the foundation of your arguments. I get that you’re frustrated, and it’s worn down your patience, so it’s just easier to run on speculations to snare peoples interest, but speculations aren’t gonna work on those of us who are able to recognize them for what they are. So you just do more to affirm our doubts in the actual honesty and non biased nature of Flat Earth.
I actually respect the spirit of Flat Earth, questioning things the rest have largely moved on from, and questioning it regardless of the ridicule you know you’ll face. That is admirable…what I can’t get behind is forcing us to agree, while throwing such paper thin evidence at us. We’re questioning things too…we’re questioning Flat Earth, because they are not above the same standards of review, that you’re currently putting on the globe. I think you should cool your jets a bit, then maybe we can respect that we’re both doing our best here, with all the information provided. We’ve reached opposite conclusions, but respect that we both reached those conclusions from our own personal experience and research. I think these conversations would be more productive then.
3
-
@robertfish4734 Ever heard of a spectroscope? Very similar to a telescope, except it diffracts a source of light into a spectrum band, that can then be analyzed to determine the light sources atomic makeup. You can purchase one pretty easily, they’re a pretty simple device actually. Astronomers and astrophysicists have used them for decades now, to identify stars….because every star has a similar spectral makeup, the same as our Sun….that’s not just a coincidence.
Spectroscopy is entry level science…you don’t go through an under graduate physics class, without going through a section on spectroscopy. It accurately identifies molecular structures in laboratories…so why can’t it also work on stars, planets, and other objects in space? It can and it has…your denial of spectroscopy doesn’t make it go away.
That’s what we call evidence. So I’ll ask again, do you have any actual evidence for your conclusion of Sonoluminescence? Cause right now you’re grasping, desperate to keep the Bible.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HaydenEvanoff I don’t believe, I know, because I’ve studied it and tested it directly. You know too actually...you’ve just never processed properly what you were seeing. I’m sure you’ve seen what a pencil does in a glass of water https://www.michigan.gov/documents/explorelabscience/Introduction_to_Light_606396_7.pdf. That’s refraction, it’s a very well understood principle of light physics and everyone is probably familiar with it in some way or another. Most have just never seen what it can do, and even less understand how it works.
For a more practical demonstration relative to this discussion in particular, I like to show people this simple demonstration https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs.
Or you know, if you’d like to see light bending directly due to refraction, here’s another one, this time using a laser https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=278.
I can share more if you’d like, but I’ll leave it at that for now. I’m sure these help demonstrate clear enough, why refraction can’t be ignored.
It’s fair if you’re not aware of the science though, most people aren’t well versed in physics such as this, so it’s fine. I would just caution that you should be careful not to jump to conclusions. The problem I’m seeing with Flat Earth, is that they ask a lot of great questions...but they don’t attempt to answer them, they instead assume they can’t be answered, simply because they themselves couldn’t. Then they form conclusions from a lack of knowledge and understanding.
Science is kind of similar, the difference is that they take steps to properly review every situation, making sure to account for every known variable and control for hidden variables as best they can. They don’t jump to conclusions until it’s conclusive, that’s the difference.
Science doesn’t really make mistakes, or at least that’s not the word I would use, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. It mostly just reaches conclusions based around the information it has at the time. Sometimes, they don’t have all the information they need, because the information is unknown to them at the time. You’re no different, you thought for sure refraction was bogus, until I provided information you were unaware of prior to your conclusion. Now that you have new information, you can review it and decide if it’s valid. If it falsifies your current conclusion, then to remain objective, you should change your conclusion. Science operates the same way...because that’s the reality of our situation. We do not know everything, so for this reason, old information always has the potential to change as new information is obtained.
So that’s why science changes through time, because we’re constantly learning more as we go, and sometimes we learn something new that forces us to change what we thought we knew. Science has to remain objective, so it changes when it has too. That’s the reality of information gathering, it’s a process.
That’s also why science is constantly reviewing itself. The trouble is...the general public has been led to believe that science reaches certainties. But it’s a common misconception, that’s not how science works. Science just studies physical reality to gather information, then we form conclusions from that information, as best we can. So it doesn’t operate in absolute certainties, it instead thinks in percentages of certainty. That’s how it works. But some things are more certain than others...there’s probably nothing in all of science, we’re more certain of, than the shape of the Earth. You’re free to try and falsify that conclusion, but good luck with that, the evidence is overwhelming.
Also no, 6 feet makes a difference, it changes the perspective, so it has to be factored. If you do not, then you’re conducting sloppy science. You can’t just ignore variables because you think it doesn’t matter...that’s bad science. It’s pretty common sense that you see further the higher you are....so if this is an observation to determine how far you see an object, then you bet height of the observer matters, so don’t be ignorant.
Yes, the math he used was incorrect. He used a basic parabola equation, that did not represent line of sight, that didn’t have variables for height of observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
Point is, you’re talking about confirmation bias...while at the same time trying to convince me that we should just ignore variables in experiments. You don’t see the hypocrisy in that?
Anyway, I hope the information I’ve shared is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aremissomar459 I also play music in a band, lead guitar in fact, and I know it’s very similar to a dance at times. You can follow whoever is leading and still be on cue, and the orchestra is very clearly following Chris’ lead. Notice how he starts the song and the orchestra then follows after? Which is exactly what they would do with that kind of delay, it’s the only way they could. Notice how there are a few points where the tempo changes slightly and the orchestra has to adjust slightly? There’s plenty of times where they’re not in perfect sync, just pay attention. The orchestra adjusted just fine, cause it’s really not that hard to do so. So if that’s your evidence, just more empty speculations…then I refer you back to my original comment above, because you seem to have missed my point completely.
It’s really not as difficult as you’re making it sound. When I play live with my band on stage, we typically follow the drummer, but sometimes I start the songs and so I set the tempo. There’s no percussion here though, so very easy to just follow the guitar. Also with my band, sometimes the drummer or someone messes up, and the band has to adjust on the fly, it happens, but it’s really not that hard to correct in most cases (unless you’re using weird timing signatures, but this is clearly 4/4 time) and most people watching would never even notice.
But thank you for sharing that beautiful moment in history with me. I’m Canadian as well, so I’ve always been quite proud of our man Chris Hadfield.
Point is, you’re basing an entire belief structure…around speculations and misinformation. It’s very poor evidence, that holds zero weight in a discussion of science. People really need to learn the difference between evidence and speculations. You really don’t have anything here but speculations and misconceptions, hence why nobody should take you seriously…but unfortunately, some more gullible probably will.
If you had better evidence, then you’d find less push back…but there is a reason we’re questioning the claims of FE, so please pay attention. We’d stop questioning FE, if they didn’t clearly form arguments around confirmation bias. To be clear though, I don’t mind that people question the mainstream, that’s a good thing, ask all the questions you want, I applaud people for that! Just make sure you’re not just following what you WANT to be true, get better evidence, make better arguments and listen to your opposition sometimes, cause that’s how you sharpen your positions. Be open to the possibility that it’s perhaps you who is currently falling for an online hoax, and we’ll remain open to the possibility that we’re maybe being had as well. Evidence is how we should conclude which position is true, not speculations.
3
-
3
-
@nicholashpitts Infrared doesn’t magically make the horizon line shift, but feel free to share any examples where you believe it has, that’s your chance to share evidence you think could falsify mine, so what are you waiting for?
Also, to my knowledge there are no videos from Jtolan or any flat Earther, where they have reached an altitude of “371,000 feet”, that’s an impossible altitude to reach without a rocket, so you’re either lying or tacking a zero on the actual height. But again, now is your opportunity to share that evidence you feel exists, so feel free. Can’t do anything with empty claims.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Is it a can of arsenic that will kill you instantly upon eating it? No, and you can trust that it isn’t, pretty much 100% of the time. So we all trust systems of authority more than we realize. You can say you don’t, but I’d be willing to bet you have plenty of food in your fridge and cabinet you didn’t harvest, or make yourself…we all do. You’re twisting her point to mean something entirely different from her actual point. It’s not about whether it’s the healthiest option long term, it’s just that you know it’s not going to immediately harm or kill you, and you trust that. You trust it for a reason, because it’s clearly working, you’re not dead.
Her point is that we all put trust in something or someone eventually, that’s how society functions in the first place, we trust each other, more than we realize. If we didn’t, then society as we know it wouldn’t be able to function. So our real super power for success as a species isn’t just our individual intelligence, it’s our ability to cooperate and share knowledge with each other. That’s how we’ve achieved everything we have, not alone, but together.
Lose that trust, and society breaks down. Zhetetic practices that Flat Earthers have adopted ask that we only trust ourselves at an individual level and nobody else, but while that may have some immediate benefits in a self comforting way, that’s a very limiting methodology overall, and is not a very good recipe for success as a whole in the long term. Unfortunately, we’re not very good at spotting our own biases…our peers however are quite good at it.
It’s not a perfect system, that’s no secret, but it has brought results, and we all trust it more than we perhaps realize. That’s not a bad thing really, but movements like Flat Earth seem to be actively trying to convince people it is. Truth is often found in the middle though, that’s why she’s saying “wrong, but not stupid”, because it’s good to be skeptical. Heck, these systems of peer review and standards of excellence wouldn’t exist if we weren’t skeptical, but it’s also beneficial to have a little faith in our fellow man. Both are required for a healthy and functional society.
3
-
The only thing that blows my mind, is how ignorant people truly are and how powerful confirmation bias is. I know exactly what you're referring too, the flight manuals and aeronautics research papers right, where in several summary sections of those papers, they assume a flat motionless Earth, before doing some math. Are you aware how those papers are structured? Are you trained in how to write them and how to accurately interpret them? My guess is no...you have NO IDEA how to read them, you just skimmed them briefly looking for a few wordings you could pull out of context (or someone else did and you now repeat what you learned from them verbatim, acting like they're your own insights), then respun those wordings with your own bias explanations and assumptions attached.
So allow me to give you some proper perspective into how the summary sections work in those papers. They are not making a statement nor are they giving a conclusion, what they are for is simply to tell the reader what variables will be discussed and what will be omitted for the sake of simplicity. In most cases in flight manuals or aeronautic schematics or mechanics manuals, they do not require the variables of the shape of the Earth or its motion, in any of the math, especially when it comes to the body and design of the vehicle. But, in some cases they might, so before they start any of the math, they have to state VERY CLEARLY what variables will not be included, so that the reader knows how and where the math will be simplified.
That's it...they're not making any statements or disclosing any hidden truths to you people or anyone else for that matter...the summary section is just that, a summary of information for the reader, so they are aware of the variables that will be included or discarded. That's why the wording is usually like this "we will be assuming a Flat Stationary environment for this section", now the reader doing the math here knows what variables are not needed, which makes the math much easier.
An example would be wind resistance over the body of the plane...at what point is the shape of the Earth and its motion relevant to how the body handles wind resistance? But we do live on a Globe that rotates, so it might be a variable in some cases, so it still has to be mentioned so the reader understands when it applies and when it doesn't. Otherwise, they could be wasting time on some variables that don't factor or that are considered negligible, in the math they're currently trying to solve for. Make sense yet?
Hope that helps you understand a little better how these papers are structured. I don't share this to mock you, it's more just to share some information that Flat Earth sure isn't going to share with you...cause they'd rather stay bias in a fantasy world where they're the smart ones and scientists don't really know anything. Ya, tell that to the computer you're using to help spread misinformation and ignorance. You are a layman, doing what layman do best...misunderstand how things work and jumping to false conclusions, cause they're not trained in how things really work. That's not really your fault, very few people know how to read and write these sorts of manuals and research papers. Everyone is considered a layman, until they're trained at a specific task, and even then, everybody is always technically a layman at something. So this was a pretty easy one for Flat Earth to con people with.
3
-
@k3630 Well a cloud isn’t nearly as dense as a star, you’re making a huge false equivalence. Collect enough gas together, you eventually create enough gravity to cause fusion. Earth does not have enough mass to create this effect, it’s really that simple.
Clouds float largely due to buoyancy, which is actually caused by gravity. Denser matter occupying lowest potential energy first, because its collected mass leaves little room for less dense matter to occupy that same space, so the heavier mass displaces it, forcing it up. Atmosphere at surface is more dense than water vapour, so it forces it upward. If gravity here were much much stronger though, if a lot more mass was collected, then even buoyancy couldn’t occur, fusion would instead occur, creating a star.
That’s a simplified version of things, it’s not just gravity at work though, there’s so much more interactions and attracting forces occurring, it’s a very complex system. Which is why your questions will never end, one answer will just create more questions, that’s the process of science. We could be here forever, as trailbossdan1 said, it’s far to complex to conclude everything here in these comments. But I’m curious if we’ve at least been any help.
3
-
Alright…first of all, these documents you’re referring to aren’t “declassified”, they never were classified (mostly, unless they’re military specs for weapons and aircraft that are new). Secondly, they’re not stating the Earth is Flat, they’re just making math simplifications….because these are mathematical simulation models, not to be taken literally.
Simulation models are used by engineers when designing, they only focus on specific aspects, so they don’t require a full simulation of reality, just the parts that are central too whatever design feature they’re focusing on. These particular models are for testing linear flight dynamics, so it’s focused on things like wind resistance for the shape of the vehicles exterior…you don’t require Earth’s shape or its motions, to test a vehicle’s drag, so you can omit those variables from the math in a simulation, and it’ll still give you accurate calculations for that specific purpose. When they make a simplification like this, they have to state very clearly what variables are being omitted and which ones are being assumed or altered slightly. This is so the engineer/mathematician/scientist/tradesman knows what variables are being used in the math to follow.
Those same documents often also assume a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass. Both are impossible variables in reality, because every vehicle is hollow with many moving parts (so they’re not perfectly rigid), and vehicles deplete fuel over time (so they don’t maintain a constant mass). Why don’t Flat Earthers zero in on those words? It’s simple…doesn’t help confirm their bias, so they are ignored.
What’s happened is that most layman don’t know what a math simplification is, and they don’t know what simulation models look like…so they assume it’s a paper describing Earth’s true form, because they have no idea what you’re actually looking at.
This is honestly why most layman should stay out of discussions of science and mathematics. There’s a structure and a format for every field of expertise, and if you’re not educated on how these structures work, then you do risk reaching false conclusions from that lack of knowledge. This in no way means they’re stupid, it just means they lack a base understanding of how things are structured in these fields of expertise…what is stupid however is reaching conclusions from assumptions alone, without any deeper effort to learn, or consideration to other plausible answers.
Anyway, I hope this information has been helpful. Don’t be so quick to fall into the confirmation bias trap that some huxters online have setup for you.
3
-
I wouldn’t feel special if I knew God created a tiny terrarium for me...I’d feel like a prisoner, a slave created for his amusement, in a tiny cell with limitations. I feel a lot more special, knowing that I’m a rare occurrence, amongst an endless expanse of space, of which I will never fully experience or comprehend. It doesn’t make me feel small, it presents a challenge that makes life exciting and interesting, the possibilities are now nearly endless. I’m humbled by my tiny place in that universe, nobody in charge of my life but me, almost no limitations on what’s possible.
I’ve never understood why anyone would want to be some “special” pet, of a psychopathic, narcissistic god, that actually thinks an eternity of torture is a just punishment...simply for not believing in him. Seriously...who would ever agree that’s a fair punishment for any crime? It’s just insanity...and you’d have to be a psychopath to allow such cruelty.
Luckily, it’s very very likely not true and science debunks that story more and more with each new discovery. Just another fantasy fiction story somebody wrote awhile ago, that has just as much barring on my life as Harry Potter or any of the thousands of other religions we’ve made up over the centuries. Such a boring, depressing story...not my cup of tea, never needed it and never understood why anyone would want it to be true.
3
-
3
-
@knightmarefuel4499 Just stating facts, my life does not require another man made superstitious belief system, I’m not tethered to anyone else’s bullshit, just living my life, one day at a time, free of your cult. That’s my choice, that’s the freedom I have and that’ll never change. Personally, if I was God, I’d have far more respect for the guy with the self respect to stand on their own, despite the potential consequences...over an army of little boot lickers. But that’s just me I guess.
Religious bullshit doesn’t hold any power over many of us anymore, we’re looking at reality as it is, no fantasy required. And I’m fine with it, my existence gives me purpose, I make the most out of every day I’m alive and I could really care less what happens after, it doesn’t matter. I don’t spend my days wishing for the end, I appreciate every day. I don’t measure my self worth, on the expectations of an imaginary sky daddy...that’s very likely not real, at least not in the way you people seem to think he or it exists. Not my style.
Sorry bud, really don’t care if that bugs you or your God.
Government is a different story, I’m limited in what I get to change about reality, but I’m still free to do something about anything I don’t like. But honestly, it’s not really as bad as many make it out to be...just a whole lot if whining is all I hear. I have a roof over my head, water that comes direct to my house, power that keeps me warm, food in my fridge and I’m healthy. My ancestors couldn’t say the same. Unlike you, I don’t take these things for granted. I don’t take life for granted.
3
-
3
-
No, ONE GUY who worked on the blue marble composite of 2002, told an interviewer how THAT particular image was made. Then conspiracy nuts took his words and blew them out of proportion, spinning a lie that all of NASA admitted they don’t have real images of Earth. That’s not the complete truth of things, that’s cherry picking and taking things out of context to confirm a bias, so pay attention.
SOME of the images of Earth are created by composite, stitching thousands of images together to create one single complete image. They are still real images, but you require a photo editing software to merge them together to create a single image. This a small drop in the bucket to the sort of photos NASA releases though, the original blue marble photo from 1972, was taken during Apollo 17, at roughly 18,000 miles away, using a regular old camera, capturing the Earth in a single shot.
Here’s an archive where you can find hundreds more like that photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums from various other Apollo missions.
Aside from those photos, there has been many geostationary satellites put into orbit (that’s satellites at roughly 25,000 miles altitude and further, that are in sync with Earths rotation), that take round the clock photos of the Earth. Most famous one currently being the DSCOVRY satellite, but there are many others, like Himawari 8 or the GOES satellites to name a few. Here’s a group of hobbyists, who build their own radio telescopes out of spare parts and cheap supplies, who then use these radio receivers to pull data from these geostationary weather satellites https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY.
Flat Earth likes to ignore the details and spin lies from cherry picked information they take out of context...that should be your first sign, that these people don’t really give a fuck about what’s true.
3
-
3
-
@dannymccarty344 Most Solar radiation bounces right off the heat shields, and couldn’t penetrate through the hull or the space suits. And if you’re referring to the Van Allen belts, even this area isn’t as deadly as people assume it to be….it’s no more deadly than a few Xrays. So as long as you don’t spend much time inside this area, you’d be fine. And they also went around it…not directly through it, if you bothered to actually research anything beyond what confirmed your bias, you’d know that they waited to launch during a period when Earth’s tilted axis could put them on a trajectory where they could launch themselves around the belt, only entering a small portion (the weakest part of it) for only a few minutes. Go a head and search how long they spent inside the belt…it was only like 45 mins total, there and back. It would take days of prolonged exposure inside the worst part of the belt, to receive a lethal dose.
Again…this is what I’m talking about…you people only do enough research to confirm your bias, and then completely ignore the details that directly refute your conclusions. :/
You shouldn’t be shocked I’m questioning you…you should be embarrassed that your research on these topics is so shallow. Confirmation bias…that’s what’s leading you. Go ahead and research how many rads is considered a harmful dose…then look up how much ionized radiation is measured in the belts and out in general space, then research how far these particles can penetrate into aluminum. That’s the research you should be doing here…but I bet you’ve never once looked, you just jumped immediately to your biased conclusion.
We can keep going if you want too…but personally I think arguing the Moon landing is stupid. At the end of the day, you’re right about one thing, if you’re not an astronaut who actually went to the Moon…then you can really only speculate. So it’s a moot argument for both sides. I can argue the physics, and the engineering and prove that it is sound…but can I prove they actually went? Nope…I can only speculate. So it’s a dumb fight to waste time on. Get a better hobby.
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
-
3
-
@GrahamA63 You have some pretty deep seeded trust issues my dude. How about we inject you directly with a flu virus, or smallpox, or measles, and then see if you don’t get sick…then you can argue whether viruses are real or not. Go talk to a virologist or any medical biologist…it seems you really need that conversation. Let them show you directly under a microscope…we can see viruses, we’ve isolated them, they’re very real…and you have to be absolutely insane to believe they’re not. 🤦♂️
Trouble with you here, is you’re claiming you see people on a beach 27 miles away, but then you haven’t provided any evidence that supports that claim…..so why should anyone believe you!? 😳 Seriously….you’re not very good at this are you. Got any photos to share, any videos? What’s your location? What beach were you observing? Nobody should ever address empty claims as if they’re legitimate…if you don’t have any evidence supporting the claim, then it probably didn’t actually happen! 😳 And holy fuck dude….binoculars use the same technology as any telescopic lens does….so a camera with a zoom lens is basically the same damn thing. 🤦♂️
The satellites you align your dish too are called geostationary satellites…they orbit Earth at the same rate as its rotation, which keeps them in position over one area. You could have learned that with one search…it’s not difficult. Here’s a group of hobbyists who built their own radio telescope, they then used to link up to a few geostationary weather satellites over their area https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY?t=260. Guess what direction they point the receiver dish…they even pull a few pictures of Earth directly from the satellites. These satellites aren’t whizzing by….they’re locked to a position, because they orbit at the same rate as Earth’s rotation.
You’re not just ignorant dude…you’re paranoid. You think you’re without bias, but that’s not true at all…you clearly don’t trust scientists or experts….that’s a bias! 😳 That lack of trust is leading your conclusions, that’s your bias….trust issues. It’s made you into a paranoid contrarian, you’re prone to going against mainstream information, simply by the fact that it’s mainstream.
Please share your beach observation so it can be reviewed. If you can’t, then we can only conclude it didn’t happen. If it did happen though, I can pretty much guarantee you fudged the numbers. I once had a guy tell me he could see all of a 150 foot tower, from a 6 foot viewing height at a beach, that he claimed was 22 miles away. After pressing him for more details, he eventually shared a picture that confirmed his observation…but then he told me his location, and I was able to find the tower he was observing. The tower wasn’t 22 miles away, it was only 8 miles away….pretty significant difference. Doing the math for that distance left about 135 feet of the tower still visible…so pretty close to all of it.
See why it’s difficult for me to just take people at their word? You are not infallible…I can pretty much guarantee you fucked up somewhere in your observation. My guess is the beach you’re observing isn’t actually 27 miles away.
3
-
@Hebrew816 Ok, I've searched it, found no photos verifying what you're claiming. Found a couple memes making the same claim you are, but no photos from that distance that can so far verify the claim. So from our perspective, it's an empty claim, with no supporting evidence. Tell me why anyone should just agree with an empty claim?
We're asking YOU to provide the images, because that's how the process of review works. YOU make the claim, it is then YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF to provide the evidence. Otherwise, don't even bother making a claim. We're not just going to believe empty claims blindly and without question, it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence for a claim. That's pretty standard practice.
I understand it's difficult to share links on YouTube these days, but you could still provide names to a specific site or video. Something we could use for a search.
3
-
@Hebrew816 So the math you're using is 8 inches per mile? So if we draw that on an XY grid, a straight slope with no curve at all. That's even more inaccurate than the 8 inches per mile SQUARED equation that Flat Earthers use. Which is a basic parabola equation, that does not represent line of sight, does not calculate what is hidden from line of sight, has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc.
8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math. Pretty basic rule of thumb in mathematics and science, use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion. So if that's the math you've been using this whole time, then that's your error. sooooo....ya, no wonder your math is not fitting with observation, tends to do that when you don't use the correct math for the job.
Here's the correct formula:
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
d= Distance from you to target
r= Earth radius
h= Height of observer
The rest is basic trig, so I hope you know what a cosine (cos) and an arc cosine (acos) are.
I will mention, even that equation is only purely geometric. No variable for refraction included here and that does matter as well, but it's a good start and FAR more accurate than a basic parabolic arc equation.
3
-
3
-
@msorrible153 " Besides, what the heck has gravity got to do with the shape of the Earth?" Are you serious? If a force is pulling all mass towards a central point, then the only shape that collected mass can and will make is a sphere. It's not much different from a bubble forming a sphere due to air pressure squeezing it equally from all angles towards a center, or a drop of water forming a sphere in free fall due to surface tension...gravity has everything to do with the shape of the planet, it's WHY planets and stars are spherical to begin with.
So this is what boggles me, you don't seem to understand much about gravity...and yet you seem to think the error is ours? Have you ever considered the very real possibility that maybe YOU just don't really know much about the topics you argue against and that's the reason why you reach so many false conclusions? Does that thought ever cross your mind?
Gravity does a lot more then explain why things fall towards Earth, it also explains the orbits of the planets, how planets and stars form, why they're all spherical, it even explains how stars burn, through nuclear fusion...which by the way we have recreated in labs. We achieved nuclear fusion by using our current understanding of gravity...the Sun can't produce nuclear fusion without gravity, it's what causes that fusion to occur. Realizing and discovering gravity quite literally unlocked the mysteries of the cosmos to us...once we grained a broader insight into this phenomenon, everything started making sense, the greater mysteries of reality started falling like domino's.
It's fine to question things, but I think it's wise to consider that you can be wrong. That's what you're asking the scientific community consider, why do you think you should somehow be exempt from that?
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
-
Ok, but what would you use this for? You have to understand that this ONLY calculates drop from a tangent line from surface...so it does not represent what your eye sees, this formula doesn't account for things like height of the observer, line of sight, refraction...it ONLY calculates curve drop tangent from the surface. Which means, those figures would only be accurate, if your eye rests at sea level...which is of course NEVER the case. So it's a very limiting equation that when you use it to determine what should be hidden from your line of sight due to curvature, you will not get the accurate numbers to be able to discern that.
Here, I'll share a far better equation for you that is designed to calculate for your actual line of sight. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ If you click this link there is even a handy diagram at the bottom that helps you understand things further. There is also a link to a forum there that breaks down the math in greater detail...explaining further why the 8 inches per mile squared equation is not useful for this observation.
It even includes the 8 inches formula there to help make a comparison. If you scroll down to the diagram there and pay attention to the dotted line labeled "Surface Level", that is the tangent line from surface I mentioned, making a 90 degrees from surface outward. Now pay attention to the solid line labelled "Drop" that goes down to touch the curve, that is the only thing 8 inches per mile squared is designed to discern...and it doesn't even do it very well, because 8 inches per mile squared is also not an equation for a curve on a round surface, it's an equation for a parabola. This equation does not represent line of sight or what is actually hidden by curvature, if you pay further attention to the red dot labelled "Eye/Camera", that represents the height of the observer, which plays a huge role in determining what you see past curvature. Now if you'll notice the solid green line going down from the observer, that represents your actual line of sight. Do you notice how the line of sight sees things UNDER the surface level line?
This is why the 8 inches per mile squared equation is not useful for this observation...it gives you the wrong numbers for what you're trying to discern and so when you use those numbers to figure out what should be hidden by curvature, you will end up with a false conclusion. Hope this information is at the very least interesting, I don't share this to mock you, it wasn't information I knew at first either and it took me awhile to find and process all this info, so my hope is that you'll take a look and honestly consider it at the very least.
3
-
3
-
Hell N Degenerates Sure, being able to admit when you're wrong is a trait of intelligence, but just simply changing your mind does not make you intelligent, it's the ability to entertain a concept or idea, without necessarily agreeing with it outright, that is a true measure of intelligence. Being open, listening and paying attention to all the information available, recognizing the difference between empty speculations and actual evidence, and then reaching a conclusion if evidence is conclusive enough to verify a position as true. Staying objective and honest, keeping your bias in control...that is intelligence.
In my experience, Flat Earth is nothing but empty claims, misunderstood science, ignorance, paranoia and bias...not exactly a winning combo. Many of us have taken the time to hear them out, but it's pretty clear that they don't know what they're doing and have reached most of their conclusions on sloppy research and confirmation bias. So they're not changing any of our minds any time soon, because the work they do is not conclusive in the slightest...it's bias. The ability to recognize and resist bullshit is also a mark of intelligence.
3
-
3
-
Hell N Degenerates Your misunderstanding of physics doesn't change the shape of the Earth which is proven spherical upon all observation. The natural physics of ALL matter is to conform to whatever force is being applied too it, in our case gravity. Water doesn't seek level, with gravity pulling it to center of mass it seeks lowest potential elevation...and because of it's fluid nature, it keeps equipotential distance from center of GRAVITY. Your misunderstanding of basic physics is not an argument...it's just willful ignorance.
Here's an example of water being put into a curved surface due to a different inertial force, a centripetal force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTCwhicKKwU See how this works yet? Forces can curve water just fine, so long as that force remains constant, water will remain in whatever shape that force puts it into. Gravity is a constant force, gravity is a force that keeps water at an equipotential distance from center of Earth...so water curves with the surface, as the many observations made by Soundly help to verify. I can share more examples if you'd like.
So you'd have to successfully falsify gravity for your argument to hold any water...so far all Flat Earth does is deny it and ignore the experiments that verify it, and then they think this is sufficient enough. Ignorance and denial are not how you falsify science...evidence is how you falsify science. So are you going to share any evidence for your bullshit claims? Cause I'll be happy to share evidence of gravity with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68&t Go ahead and watch that...maybe you'll finally learn something.
Earth is observed to be spherical, water is observed to be curving along that surface, gravity is proven force that does exist, that force is what holds water in a curved equilibrium.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stephaniehampton3525 You asked how the stars stay in place, which is an attempt to poke holes in the model…but it’s not a hole, if you actually stop and consider every variable of that model. So it was an argument from ignorance mostly, whether you agree space is as vast as the heliocentric model claims it to be or not, parallax effect would occur at those vast distances and it does account for why the stars do not appear to shift in our lifetime. So if you’re going to argue against the model, at least factor every variable and understand it first, or you risk making a strawman argument, which is a fallacious argument. But to be fair, it is a great astronomy question, so don’t feel discouraged for asking it, but it was presented as more of an argument rather than a question.
Here’s a fun astronomy fact for you though, the stars do actually change, we have star charts going back hundreds of years that verify that…but you can even confirm that for yourself in a just a few years of actual observation. Even every six months we get a slight shift from the previous 6 months, this is known as stellar parallax, this is what we’d expect to see occur as we’re on opposite sides of the Sun during orbit, so it’s consistent with the model. And all the stars shift a little bit every few years, a star that’s really popular for amateur astronomers to track is known as Barnards star, it shifts greatly every year, I would urge you to look it up sometime.
Just saying, people are so quick to assume the stars don’t change…but then they’re not out there every night tracking them, so how would they know? Are you an astronomer? How much do you really know about the stars? Any actual astronomer would tell you, they’re moving a lot actually and we do track those motions. You shouldn’t assume so much about topics you don’t really know much about, that’s all I’m saying.
And if you’re going to poke holes using the stars, then don’t forget to also challenge the model you’re looking to support. Flat Earth model for example has a really hard time accounting for the second rotation of stars observed in the South hemisphere. In fact I’ve never heard any explanation for the Southern rotation, on any flat Earth model proposed so far, that’s logical or scientific…but the globe model accounts for it with absolute ease, it’s exactly what we’d expect to see occur with a spherical geometry.
I get your hesitation to trust systems of authority these days, but you shouldn’t let that distrust form into a bias that clouds you from looking at things objectively. NASA and government weren’t the one’s to solve Earth’s geometry, I would say it started with sailors and explorers hundreds of years ago, regular working class people, who happened to notice that stars drop to horizon at consistent rates by latitude, Polaris even drops to 0 degrees at the Equator, which is simply impossible on a flat Earth, but makes perfect sense on a globe.
Anyway, it’s fine to question things though, so by all means don’t let people like me discourage you, but hopefully you find this information at the very least interesting. I think it’s still important to keep our head on our shoulders and look at all the information as objectively as we can.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I came across a comment the other day left on a movie review video. Yes, it was one of the Star Wars the Last Jedi rants going on lately. The person commenting was responding to what I felt was a pretty level headed and rational argument for why they thought the new movie was good and why they enjoyed it. The person commenting, rather than rebuttal the points made and provide an opinion on them, instead insulted the reviewer by calling him "the poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect". I'd heard the term before, but didn't remember exactly what it meant. So I looked it up again and after thinking on it a bit, I couldn't help but chuckle at his comment.
The last time I seen the term used, was again in a comment trying to insult somebody. People love to throw that term around it seemed, especially when they felt it was the slam dunk to winning an argument they were frustrated with...but nobody was really thinking on it much. Which is funny to me, because by using it to insult somebody, your motive is clearly to make yourself appear superior intellectually (just throwing "smart" terms around like you learned it from the years of Psych University and not a simple google search, gives me hint of that.), which is actually you demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect. They weren't able to understand a problem, rather than rationally figure it an opposing view or say nothing, they just called them stupid for their opinions instead, propping themselves up as superior...when it was them originally who felt frustrated by their lack of understanding. The Dunning Kruger effect in a nutshell...unless I'm missing something. xD
I do like how arrogant some people can be, especially when they just end up springing their own traps. xD
and yes...I know I'm kind of demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect right now by even mentioning this. ^^; Propping myself up as superior for having noticed...I'm just another flawed human like everybody else, I need my wins from time to time too. xD
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@CamperKev Ever considered the possibility that scientists warned the populace of something plausible, and then something was done about it, so that’s why we don’t hear about these problems anymore and why they didn’t come to pass? 🧐 You’re just sharing a bunch of gish gallop, without any of the actual context…do you honestly believe that’s how research is done? 🤷♂️
For example, here’s some further context to one of your points; Yes, the ozone layer was depleting, and the cause was determined to be from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons—gases formerly found in aerosol spray cans and refrigerants—that are released into the atmosphere. Scientists isolated the problem, and warned governments, who then limited the usage of these chemicals. Refrigeration units today do not use CFC’s, and Freon is limited as well, and the ban on these chemicals started around 1995. Since then the ozone layer has gone into recovery, thanks to those bans put in place…that’s why you don’t hear about it anymore…because scientists did their job, and solved the problem. Imagine that…actually listening to experts, stops these doomsday predictions from happening. 😳 We should probably keep doing that…just sayin.
Here’s another one; In the early 1900’s, it was realized that our modern society could not sustain global food production, because we couldn’t put enough nitrate back into the soil. A chemist/scientist named William Crookes warned the world would be doomed too global famine, if we couldn’t find a way to return nitrate back into the soil for larger yields to support the growing population. So he essentially gave a doomsday prediction…and science took it seriously. A german chemist named Fritz Haber then found a break through method of synthesizing ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen found in the air. Providing all the nitrate the soil would need during that time. So the global famine was averted…because a scientist took the warning to heart, and found a solution. That’s basically the story with every global famine prediction…a warning is given, then scientists do their jobs, and solve the problem.
You see where I’m going with this? These doomsday predictions haven’t happened…because scientists are doing their jobs! 😳 It’s the same with climate change…and all you’re doing is making it harder for them. In the past, the general populace really wasn’t getting all that involved with these problems…now everyone’s suddenly a fuckin climate scientist.
I bet I could go through your entire list, and provide more context to each of them, like I just did for the Ozone problem, and famine…and it would falsify your argument here. But you know I’m not going to take that time…that’s how a gish gallop works; bombard your opponent with a mountain of weaker arguments, to make it nearly impossible for anyone to take the time to debunk it. But I don’t have too…because at the end of the day, nothing you shared has any context, so it’s basically moot. That’s why you were asked to share an actual scientific paper that supports your position…but instead you shared a bunch of predictions without context…and called it good enough. 🤦♂️
You obviously haven’t been paying attention lately. Not sure how it is in your area, but over the last 10-15 years, the rate of extreme forest fires has more than doubled. In my area (central Canada) we now expect it every year…we now just expect a couple months of heavy smoke and poor air quality. I’ve lived here nearly 40 years, and I don’t remember a time until recently where this was a problem, we had fires…but blankets of smoke, every year? Nope…that’s new and it’s just getting worse. The rate of fires has increased, and they’re far worse…and it’s not just here, it’s all around the world. So I’m inclined to agree with scientists…that’s a prediction that has come true. They warned us fires would increase…and that’s what’s happening.
And if you really look into the evidence and look into what climate scientists are actually saying, you’ll find they do all agree this is happening. Here’s a great break down from a scientist, sharing some of the actual evidence for climate change and its link to human civilization.
https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU
Here’s what’s most mind numbing about all this; If scientists are wrong, nothing really changes, except we maybe have a few new technologies born from that warning. But if YOU’RE wrong, and if you continue to pretend you’re a scientist, and continue to fight against them…then we are essentially fucked, because you’ll have essentially slowed the process of solving the problem. So I don’t really care if they are wrong (though after seeing the evidence I feel they are bang on), I would rather be safe than sorry. :/
Let scientists do their jobs…they’ve steered the ship through plenty of global problems so far, I feel your list is really a list of their successes.
3
-
@konberner170 No…they have not. 100% effective is not the reality of vaccines, if you think it is, then that’s a misunderstanding you have. They are a great defence against harmful pathogens, much better than doing nothing at all, absolutely. But they’re not the one shot fixes all that people seem to think they are, and that’s never been what scientists claim either…defeating an ever evolving pathogen is never that simple.
There’s also no way to account for every single person’s varying health concerns and differing immune systems, with any single vaccine. The reality is, some people will always react negatively, to any vaccine we produce, there is no such thing as a 100% safe or effective vaccine. That’s the reality.
Why would we punish scientists for doing their best? 🤷♂️ Are they not allowed any room for error? That doesn’t seem very reasonable. Scientists are not perfect minds that never get things wrong.
Sabines point was that they do have standards and safe guards in place, to ensure the safest possible consumable product, or in this case vaccine…it doesn’t mean it’s a 100% effective system. I think your problem is thinking in absolutes, it’s all or nothing…but the trouble is, 100% is simply not reasonable…it’s impossible to obtain, in anything concerning the population.
Also, which top scientists said “if 70% of people take first dose, it would be enough”? Citation needed…cause I’d be willing to bet you misread or misinterpreted something.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EZHostglo 1) exactly, which is why we don’t use gas pressure laws and equations when working with atmospheric pressure. You can’t give a volume for our atmosphere, volume is an important variable for gas pressure laws, so they are not used in atmospheric pressure equations. Instead, gravity is the variable we use…that’s what creates the pressure gradient of our atmosphere. So the big error flat Earth makes, is they think gas pressure and atmospheric pressure are the same thing within physics. They are not, they are treated as different. You’re applying gas pressure laws, to atmospheric pressure…gas pressure laws are pretty limited in use within atmospheric pressure science.
2) Both are sufficient, you do realize that Einstein merely refined Newtons work, right? He didn’t invalidate it completely, we still use Newtons equations far more than we do Einsteins. You really only need Einsteins field equations for more precise measures.
3) Well, you actually can explode a basketball this way, if the rate of thermal input exceeds its ability to shed that convection transfer. But not a bad point, but then you’d have to assume your container sheds the Suns thermal input. You haven’t yet proven there is even a container, let alone know what it’s made of…so it’s just assumptions built on assumptions, not a very great foundation.
4) All gravity creates weight…that’s all weight is, it’s basically gravity. Mass is what you always have, your weight depends on the force of gravity. This is easily explained with the equation we use for determining weight; W=mg. Mass times acceleration of gravity, gives you weight. Think of it this way, you know how a scale works, right? You press down upon the top surface of a scale, applying a force, to generate pressure it calculates as a weight value. If there is no downward acceleration of gravity, then how does a mass resting on a scale apply any force to the scale? Mass and gravity create weight…basic physics.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hershelpogue1745 Science is all about constant rebuttal…it’s built on the never ending process of falsification. Your problem is you seem to think science is all about proving things, when in reality it’s all about falsifying every other possible hypothesis, until you’re left with the most likely conclusion. This is a never ending process of review, rebuttal and falsification, that’s the reality. If you set out trying to prove things, then you’ll just end up confirming your biases. It gets tricky, and people get confused, because of course the end goal of science is to verify truths of physical reality, what’s tricky about that is in how that’s best achieved. It’s best achieved through the opposite process, through falsification. That’s how you best combat the true enemy of science, bias.
I can respect flat Earth in what they’re doing somewhat, because they are refuting science that’s established, that’s great…the problem is they’re about 2000 years behind the rest of science. These are old questions, long answered. They’re free to rebuttal, but the arguments they make are just ignorant and biased…that’s the problem. It’s born more from a desire to spite the scientific community, not so much to find actual truth. That I can’t respect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 Ever consider the possibility, that perhaps things aren’t lining up, because you lack some pieces to the puzzle...or because you’ve been given the wrong pieces, by huxters online? Does that ever cross your mind?
Here’s what you do know for sure...one side has created everything around you in the modern world, while the other has achieved nothing. Flat Earth has no working model and has contributed nothing that’s currently used in any applied science today, not a fact I’d so easily ignore. It’s easier than ever before to spread misinformation, so what makes you think you couldn’t have been lied too, by con artists feeding you bad information?
In any case, feel free to share some of these things you feel are not lining up, perhaps I can share some information or insight you may have missed. To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with questioning authority, in fact it’s quite reasonable and logical. But you should remember to remain skeptical, even for the sources you’ve cone to trust, don’t forget to hold them to the same standards of review.
3
-
3
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 Cannot answer, or cannot rhetorically persuade you, because of a lack of knowledge or understanding on your part? There is a difference. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I do my best not to ignore any arguments made...the only exception being gish gallop. If too many points are made at once, to the point where it becomes impossible to answer them all without writing a novel, then there’s not much point continuing a discussion I feel. I understand FE has many questions, doesn’t mean they can’t be answered.
So far, you and I have only discussed photographs and space travel, I don’t make a habit of reading all the other comments (though I do the odd time), so if you want me to address anything specific, then you have to ask me directly. So I’ll answer for the ones you’ve provided for me now.
Crepuscular rays are an optical illusion caused by perspective. The rays are actually parallel, but from your perspective, they can appear to converge at a point. You can test this pretty easily with a few simple tests, like the ones included here https://youtu.be/cTPLqbl-HGY. Every example here is done using parallel lines, viewed from different angles. This is pretty common knowledge in things like illustration and art fundamentals (I’m an illustrator for a living, so perspective is a topic I would consider myself an expert on), perspective can and will create this effect, of parallel rays appearing to diverge from a point.
Now, that’s just an explanation, backed with a simple, repeatable, optical experiment, it’s not enough however to reach a definite conclusion from. To reach a more conclusive conclusion, we’ll need something that can further verify that the Suns light is arriving parallel to Earth. So is there further evidence to support that light from the Sun is actually parallel? Yup, you bet there is. Here’s a few simple experiments that help to further verify, that the Suns light arrives parallel, by simply measuring the angles of shadows, as well as observing these crepuscular rays from different angles, much like the experiment above, but in a real world setting.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno
https://youtu.be/z2quy8ur6Io
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/fl8Knew3xNU
Crepuscular rays are just one of many examples, where flat Earth presents a hypothesis...but then doesn’t bother to verify it with further evidence, to reach a definite conclusion. FE is riddled with stuff like this...asking great questions, but then completely skipping over the process of deeper examination, just jumping straight to conclusion. Then you say we’re ignoring the observation. :/
Sun “hot spots” are simply light reflecting off the clouds, no different than how a light reflects off a surface of water, acting almost like a mirror, creating a reflection of the light source. Catch the light from the right viewing angle, the clouds will produce a similar effect...clouds are just essentially water vapour after all. Do I need to explain much further? Not really, it’s logical that this can and would happen, and again, FE has provided nothing that really makes their claim conclusive, no further examination, they’ve just jumped straight to conclusion again. So in this case, if they can reach conclusions without evidence, we can discard that conclusion without evidence just as simply. Though the main claim here is that the Sun is local...and the experiments I shared above already falsify that claim, so we’ve already covered it.
Your next point is no visible curvature without fish eye lens. So are you aware at all how high you have to go, in order to see curvature on the horizon? Have you ever crunched the numbers or bothered to see the geometry simulated? If not, here’s a great program that can help you out here http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth. This is a too scale Earth curvature simulator, perfect for visualizing the scale and geometry we’re dealing with here. So first, take the blue cursor and slide it to 10,000 meters, which is roughly the altitude a passenger airliner flies at, then let me know how much curvature you see. Now pull the cursor to 35,000 meters, which is roughly the highest altitude that any weather balloon can climb too, now how much curvature do you see? Not a whole lot, right? Now try seeing that curvature, through the haziness of our atmosphere...good luck with that.
What we have here is a common misconception. You’ve been told your whole life, as we all have, that you can easily see curvature from an airliner, but that’s not necessarily true. You can see it...but it’s not easy to spot with the naked eye, not at all. Even at the 100,000 feet of your average weather balloon, still not high enough to really see it, without some effort. So, this reality conflicts with your misconception...causing you to assume something fishy is going on, when in reality, it’s just a simple misconception, repeated by layman verbatim...happens a lot actually. In that same simulation, you’ll see several yellow tabs, click the one labelled “Curve” and then watch the demonstration.
This is the larger issue here...a lot of people really don’t seem to understand how big the Earth really is. 100,000 feet, is pretty high...to you and me, the microscopic life living on the skin of a massive celestial body, but compared to the Earth, it hardly registers. You said it yourself earlier, you have to get pretty far up, before you can really see the Earth. Though if I were you, I’d rewatch any high altitude video you deem as not having a fish eye lens...and this time put a ruler or straight line across that horizon for comparison.
Your next point was on a lack of curvature observed on the ground, using official curvature calculations. Ok, first thing to note here, is that if you’re referring to the 8 inches per mile squared math, then this is where FE has conned you...cause that’s not the correct math to use here. There are other equations they also misuse, but this one is the worst offender.
That math is okay for surveyors to use to quickly and roughly determine benchmarks, but it’s not an accurate calculation and it is missing many key variables, required to determine an accurate line of sight observation. The most important variable it ignores, being height of the observer, but the bigger problem is that it does not represent your line of sight, at all. It’s just calculating a drop from a tangent line at your feet, that’s all. It’s a basic parabolic arc equation...it makes no determination for horizon distance, includes no variable for height of the observer, or refraction, it does not represent line of sight, so it’s simply not the correct math to use for this observation.
Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. It’s not the mainstream science that says this math is what you should use for long distance observations, it’s FE that tells you it is. So the con was simple, convince people to use the wrong math, then of course they’ll be confused when the numbers don’t add up. Most people are not very mathematically literate, they’re not going to easily recognize when they’re using the wrong equation...and they certainly wouldn’t be able to derive their own. So it worked on a lot of people...by using their own lack of knowledge and experience against them.
Anyway, that’s just a majority I’ve noticed, I really cannot be sure at this point which equation you are referring too...but you know as well as I do, that 8 inches per mile squared is the math most commonly used by FE, and the fact is, it’s not the correct math. So why continue to trust a group, that intentionally misleads people?
Here’s where you can find the correct math in case you’re curious https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. That curve simulator I shared above, makes use of this math, so it’s a very useful tool as well, though here’s a simpler version of the calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. Perhaps give this a try next time.
It should also be stated, that refraction is another key variable to these observations. If you’d like to learn more as to why, I don’t mind explaining further, but I’ll leave it there for now. But, I will mention this, it’s not a variable FE can just ignore...yet they often do. Again, you claim we’re the ones ignoring things...
Lastly you claimed we see things further than we should. Basically the same problem really, do the math wrong, and then ya, I can see how you might reach that conclusion. It’s pretty important you make sure your math is accurate...so I hope the information above at the very least gets you questioning the math provided to you by FE.
In the meantime, here’s a few observations and experiments, that help to verify curvature. If you want more, I can share many more, so feel free to ask.
https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://youtu.be/RK93TfSYeQU
Yes, the list does go on....for how many different ways con artists have spun and twisted information, to make it seem like there’s a problem with the heliocentric model. It’s all bullshit though...lies, to get you going down a rabbit hole of misinformation, to rob you of your better reasoning. You don’t have to take my word for it though, I get that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to navigate truth from lies these days, so don’t let me discourage you. But if it interests you enough, I’ve shared what I feel is some good evidence, so feel free to examine any of it further if you’d like, at the very least I hope you find it interesting. Anymore questions or rebuttals, feel free to continue.
3
-
3
-
Well, the second law of thermodynamics has more to do with energy equilibrium, not so much matter. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? The heliocentric model doesn’t break any laws of thermodynamics, this is just a misunderstanding flat Earth likes to twist for their bias narrative. Gravity is the container of our atmosphere, entropy does occur but the part FE ignores is that entropy can be slowed by attracting forces...like gravity. Entropy will win in the end, but thanks to the attractive forces that bind reality together, it’s going to take a very long time. Science has calculated this eventuality, it’s called heat death.
Anyway, I hope that helps a little. Flat Earth is twisting the physics to confuse people...that’s how they rope followers. Try not to fall for their bullshit, they have no idea what they’re talking about, but they’ll pretend to be experts. Don’t be dazzled by their overconfidence...it’s all for show.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Retrocaus Have you ever looked at the planets through a telescope? They share similar characteristics to our Moon, having clear surface features that become more curved near the visible edges, and even displaying curved shadow phases, we even see them rotating around their axis, revealing their other sides…revealing them as spherical. Some even have their own moons that visibly orbit around their host planet. This is pretty standard knowledge for an astronomer, or anyone who’s actually spent some time looking through a telescope, doesn’t require much effort, anyone can make these observations today with pretty inexpensive equipment. We really have no reason to conclude everything in space is not spherical, they display all the visual characteristics.
Gravity makes sense of both the spherical nature of their geometry as well as their motions, so the pieces of the puzzle continue to fit very well, giving us even more evidence to support the larger model. Your argument doesn’t really refute that, it just deflects away from these observations, as if to ignore them. Astronomers don’t ignore these things, nor should anyone.
So what’s the highest video footage you accept? Do you have a link you could share? Then my next question would be; what is the altitude and did you do the math for how much curvature you’d expect to see from that altitude? I find a lot of people, Flat Earthers especially, just look at that footage and then assume there should be more curvature, without actually crunching the numbers to check.
What about the ISS, it’s live streaming every day, does that video not count? Clearly shows curvature at roughly 240 miles altitude. I’ve seen plenty of rocket footage going much higher than any weather balloons, they also show a clear curvature, do you also discount this footage?
Your point just lacks context, I can only assume you think weather balloon footage is the highest we’ve ever gone, because you’ve left your response very vague rather than providing specific observations…but weather balloons only go to about 100k feet, roughly 20 miles, the ISS is 240 miles altitude which is a heck of a lot further. And rockets go much higher as well, at least into low Earth orbit, which starts at 100 miles. So why discount all those other examples, which are far further than any weather balloon footage? You don’t think you’re possibly being a bit intentionally biased? Ignoring everything that may directly refute what you’d like to believe?
Also, have you ever tried putting a ruler up to the horizon on weather balloon footage? I have, and it is curved, just very slightly. Give it a try sometime.
You should also look into the math and geometry here a bit, 20 miles off of surface is really not that high. Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, at 20 miles up you see about 387 miles to horizon, so you’re only seeing 1.5% of Earth’s curvature at that altitude. We see curvature in terms of degrees, that’s only 5 degrees…you think you’re naked eye could spot 5 degrees easily? There’s a great free simulation model you can use at the Walter Bislin blog, that can actually simulate the horizon at 100k feet, you should check it out sometime…it matches balloon footage perfectly, as well as the ISS observations.
Anyway, I hope this information has been helpful or at the very least interesting.
3
-
Well, you could only apply it for about 100 miles or so, before it became pretty much useless. Because that’s a parabola equation, not a spherical equation, so it’s eventually going to stop curving and just drop straight down. But aside from it being the wrong math, your reasoning is flawed either way, because it misunderstands how elevation is measured on a sphere. It’s ignorant to how geodetic surveyors interpret elevation.
As I’m sure you’re aware, elevations are measured from sea level. Our ocean is an equipotential surface, meaning a surface at equal distance from a centre…that’s how level is used in that context. A spherical surface is level, in that every point of its surface is equal distance from centre, a bubble for example, is another example of an equipotential surface. So if the ocean is at equipotential, then if we’re measuring land elevation from that reference, then we’re really measuring land elevation from centre of Earth.
So a good way to understand it better, imagine a perfect spherical ball in your hand, now stick a bunch of 2 inch pins all along the surface of that ball, exactly 1 inch deep for each pin. Now what is the elevation of each pin from surface of the ball (sea level), to the top of the pins (land elevation)? Exactly 1 inch elevation. Even though every pin is dropping away from each other, relative to each other, the elevation from surface for each, is still 1 inch from surface, for every single pin. Land elevation works the same way. If an area of land has the same elevation for several miles, it doesn’t mean it’s “flat” in a geometric sense, it just means it’s all equal distance from centre.
That’s how elevation works on a sphere…and that’s how topography data is recorded and interpreted.
3
-
We don’t settle matters of science in courts of law, we settle them by peer review and consensus within the scientific community. A court of law really only cares about if a law or stipulation in a contract has been broken...that’s it. So any con man pushing flat Earth can put fine print stipulations into a contract, that are impossible to produce in an experiment, and the judge will rule in favour because all they really care about is whether a law or contractual agreement was breached...that’s it.
In these cases where Flat Earth won their case, it was during their many bullshit bets or money challenges that they put forth, which typically come with written agreements and so the judge wasn’t ruling on which model he finds to be more conclusive...he was ruling on whether that particular contract, for that particular challenge, was breached or not...nothing else. It doesn’t mean they were agreeing the Earth is flat you numpty, just that the contracts stipulations weren’t met, because the clever wording these con artists use to make sure they can’t really be met. Typically, by creating a false premise experiment, that’s the most common way to con people on bets like these.
A common one I see is “show me water sticking to a small ball with its own gravity”, if you knew anything about physics you’d know this is impossible to do, while inside Earths gravity well. It makes testing the gravity of that tinier object impossible, because the water will just fall to the much stronger gravity below it, the Earth. Some in Flat Earth know this, some of them know it’s a stupid experiment to ask for because it ignores much of the physics of gravity, but, it’s very possible to make water stick to a ball due to the waters surface tension, so some people thinking they’re clever will answer the flat Earth challenge anyway, by sharing an example of water clinging to a ball due to surface tension...and that’s when they spring their trap. If any challenger attempts to collect on this bet, using that as their entry, then the FE will immediately argue in court that the water clings due to surface tension not gravity, and that is true, so the judge will have to rule in favour of the flat Earther. Doesn’t mean the judge is saying the Earth is flat, just that the challenge wasn’t completed as stated. Some people even will post pictures of Earth from space and say “there’s your ball with water”, but the fine print will state “a ball you can hold in your hand” or “only pictures you take yourself are valid”. So, they’ll win, because the challenge wasn’t met as stated...doesn’t mean the Earth is flat, or that the judge was ruling that, just means some suckers took a bet that was designed in a way that it couldn’t be won.
So they get media attention and then simpletons like you, who know nothing about neither science nor court proceedings, will just assume this means they proved in court the Earth is flat...when in reality, that’s not what went down at all. But, you people don’t really care about the accurate details do you, only the headlines and memes you can spin after the fact, to help confirm your bias a little more.
3
-
Gravity is also a law of science, just look up Newton’s law of universal gravitation sometime. That’s where gravity physics started.
Here are some more facts; things fall when you drop them. Nothing moves on its own, motion always requires a force to cause it…that’s what defines a force. So pretty simple deduction at that point; we observe a very clear falling motion from dropped objects, and nothing moves without a force…so force confirmed. What does science do when it identifies a force? It gives it a name…so we’re all on the same page when discussing it. They called that force gravity, really isn’t anymore complicated than that. They did a similar thing with the upward motion we observe in density differentials, they called it buoyancy force. This is physics 101.
These are simple facts…we teach gravity as a fact, because it’s very obvious that there is a force that motions us toward Earth, that is undeniable, so that part is fact, so if it’s a fact of physical reality, why wouldn’t we teach it as such? You can call it something else if you’d prefer…but then you better have a pretty damn good reason, otherwise why muddy the waters? Just easier when we’re on the same page.
Scientific theories go into the deeper explanation of how they work, that’s the difference between a law of science and a theory of science. Laws only describe WHAT is happening, but make no attempt to explain HOW or WHY they occur. That’s what scientific theories are for, that’s the main difference. In that way, theories can actually be considered higher than laws, because you will always have more power over a system if you understand HOW it works, rather than just what it does. The conclusions of a single theory are not necessarily facts, but they are comprised of data and information that are proven beyond much doubt to be factual. Nothing graduates beyond hypothesis until it has passed all experimentation and peer review. The only reason they continue to call them theories, is because our information isn’t finite, old information always has the potential to change as new information is acquired. So there really is no higher position in science than theory. Facts are too rigid, by definition they can never change, so we need a wording that actually fits the reality of our situation; that being that we do not know everything and likely never will, so things can change as we learn more. Calling things a theory allows it that freedom to change.
Electromagnetism is also a theory in science…but you won’t see anyone bringing that up with as much fervour. But that is a fact, it is “just” a theory as well, so why not apply the same logic there? You could say “well I can prove it with a magnet”, well you can prove gravity by dropping something…so really, what’s the problem? 🤷♂️ I think it’s a bit bias to apply that line of reasoning to one and not the other. In any case, it doesn’t matter, because scientific theories are not as flimsy as your standard theory is, scientific theory is not the same as a regular theory in the layman vernacular, it takes on a much more sturdy position.
When you say something is “just a theory, therefore not true”, it just tells everyone you don’t quite understand the basic terminology of science. I understand that’s not necessarily what you said though, so I won’t put words in your mouth. Point is, gravity isn’t just a theory, and theories are lot more scientifically proven than you’re maybe giving them credit for.
3
-
3
-
Wasn’t the point of the video to prove or disprove either position, it was merely to discuss WHY some people believe it’s flat…that’s literally in the title. It’s just an analysis of the ideology and psychology of a group mindset…not a discussion of the science. This isn’t a science channel, it’s independent journalism, focusing mostly on travel and geography.
Both experiments are examples of inconclusive experiments. His point was that people who fall for Flat Earth, typically have a big thing in common, they’re scientifically illiterate. The first experiment is just a bad experiment all around, it doesn’t prove or disprove either model, a spirit level is not capable of doing that, even a basic understanding of physics can tell you that. So it’s extremely inconclusive…yet Flat Earthers reach conclusions with it anyway…that’s the point he’s making. These people are doing experiments and reaching conclusions…without realizing their experiments are in error. It points to the real problem…people tend to over estimate their abilities, and they’re bolstering an argument with junk science, without realizing it’s in error or without even considering that’s possible.
The second experiment is better, it’s at least a good experiment that could reach a conclusive result…the problem here is that they gravitate to the original experiment done by Samual Robotham, and ignore the hundreds of recreations that completely falsify his conclusion. His version of the experiment was done very poorly, making only ONE observation, using only ONE marker, using the wrong math, ignoring important variables like height of the observer and refraction, and running no controls. So his version is inconclusive due to sloppy experimentation…but Flat Earthers don’t care about that, they only care about the result it gives, which is in favour of the conclusion they WANT to be true. It’s an example of confirmation bias…which further adds to his point. The scientifically illiterate typically don’t care about what’s inconclusive and what’s not, they skip right over that little problem and ignore it.
This is why we have peer review in science, and why experiments must be repeatable in order to be conclusive. Upon all proper peer review of the Bedford Level experiment, it’s actually found to be in favour of the globe, not the other way around. Here’s an example of a more recent recreation I’m aware of https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. There’s a link in the description there that leads to the full report and its conclusion.
Anyway, I agree he could have been a bit clearer on his point, but again, this isn’t a science channel, so I wouldn’t expect much science. He made his point still I feel, part of why people fall for this mess, is because they’re not as well versed in science as they think they are. That over confidence blinds them from their errors.
3
-
3
-
To add to Dave's point as well and answer your second question there, as they orbit the Earth they also conserve the momentum they got from the Earth, so they move relative to the Earth at all times. I think relative motion and conservation of momentum is best explained with this thought experiment (or real experiment if you'd like to give it a try sometime). If you were to throw a ball around in a moving vehicle, throwing that ball around would behave just as it does while standing stationary on the ground and throwing a ball around. If you were to throw a ball back and forth inside the cabin of a moving plane for example, at 500 mph cruising speed, you can throw that ball in any direction and it will operate just as it does on the ground.
Now understand that you can't throw a ball at 500 mph, nobody can, so how does that ball keep up with the plane when you throw it? Why doesn't it go smashing to the back of the plane? Why doesn't it slow down when you throw it towards the nose of the plane or speed up when you throw it to the back? Conservation of momentum and relative motion, the ball is moving relative to the plane, so it is conserving that momentum.
It's tricky to wrap the mind around, but essentially what this does is creates a sort of stationary frame of reference, where everything moving relative to that frame of reference, operates and conforms to the same motions as if they were in a stationary system. So rockets are like that ball leaving your hand when you throw it in a moving vehicle. Just like that ball moves relative to the vehicle it's moving in, the rocket and satellites move relative to the Earth from which they took off from, conserving that momentum every step of the way.
To further that, it is very easy to conserve momentum in space, because there is almost zero friction due to wind resistance or drag. There is almost no air in space...at least none that is not already moving with Earths orbits already.
Anyway, hope that helps answer your second question there.
3
-
@DoomerDad It actually matters greatly. The 8 inches per mile squared formula is only accurate if your eye sits at sea level...which is just another reason why it's the wrong math because of course we all know your eye never rests at sea level. Go ahead, lie at the beach during a sunset, then when it has gone down completely, pop back up to your regular 5-6 feet of standing height and watch it come back into view. Height of the observer matters...it is a common sense that the higher you are, the farther you will see. This equation I have provided factors this in and understands its importance and it also demonstrates how and why it's important. There is even a link in there that takes you to a forum that breaks down the Math in far greater detail.
I can go into greater detail for why the 8 inches per mile squared equation is not the correct math...I can even provide illustrations if you require them. The fact is, you don't have to agree with me...but I do hope you at the very least begin to question this math and take a closer look at it. The simple fact of the matter is, if you use the wrong math and are not aware of that...then you risk reaching a false conclusion upon every observation that you use it, so it's important to make damn sure you're using the correct math. I am only merely sharing information with you, it's up to you in the end whether you're willing to remain objective and take the time to challenge what you think you know. If you did it once for the Globe, then keep that mind open and be just as thorough with the Flat Earth, never take what these people on YouTube say at face value...from my perspective of nearly 3 years looking into this mess, they are the real con men here, playing off of peoples general lack of knowledge and inserting lies in those gaps.
3
-
Unlike most conspiracy’s where people can really only speculate endlessly, or where it requires actual expert knowledge and experience on the topic, Flat Earth is in a sweet spot, because we all have experience with the surface of Earth and we can all put it to the test whenever we choose too. So we can all weigh in on this one, each of us having at least some expertise on this subject, seeing as we all live here, and we don’t have to endlessly speculate, we can reach more definitive conclusions.
So I believe these are at least some good reasons, for why this particular conspiracy gets so much more attention. It’s also interesting, because it’s just so much more nonsensical than all the rest...at least the others have some logic to them, this one is just...completely ridiculous. So we’re mostly just stunned that anyone actually falls for it.
3
-
@marcosbetances7186 Sure you do, you’re just very used to the feeling, it’s your weight…you do feel heavy, don’t you? It requires energy to lift your arm, doesn’t it? Well, the reason is because you’re resisting gravity a bit in the act of raising your arm. We’re used to our weight, so we don’t think much of it…but that’s gravity, in fact in physics weight is just another word for gravity, it doesn’t exist without it. You always have mass, but weight is created by your mass being squeezed against a surface, by an attractive force.
Think of it this way, here’s a very simple proof of gravity. I’m sure you know how a scale works, you press down on the top surface to apply a force, which creates pressure, that it then interprets as a weight value. So what’s required to make the scale do that? A downward force. Okay, so when an an object is resting on the scale, if no force is present, then how exactly is it pressing down upon the scale to generate that pressure? It seems a great many people in FE aren’t quite familiar with what a force is, and how it’s defined in science. A force is something that causes a change in state of motion, nothing is put into motion without a force. Falling is a motion, wouldn’t you agree? More than that, it’s a physical mechanic of nature…it happens whether you like it or not. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that, a force is present that attracts you to surface…it’s the job of science to figure out HOW and WHY it occurs. Your conclusion with density does nothing to explain that motion…you’re just describing WHAT occurs. We’re very limited in what we can achieve with that information alone…you will always have more power and control over a system, if you understand HOW it works, rather than just WHAT it does or WHAT is occurring. Density is just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume…it can not cause a motion on its own, it is not a force. And what you’re describing is already a part of current gravity physics.
What you’re describing with the water is buoyancy force. But are you aware buoyancy requires gravity, or it does not occur? That’s why gravity is included as a variable in the formula for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Real engineers use that formula to help them design and build the ballast tanks for ships, submarines, even blimps and certain aircraft. Which means it’s an applied science, and it works when applied…which means it’s accurate.
Buoyancy is not a force on its own, it’s what’s known as an apparent force. It’s the end result of a chain reaction. Let’s do a thought experiment. Put a bunch of various molecules into a system, of various densities, we’ll assume they’re stationary, with no forces acting upon them to put them in any direction. What happens? Nothing, it’s a chaotic mix of molecules, no layers, no order, just near total entropy. Okay, now introduce a force which can act upon every molecule and put it into a starting motion, downward towards surface. Now what happens? The densest material occupies lowest position first, all lighter molecules are pushed out of their way…so since the denser material occupies lowest position first, this means the lighter matter has no where else to go but up…we observe this as buoyancy. So you see, gravity is the cause of buoyancy…without that force to first put the matter into motion, it has absolutely no means to begin ordering itself by density in any particular direction. Gravity is the catalyst that begins it all…buoyancy is the end result of the chain reaction of events that follow.
That’s buoyancy physics in a nutshell. So by ignoring gravity and not even considering it…you’re removing a fundamental key variable that explains HOW it works. We know less dense matter rises…you’re not stating anything we don’t already know, but that’s only WHAt is occurring, it doesn’t explain WHY or HOW it occurs.
Can’t do much with a very surface level understanding of things. It’s great that people are finally taking an interest in science…but you’re about 500 years behind, and nothing you’re stating is new. And it’s no secrets why people put so much effort into denying gravity, you described it to me already….because you don’t trust the scientific institutions anymore, so you resist what they teach…even though it’s correct. Appealing to emotion and paranoia, rather than objective reasoning…it’s the boy who cried wolf scenario, even though it’s true information, it’s resisted because of a loss of trust in the source providing the information. It’s currently leading many people down a disastrous path…truly, most Flat Earthers I know, have very few friends and family left, because the idea consumes their entire identity, and turns them hostile to those they used to love and care about.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful. I hope it doesn’t come off like I’m condescending or mocking you, quite the contrary, it’s great that people have the courage to question established science, that’s what science is all about! Asking questions is how we learn, never be ashamed of asking questions, I actually deeply admire that attitude. But…thinking in absolutes, appealing to emotions, reasoning from distrust and paranoia…it only leads one to confirmation bias. That’s not so admirable.
3
-
3
-
@marcosbetances7186 The force isn’t greater, it’s constant for every atom, it’s just affecting more molecules at once, in a more dense object. A big rock has more mass per cubic volume than say a feather, which means more mass being pulled down by gravity all at once. That’s why things are heavier, so you’re not entirely wrong, density is an important variable…but what you’re not considering is the motion and the vector, which is what squeezes the mass down into the scale in the first place. Weight requires two variables, a force and a mass…that’s why the formula for weight is mass times the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). If no force was present tugging down on all that mass, then it would not squeeze down onto the scale, it wouldn’t move at all actually, so no weight would be generated. A force is required to put mass into motion…the only reason something is able to squeeze down upon a scale, is because a force is putting it downward into a motion. We just gave that motion a name…because names and labels help us stay on the same page when discussing something. We also named the upward motion (buoyancy force)…so why can we give the upward motion a name, but not the downward? 🤷♂️ You don’t think that’s being a little intentionally ignorant? Why would we ignore a very obvious physical mechanism of nature we all observe? 🤷♂️Gravity times mass is how you calculate weight, that’s the formula for weight; W=mg. Mass is basically just density. So your understanding is a half truth…that ignores the second variable, the force, which is what puts mass into motion, generating weight.
We know gravity effects all things the same, because in a vacuum, everything drops at the same rate, 9.8m/s^2. In a vacuum, a rock and a feather dropped at the same time, will hit the ground at the same time. This experiment has been repeated countless times.
Onto your other questions. The Sun is not a rock, it’s a super heated ball of compressed gases, it’s technically in a plasma state of matter, caused by a nuclear fusion reaction…that’s actually caused by its intense gravity. Basically, it’s so large, that the gravity is so strong, it forces smaller molecules together, creating a lot of energy in the process…because these molecules really don’t like being forced together. How do we know this? Well, we recreate it in fusion reactors today. These reactors only work because our knowledge of the Sun and gravity physics is accurate. The science of Spectroscopy gave us the other piece to the puzzle, it’s how we identify gases, and it works for stars and planets too. The Sun fuses hydrogen, which forms it into helium, those are the two most abundant molecules on the surface of the Sun. We obtained that information from spectroscopy. So the molecule we use in fusion reactors is hydrogen (a form of it anyway, most commonly tritium). The struggle we have, is that we can’t scale down gravity…so we had to find a different way to force the molecules to fuse. This was very difficult, but currently we do have working fusion reactors today, that are only possible because our current scientific understandings are accurate.
The heat from the Sun travels to us as solar radiation, rays of light, which as far as we know travel forever indefinitely (photons of light are basically just bundles of energy, energy is what produces all the heat in the universe). It’s hotter at surface because there’s more molecules of air, more pressure. This creates a convection heat transfer. The higher you go up in atmosphere, the less air there is, meaning less pressure, meaning less convection can occur. Did you know a potato actually can’t be boiled at the top of mountain ranges where the pressure is far less than at surface? Pressure is very important for convection heat, there’s more pressure at surface, so it’s hotter. Solar radiation is mostly deflected, it is very hot, but if there’s no air around to keep it around, then it’s just gonna bounce off and do very little…especially on a highly reflective surface such as ice and snow. That’s also the reason why satellites don’t melt in space from the Sun, they’re in a total empty vacuum, where pretty much zero convection or conduction can occur. So the solar radiation bounces right off.
3
-
Uhm...photographs from space. But I get that this seems to not be good enough for some people anymore, so here’s 3 easy pieces of evidence off the top of my head.
Sunsets, just think about it for a moment and then realize that the Sun would never appear to set if it was occupying the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, at the same time. A Globe geometry answers for this phenomenon perfectly, and the geometry matches mathematically with what we observe in reality. Everything about the Sun fits and makes sense in the heliocentric model...while flat Earth really has to ignore and twist a lot of details, to ram that square peg into a round hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio
Navigation, do you really think pilots and sailors can successfully navigate around with perfect timing and precision...but they don’t know the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating? Everything about navigation is built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. Polaris drops to the horizon by latitude, sailors have been using this trick to triangulate their position at sea for centuries. At the Equator, Polaris drops to 0 degrees...how exactly would that be possible if Earth was flat? https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle There’s a lot of basic spacial geometry here that just doesn’t add up for a Flat Earth.
The Southern Hemisphere. It’s a fact of reality, we have two hemispheres on this Earth, that are equal in distance by latitudes. The South also has its own stars, it’s own celestial rotation around its own pole star (Sigma Octantis), it’s own 24 hour sun...heck the entire Southern Hemisphere is a bit of a problem for the Flat Earth hypothesis. But again, the Globe makes perfect sense of these observations and measured distances, they’re exactly what we’d expect if the Earth is a Globe.
Lots of evidence for the Globe actually, a lot of it doesn’t even require much effort...but you sure won’t learn about any of these proofs from watching Flat Earth channels and videos. They’re typically very bias channels, in my experience they have very little interest in remaining objective, their main goal is to push an agenda and they achieve that by twisting information to spread doubts...and it works, because most people are not scientists and so they’ve never really asked these questions before. It’s fine to question things, but it’s easier then ever before to spread misinformation, so you really gotta be careful where you’re getting your info from. So just don’t forget to question flat Earth as well, don’t just blindly nod and agree to everything they say...con men are very good at sounding convincing, but only on the surface.
3
-
@markusa4112 Yup, it’s pretty easy to observe stars and galaxies that lie outside of our galaxy…can do it with even a small refractor telescope, thousands of people do it every night, from all around the world. You’re not “seeing beyond light years”, it’s not like your eye is physically travelling light years, what’s really happening is it’s focusing light that has travelled light years to get here, which is all any telescopic lens is doing, focusing light that’s coming into the lens, increasing the focal length, increasing the lights resolution. So it’s pretty simple to do…I’m telling you from experience, because as an amateur astronomer, over the years I have photographed a few galaxies. The easiest one to see is the Andromeda galaxy, you can spot it with even a cheap Walmart telescope…with slightly better equipment, you can easily spot others like the Leo triplet, the Cigar and Bodes galaxies, the Markarians chain…just a short list, there are thousands you can observe with relatively affordable equipment.
Most science is easily repeatable, so I’m not sure why you’re stamping your feet so arrogantly. I’m just saying, engineers can’t do what they do, without first acquiring the knowledge…that’s where science comes in. You know before we solved air travel, there were people just like you saying it was an impossible dream, and now today you have electricity running through your home, and can switch on your tv with a remote…technology that would be seen as magic just a few hundred years ago. Wonder what people like yourself thought of that then? Probably thought it was stupid and impossible…but thankfully, some people were wise enough to disagree and try anyway. So maybe you should be a little more grateful to science and the scientists who fight through the ignorance of others, to bring us these technologies we all use and take for granted today.
Also, I’m not Christian or religious either, grew up atheist, so relax.
3
-
Oh boy 🤦♂️...you should really take your own advice. Here’s the facts FE intentionally ignores. There are several Blue Marble images, the very first was taken in 1972, during the Apollo 17 mission, and was taken on a regular camera, in one shot, on film. This was long before both digital rendering software and satellites were even produced, to make a composite possible. Hundreds of photos were taken of Earth during the various Apollo missions, you can find them all very easily, with just a short google search...they’re very well archived. I remember many of those photos from back before digital rendering software or the internet, so no...they’re not all “CGI”, that’s an ignorant claim, made by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.
The NASA employee who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite, wasn’t making a statement that EVERY photo of Earth is composite...he was just explaining THAT ONE PHOTO and how IT was made. Composites are just one of many ways NASA photographs the Earth, composites require a photo editing software like photoshop, because they’re made by stitching together thousands of real smaller photos...can’t do that without software. But they’re still real photos, your phones panoramic feature does that too, stitching together several small photos, to create a larger image.
So the basic fact is, that FE took ONE guys words out of context, then made a false claim that he was talking about EVERY photo NASA has ever taken...a claim which is simply not true and is super easy to falsify, with just a tiny bit more research beyond what FE provides for you.
It’s a classic example of cherry picking, to confirm bias...and it’s really easy to see that. Why anyone would blindly trust a group after that, without question, is beyond me.
3
-
@SuperMoshady You’re just stating an obvious though, relative density is already a part of gravity physics, you’re just intentionally ignoring the gravity part. But you’re experiment and hypothesis does nothing to explain how or why dense matter goes down and less dense matter goes up, it doesn’t explain the motion and does nothing to determine what’s causing it.
Gravity takes that understanding further, and works on the how and the why. That’s why we do science, to figure out what’s going on. We call the falling gravity, the upward force buoyancy, but upon much experimentation it’s found that buoyancy does not occur without the downward force of gravity, first telling matter in which direction to begin ordering by density. So the downward force of gravity is the cause for all of it. Objects fall because of gravity, they order by density because of gravity, the buoyancy force occurs because of gravity.
It’s not difficult to deduce. Here’s the questions you’re left with, with your current understanding of things.
Why down? If mass is dropped in a vacuum chamber, where the surrounding air density is equal in all directions, why does it fall down every time? Why that direction? How is it put into motion in the first place? Nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it, and yet falling is a pretty clear motion, so what force is putting it into that downward motion? Why not up? The air is actually thinner above, shouldn’t dense objects fall up by your understanding?
You see the problem? You’re not accounting for the motion. What’s causing that motion? It can’t just be density, because density is just a state of matter, it’s not a force, so it has no means of putting matter into motion.
Please explain further what is putting matter into motion and why it’s down.
3
-
@SuperMoshady Oh I’m well aware smoke is mostly particles of heavier materials, but it doesn’t change the fact that it normally rises. If gas is still rising...why isn’t it bringing the particles up like it normally does? Why do they instead fall in a vacuum?
Again, I’m asking for the 3rd time now, how exactly does density alone, put matter into motion? Feel free to explain. In a vacuum chamber, where the space is just as empty above as it is below, why does matter travel down?
Steam rises due to buoyancy, which is directly caused by gravity. I’ve answered your question many times now.
Can I show you falling steam? Certainly, clouds are proof of this, they’re basically just water vapour (like steam), produced by rising moisture due to buoyancy. But why do they go no further? What’s keeping them from going higher? Dry ice produces a form of steam as well, I’m sure you’ve seen it fall.
You should care very much about math, it’s a big part of why we do science in the first place, so we can derive equations we can then use to make predictions with. When we understand every variable, like that gravity is what causes buoyancy, we can then create equations to make accurate predictions with. It’s that predictive power, that makes engineering possible...engineering like the computing device we’re having this conversation with, a device you could never hope to create using your “science”. So basically, when you say you don’t care for maths, you’re basically telling me your science is useless. It has no real predictive powers, so we can’t invent or innovate anything with it.
Not sure why you’d think that’s a better way to do things, but I think we both can agree it’s pretty useless. 😅
No, the reason you intentionally ignore math and don’t want to derive an equation for me here, is because you know that you can’t, because you know you’re wrong. It’s pretty simple. The moment you admit that buoyancy requires a downward force to start the density displacement, then your whole argument falls apart. But I’m afraid it’s true, science has derived an equation, that works every time it’s put to use, that equation includes the downward force of gravity acceleration. So it’s applied science, meaning it’s verified correct every time it’s used and every time it works.
When you can do the same using your model, then we’ll have reason to listen.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@andreiandries470 You absolutely do have bias...just cause you think you’re searching for truth, doesn’t make you free from bias. 🤦♂️ It’s people who think they’re not biased, who will never find actual truth, only further delusions. Cause you’re not listening, you’ve already made your conclusion long before any evidence, and anything that contradicts or falsifies that conclusion, you will just ignore...cognitive dissonance in a nutshell.
They didn’t extend the atmosphere...they discovered that molecules of hydrogen still exist in a cloud surrounding Earth as far out as the Moon, this is known as a Geo Corona. But it’s like 10 molecules for every meter...not exactly very dense. If we use your ignorant understanding of rocket propulsion, how exactly would a rocket be able to push off of that? Your logic is terrible...they didn’t extend anything, they made a discovery for something that was already there and then added it to the body of knowledge. They didn’t do it to make the moon landings possible, who told you that nonsense? They did it because when you discover something, you record it and then add it to everything else you know...it’s pretty basic common sense stuff.
Rockets do not push off of atmosphere...that’s not how rocket propulsion works. 🤦♂️ Your understandings of physics have been horribly scrambled. It’s a great deal of energy pushing off of and transferring into inertia, the ship pushes off the combusted gas, the combustion pushes off the ship...sending both in opposite directions, action reaction...basic laws of motion, demonstrated time and again. The rocket in vacuum video I showed you demonstrated it perfectly clear...rockets have no trouble in vacuum, in fact they work even better.
You’re grossly misunderstanding the science and reaching false conclusions that are your own...and you’re ignoring all attempts to help you, because they don’t agree with your bias. It’s really that simple.
3
-
3
-
Because the surface of the sea is all equal distance from centre of gravity, at the same LEVEL from centre, so it’s the perfect baseline to measure elevation from. Elevation is technically measured from centre, but since the sea is all equal distance from that centre, it creates an easier surface to work from. Now figuring out the elevation of surface features on Mars…that’d be a real bitch, because where would you start from? Where’s zero elevation start from on Mars? On Earth, we start at sea level, that’s where we’ve put zero elevation, and it’s because the sea is all at the same level from centre. That’s known as an equipotential surface.
The Earth is only about 4x’s larger than the Moon, so it’s like comparing a dime to a silver dollar. It’s the exact same distance in either direction, and the Earth really isn’t much larger…so why would you assume it would fill the sky? I think people been watching too many sci-fi movies that depict things wrong, they’ve never really thought about it much beyond that.
I’ve looked over the modules engineering specs and I understand the physics involved, and yes, they were more than capable. Space is difficult to travel, sure, but it’s actually harder to travel to the depths of our oceans, than it is space. The tricky part is getting into space, but once that’s done, it’s actually simpler than you’d think, cause we do gain a few advantages once we’re out of Earths atmosphere. No drag force in space, so motion can remain constant with very little energy required, and velocity can be increased almost indefinitely, so travel time can be reduced with little energy. Earth’s gravity well can be used almost like a slingshot to increase velocity without wasting energy, and the Moons gravity well can be used like a catchers mit or funnel to reduce it without spending energy. Much easier to escape the Moons surface because of weaker gravity and zero atmosphere. Moon is actually pretty close still (compared to everything else in our solar system), so don’t require a whole lot of supplies or energy.
It’s difficult to engineer and plan such a trip down to every detail required, I’m certainly not trying to undermine its difficulties, but with even just a basic knowledge of physics, and you can understand that’s it’s very much within the realm of plausible. It’s true we can only really speculate, unless we were directly involved, but the physics and engineering does check out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, I don’t think reality really cares about your desire for relevance, it just is what it is…in any case you’re just describing and admitting your bias. Willing to ignore all the scientific evidence, simply because it disagrees with what you want to be true. Not the greatest of logic I feel, if that’s how you reach conclusions…it’s just confirmation bias.
Also, Narcissism is more reflective of an individual who believes themselves special, superior, more important than everything else. If you need creationism because you need to feel important…well, do I even need to say it? That right there sounds pretty narcissistic to me, personally. Not that some of your point is lost on me though, I’m definitely here taking the piss out of you because of my own narcissistic tendencies, so don’t feel bad, you’re not entirely wrong, Atheists/agnostics do boast superiority. But so do theists, you didn’t write your comment above because of pure intentions…it was largely to brag, and put a little dirt in the eye of those you see as inferior. I think we all suffer from a bit of “main character syndrome”, how can we not? Our existence is the only one we know…but I digress.
I don’t feel insignificant in a godless universe, if anything it makes life even more important and special, something to cherish and protect. Think about it, you are important, you’re alive! Alive in a mostly lifeless universe, that’s mostly extremely hostile to your fragile existence…that’s incredible! You don’t think that’s special on its own? How about this then. Our 5 senses make it possible for us to experience this reality. If you didn’t have any of them though, would any of it really exist? So in a way, YOU create reality, just as much as it creates you. The universe needs life, or it technically doesn’t exist. So you are already quite special, just by being alive. Personally, I find that very humbling.
And it’s far more exciting, the challenges put in front of us are immense! Because challenges, let’s be honest, that’s what makes existence fun! I can’t think of anything more boring, than a perfect utopia where nothing changes, and there’s no challenges. I find purpose in solving the mysteries of the universe and just knowing how much there is to explore, learn, experience and discover, that’s exciting. In a seemingly endless universe, the possibilities are endless, our potential is limitless….in a tiny terrarium, meh, feels a lot like a prison to me, with very few options…what’s the point? 🤷♂️ But, I’m willing to accept it if it’s proven correct…it’s just not looking good currently, as far as the evidence goes.
Idk, I just prefer not to waste it, I’m happy for every day I get to be here…maybe the Earth wouldn’t be so messed up today, if everyone didn’t take it for granted, if everyone strived for today, rather than waisting time praying for an after life that may never come. But that’s just me. Unlike theists, who can’t wait to get out of here for some reason, I see the here and now as heaven…we’re already experiencing it, what more do you want? This world isn’t enough? 🧐
Anyway, I feel you’re looking at secularism as purely a nihilistic and miserable existence. But nihilism isn’t the only conclusion to be drawn from a universe with possibly no god, there’s many more positive ways to look at things, I assure you.
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
-
Her point is that it’s edible, and you trust that it’s edible. Is it the healthiest food option? Of course not…but that’s not the argument. You still trust, with 100% certainty, that it’s not gonna be a can of Arsenic, right? That’s her point…it’s pretty simple, you’re really stretching it to be something it’s not. Her point is that like it or not, we all put our trust in others eventually, often without realizing it…it’s actually a huge part of human success, trusting each other. Does that mean we trust absolutely? No…of course not, but we still do it more often than we realize, and it’s not a bad thing.
3
-
What exceptions exactly? If you’re talking about helium rising a balloon, you should be aware that buoyancy is what causes helium to rise, and buoyancy effect is directly caused by gravity, it does not occur without it. Gravity puts matter in motion down towards surface, more dense matter will occupy the space closer to gravity, this causes a displacement of matter by density, that forces less dense matter upwards. That’s basic buoyancy and gravity physics, gravity causes buoyancy, so helium actually rises due to gravity, as more dense matter pushes less dense matter out of the way. But if that’s not what you’re referring too, then feel free to elaborate further.
3
-
3
-
What tests are you referring too exactly? And even if they could verify no motion, it wouldn't immediately mean the Earth is Flat, it would do more to support the geocentric model, you'd still have a long ways to go to falsify a Globe. I know Flat Earth likes to hold up some inconclusive experiments like the Michelson Morley or failed experiments like Airy's Failure (gee, I wonder why it's called that), to help support the notion that the Earth isn't moving, even though they are botched experiments that can't be used to support any conclusion really, because they're either inconclusive or a failure. Meanwhile they'll ignore/deny successful experiments and technologies that demonstrate and verify the motion of the Earth, like Foucault's Pendulum, Ring Laser Gyros, Gyro Compasses, Satellites in geostationary orbit, etc. So feel free to let me know what tests you're referring too, cause I'll be willing to bet you're misunderstanding them and at the same time are simply ignoring or are unaware of the science that verifies the motion of Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
That experiment ignores the fact that a spirit level is levelling to centre of gravity…that’s how they work. So it doesn’t prove a flat Earth at all, because if Earth is a globe, then gravity pulls to centre and gravity vectors shift with surface. If Earth is flat, then gravity has only parallel vectors, still down towards surface. Either way, no matter which shape the Earth is, the bubble wouldn’t shift…so it’s not a good experiment, it’s inconclusive, does not verify or falsify its hypothesis.
It ignores basic gravity physics, that’s a fact. You might think it’s just gibberish, but that gibberish matters. It’s a variable that can’t be ignored…simply because it’s difficult for some to grasp. Ignore variables in science and you will reach false conclusions, it’s that simple. So we can’t be lazy or ignorant.
Flat Earthers are free to ask questions and do experiments all they like, nobody’s stopping them. But just as they’re free to explore their alternatives, we’re free to question their conclusions and peer review their experiments. They seem to think the same standards of review don’t apply to them…and they’re dead wrong on that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@a.lavernefilan1888 Oh boy. 🤦♂️ I understood what you said just fine, but you do know that weight doesn’t exist without gravity, right? Here, this might help https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics/forces-and-newtons-laws-of-motion/newtons-first-law-mass-and-inertia/a/what-is-weight. An object always has mass...weight doesn’t exist without gravity, it’s just the pressure from squeezing you against the Earth...that’s what weight is, just another word for the force of gravity. Basic physics.
You’re grossly misunderstanding gravity...and that’s the problem. Ask yourself this, what force is pulling that ocean from the “bottom” of the globe? If the force present is gravity...and you understood it pulls everything to centre of Earth, and therefore the surface, then what other force is acting on the bottom to pull the ocean away from gravity?
In your magnet example, a great source of gravity is below your magnet....hence why the material falls towards that source of gravity when you add mass (more metal) under the magnet. So it’s a false equivalence experiment...compare it to the Earth, with only gravity pulling to centre and no other forces present to pull anything off of it.
Take all the time you need...maybe get someone smarter than you to help.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well that’s a great question, here’s some things to consider. First of all; they’re all moving with us, in the same direction, at roughly the same rate…so think of it like cars on a highway at night, all travelling together at the same speed. But also, understand the scales we’re dealing with here. 500k mph is really fast, to us…the microscopic life living on a spec of dust, who thinks a mile is a measure of significant distance, but understand that to the Sun, moving at that velocity, it only moves half of its diameter in distance, every hour. To put that into perspective, take half a step forward over the course of 1 hour. Speed is relative. Now think about the vast distances, the closest star to us (Alpha Centauri) is 4 light years away…that’s roughly 25 trillion miles…you know how long it would take to catch up to Alpha Centauri, moving at just 500k mph? A long long long time, and that’s only if it wasn’t moving too. The speeds we’re travelling at, are nothing compared to the distances.
Hope that information is helpful to your question, or at the very least interesting. Take care.
3
-
3
-
Well, we measure and observe Earth to be spherical, those measurements are currently used in the system of navigation we have today, so anyone can test and verify it whenever they’d like to learn how to navigate, and we observe that everything dropped falls towards Earths surface no matter where you are on the globe. It’s understood in physics that nothing is put into motion without a force, falling is a motion, so this implies a force is present to cause that motion. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that, that there is a force attracting us to Earth.
What’s not logical is making arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. If you just bothered to look at the evidence for these conclusions, if you recreated a few simple experiments and observations, perhaps you’d understand better how those conclusions were reached.
Figuring out that the Earth spins took time, science didn’t start with that conclusion, for centuries they believed Earth was at the centre of the universe, until the evidence became too great to ignore, that it was not. There’s a few simple experiments you can do that verify Earth’s rotation, like the Foucault pendulum experiment, or Coriolis tests, but I’d recommend you look up the gyro compass sometime and learn more about this device. It’s a device currently used commonly on modern sea vessels today, and it’s noteworthy here because it actually uses Earth’s rotation in order to function. If Earth did not rotate, then this device would not work as designed. It uses gyroscopic precession, calibrated to Earths rate of rotation and aligned with true North, to keep in sync with that rotation, so that it always points North. You can actually build a smaller version yourself with some motorized mechanical gyros, you can set the precession rate to sync up with Earth’s rotation, then you’ll never see it precess, because it’s now precessing with Earth rotation at the same rate.
Anyway, your current arguments are a bit on the ignorant side, there is evidence for these conclusions you scoff at currently, so you do yourself a disservice if you just assume there is none, before actually looking. You can say we’re just “memorizing and repeating”, but I recall my science classes actually doing more demonstrating and recreating experiments, than just talking at me. Maybe you had a bad teacher…if so then I’m sorry, but science is all about testing things yourself to see how those conclusions were reached. You don’t have to just take us at our word.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 I unfortunately can’t share any outside links, YouTube pretty much filters out all outside links these days. But just draw it yourself. Draw the Sun at centre, Earth perpendicular too it, now put Venus and Mercury in their inside orbits but directly beside the Sun on the same tangent line, now place an observer past the terminator line on the night side, and then draw a tangent from that position perpendicular to surface representing the 180 degrees of that observers sky. The Sun won’t be visible, but you will find Mercury and Venus are still within line of sight and will be for awhile past sunset. And that’s just in stripped down 2 dimensions, doesn’t include the tilt of our axis, the tilt in every planets orbit relative to the ecliptic plane, the elliptical orbits of each planet, etc.
If you’d like, try going to a free online solar system simulator, that represents our solar system to scale, one like solar system scope, and test the geometry yourself. I assure you…YOU have not stumbled upon something so simple, that millions of astronomers and other experts just somehow overlooked.
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 The church had money, it had the infrastructure, it was basically put in charge of education for those who could afford it at the time, so it had the scholars…because if you wanted an education, you had no choice but to get it through the church, there was no other options. So yes, the scientists of old, who established the scientific method and made all the base discoveries of science, were all mostly theists. Won’t argue against that all, it’s basic science history. But the scientific method is just a tool…it has no more belief or agenda than a hammer does. That tool is free to be used by anyone, no matter what their beliefs are. You can use a logical methodology of objective reason and deduction, without conforming to the belief structures of the source that developed it…..it’s incredible I even have to explain that to another adult. 😂
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 You flatties have an odd understanding of what an experiment typically does. We often don’t replicate things on a perfect smaller scale in experimentation, that’s more something applied science would attempt to do, scaling down concluded knowledge, if possible, for applicable purposes. Experiments generally just test single variables of a hypothesis. We’re limited in our scale, but we know that gravity relies on an objects mass, so we understand that recreating a smaller Earth…is just stupid and ignorant of gravity physics.
A hypothesis of gravity physics, is that mass attracts mass. So can we test that? Absolutely we can, the most well known experiment of this being the Cavendish. Here’s a pretty clear demonstration and explanation of the experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. It’s not long, in 7 minutes you can learn all about the experiment. Here’s a high school girl recreating the experiment to measure the universal constant of gravity https://youtu.be/jkjqrlYOW_0. This measurement is used today in actual fields of applied science, such as orbital mechanics. If she can repeat this with simple household supplies, then anyone can.
Feel free to repeat it, it’s been repeated for centuries now, and it’s quite conclusive…mass attracts mass, which is consistent with our understanding of gravity physics.
3
-
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 Alright, gonna keep ignoring the simple geometry of Venus and Mercury being seen again…that’s fine, lets chase your deflections a bit more.
Both masses are the attraction, reread the universal law of gravitation again please, you might notice the first part says “ALL objects attract each other…”, doesn’t matter if they’re smaller or larger, everything with mass creates an attractive force to all other mass. Which is proportionate to its mass, so the larger the mass, the more gravitational attraction. Basic physics.
PICO is an experiment to detect dark matter…a still hypothesized form of matter that is thought to account for the gravity that holds galaxies together, but is in no way proven. PICO did not detect dark matter…doesn’t mean it falsified mass attraction or Cavendish, just means theres still a lot to learn. You have a skewed idea of how falsification works. How does failing to verify a single hypothesis for the larger cosmology, falsify an experiment that DOES detect and measure a constant attraction? Feel free to elaborate.
We don’t know everything, but we never will because there’s simply too much to know…welcome to the reality of science. That’s all Neil was trying to get across. Doesn’t mean we don’t know many things…like that Earth is spherical, which is not an argument anymore. Just means there’s always gonna be variables not accounted for….which is why science doesn’t think in absolute certainties, only in percentages of certainty….but when you reach a percentage of certainty as high as globe Earth, might as well be absolute, but here we are, you’re still free to argue. Science also doesn’t set out to prove things, it sets out to falsify hypothesis, any hypothesis not falsified, goes on to be the most likely conclusion. If you think you have a better method, go ahead and enlighten me.
What’s most troubling is that Flat Earth demands so much from modern scientific consensus….yet they don’t seem to think the same standards apply to them. For example, Flat Earth has no evidence for the dome, just a broken understanding of thermodynamics physics…yet you all believe it exists regardless of evidence anyway. Flat Earth has no logical explanation for a Lunar eclipse, the Southern star trails, or even a sunset, yet you’re all happy to ignore all that and instead bitch about seeing Mercury and Venus slightly after sunset. Flat Earth also has no working explanation or proven replacement for gravity, or a working model for anything really. Flat Earth has nothing that’s actually used in applied science today, so you’re really not in any position to lecture anyone on things like gravity physics. Prove your dome exists…then we’ll talk.
On your other point with the ISS, you’re comparing the Earth to the space station…what part about “force is proportional to the mass”, do you not get? I’m sure you’d agree the Earth is quite a bit bigger than the ISS. Yes the attractive force diminishes by distance, but the ISS is still pretty damn close…400 km away isn’t very far, when you’re dealing with an object 12,782 km in diameter.
The ISS does attract other masses…but it’s so damn small, that rate of attraction is tiny. Again, what part about “proportional to the mass of the object”, do you not get? You do realize how long it takes for objects to attract in the Cavendish, right? Rate of attraction is pretty slow…and that’s because the masses involved are tiny.
3
-
3
-
@TheLastChapter2023 “And just how does gravity function as you move north from the equator? As you approach the poles the centripetal force diminishes until it becomes zero at the poles.”
I’m sorry….but do you think Earth’s centripetal force is powerful and counters Earth’s gravity to make living here possible? That’s quite an assumption and a misunderstanding if that’s the case. Centripetal force output is dependent on rate of rotation, so best thought of in measures of rotation, like RPM’s. Earth’s rate of rotation is about 0.000694 RPM’s. For comparison, a Gravitron ride at your local fair rotates at roughly 24 RPM’s, which how it’s able to suck you to a wall. It’s rate of angular velocity change per second is greater, so it’s centrifugal force is greater. Basic rule of thumb, the slower the rate of rotation, the less centrifugal force. Earth takes 24 hours to complete a single rotation…wow…what a blistering speed.
So Earth’s rate of rotation and the centripetal force it produces, negates about 0.3% of Earth’s gravity at the equator…fun fact, that’s actually why things weigh slightly less at the equator, than they do anywhere else on Earth. Here’s a simple experiment that verifies this btw https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o. This experiment also goes through the math I’m getting these figures from, so feel free to review it anytime.
So you formed a whole argument on the assumption that Earth’s rotation produces a great deal of centripetal force…and in reality, it’s not very strong at all. The change in weight from equator to poles is maybe 0.5 grams…….oops.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Navigation, pretty simple proof of our knowledge of Earth I feel. Should be pretty common sense, but I’ll elaborate I suppose; to successfully navigate anywhere, you first require accurate knowledge of the surface you’re navigating, pretty simple. Millions of successful navigations around the world, by sea and flight, every year…you really think they could achieve that without accurate knowledge of the surface they’re navigating? 🧐
Centrifugal force is a consequence of rotational motion, not linear motion (miles per hour). Earth spins at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours…if you were on a merry-go-round spinning at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, would you expect to feel anything? Nope. So no seatbelts required, just need to understand a little physics.
No, we don’t believe Australians are upside down, because we understand what relative direction, perspective, and reference frames mean. This may be difficult for some to grasp at first, but I’ll do my best to explain, it’s not impossible to understand: direction is relative, meaning you have to first choose a frame of reference before you can determine direction. Lets say your floating in space with one other individual, no stars, nothing else around you that you can see, except the other person next to you. Now what if you’re not oriented the same, what if both of you have your feet at each others head, so you’re both flipped RELATIVE to the other…which one of you is upside down? The answer is neither of you are AND both of you are, it all depends on what you choose to reference as your position for making such a determination. Relative to you, the other guy is upside down, but relative to him, you’re actually upside down. So it depends, but the only absolute logical conclusion you can conclude now, is that direction isn’t absolute, it’s actually relative…which has INFINITE possibilities! 😄
How does this relate to Australia and the Earth? Well, it means Australia is ONLY upside down RELATIVE to people on the opposite hemisphere, example America. But RELATIVE to them, it’s actually America that’s upside down. The reference point in each is whichever one you choose…but in reality, physicists (and most everyone today actually) knows that it’s gravity that truly orientates us too the surface. So the true reference point for all orientation to Earth, is the force that pulls us all toward centre of Earth. Deny gravity if you want…but then you still should consider why you’re rejecting something everyone agrees is true. Are you doing it because you’re actually smarter than billions of other people…or are you really just a contrarian trying their best to fool themselves into believing you’re the biggest brain of them all? If it’s the latter……..what have you actually accomplished in your life to justify such a conclusion?
3
-
So the first video is just speculations, an empty claim of a wire without any solid proof of the wire, just speculation. Seems some people really need to learn the difference between evidence, and speculation…cause evidence this is not.
The second video is also reaching a speculative conclusion, it’s more likely a reflection on glass. If you watch the original footage (which is much higher quality, funny how these people often use the worst versions of the footage as possible), you’ll see the shot was filmed from inside the cockpit looking through a window, the astronaut looking through the window is bald, and in the higher quality video you can even see the camera in the reflection. Here’s that footage https://youtu.be/wx8Ew1V_1tM. It’s also fishy to me that the people presenting these videos and claims, don’t show you the part from inside the cockpit, which provides important information regarding the reflection. If his conclusion is so air tight…then why’d he leave that out? 🧐 Probably because it doesn’t help the narrative he’s pushing very much.
So this is pretty terrible attempts at evidence, they’re just speculations. Learn the difference between evidence and speculation please.
3
-
Mike S. The Chihuahua is related to the Wolf, but it sure doesn't share many traits with the Wolf. And that's just over a few hundred years...after a few more hundred years, at what point will the Chihuahua become a new species? This is why it's hard to observe Macro Evolution, because at what point do you draw the line on a new species?
The reason we can't observe the Macro evolution, is because no single human being can live long enough to observe it happening...at least not yet...and where do you draw the line on a new species? Evolution theory is only about 200 years old...and we've only been cataloging different species for around that long as well. So we don't have enough data right now for something that takes thousands to millions of years to occur. So just because we haven't observed evolution on the macro scale yet, doesn't mean we're wrong about it. Creationists didn't accept the micro evolution either, until we had enough data around to prove its existence...now they can't deny it as being true...so just how long do you think it'll be before we're right about the macro evolution as well?
Also, we actually have come pretty close to creating life from non life. Here's a video explaining an old experiment that successfully formed Amino Acid chains (the building blocks of DNA), by simply simulating the environmental conditions and reactions necessary and then introducing the proper molecules found in nature, to form these more complex chains by themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNijmxsKGbc
Once these Amino Acids are formed in nature, they can go on to make more complex chains, which could eventually lead to single celled life. So it is possible and we have done experiments proving it's possible. I'd suggest, rather than bluntly stating there has never been any experiments done to create life from nothing....maybe look into it first before making that claim. Just because you're not aware of these experiments yourself, does not mean we haven't tried and succeeded in making some pretty good discoveries in these fields of research.
Yes, mutations are the result of an error in the DNA, and more often then not, it creates a disadvantage for that creature. But sometimes, it can help. Such as the moth he pointed out adapting to its environmental changes. To blindly state that mutations are always to a species disadvantage, is just ignorance. It may be hard to accept that errors or failures drive something as complex as the evolution of life...but it's actually pretty necessary, and therefore our non-perfect world is ironically perfect, and it's the flaws that have helped it along.
I think this is where a lot of Creationists get hung up. They want to believe they are special, that we were created by a perfect creator who made us for a reason. But more and more, we discover that we are not special. We are an insignificant creature, born out of chance, on an insignificant rock, lost in a vast insignificant galaxy, which means nothing to the universe that could really care less if we were here or not.
Evolution does make sense and we learn more and more about it every day. Give it time, we'll find your "proof" of Macro Evolution....even though as far as I'm concerned we pretty much have already.
3
-
3
-
@k6827 No, you're the one saying the Earth is flat, which goes against all modern consensus, so the burden of proof is actually on you at this point in time. But alright, here's a great experiment that can be repeated, that helps to verify curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is a simple observation that uses earth curvature math to make a prediction and then they go out and see if that prediction matches with the observation. Spoilers, it does.
A general land/construction surveyor does not require a working knowledge of curvature, because it won't effect building anything that spans a few hundred square feet. It takes 70 miles for the Earths surface to make 1 degree of change, so a few hundred square feet required for a building foundation, is not going to require any curvature calculation. A railroad or bridge just has to make sure it is level at surface perpendicular to center of Earth, and it's elevation from center and GRAVITY that will play the biggest role here, ever heard of it? A rail road just has to keep equipotential distance from CENTER OF GRAVITY, meaning it levels perpendicular to center of gravity...and then a train can travel along it just fine.
It's really hard having a conversation with people who don't understand how gravity works...it makes talking about topography and geodetic surveying and the definition of level almost impossible, because you have no idea how it works on a sphere. Then what's worse, is you pretend like your experts...telling actual experts how things work? You people are fucked.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Spin that wet ball at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, does any water fly off then? Centrifugal force is increased by rate of rotation, we measure it in complete rotations, which is why we use units like revolutions per minute (RPM’s), when dealing with rotational motions. A merry go round on average rotates at about 7.5 RPM’s (depending on its radius), by comparison the Earth rotates at 0.000694 RPM’s. Huge difference and far slower by comparison.
This matters and you can even test it with this simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a race car, moving at a steady 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s only 1000 meters in circumference. Would there be a lot of Centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact you’d have a heck of a time staying on the track, and you’d probably be clinging to the door. Now imagine yourself in the same car, moving at the same 200 mph, but now you’re on a perfect circle track that’s 1000 miles circumference. Would you expect to feel the same centrifugal force? Nope, in fact you probably wouldn’t feel any centrifugal force at all, the track would feel almost perfectly straight at all times, and you would never feel yourself being repelled to the door.
So what changed? The speed was the same, yet the centrifugal force was vastly different, but why? Because miles per hour is a linear velocity and it has very little to do with centrifugal force output. It’s rate of rotation that matters, which effects the rate of angular velocity change per second. In the first car example, the car would be completing several rotations every minute. In the second, it completes 1 rotation every 5 hours…hence the drastic drop in centrifugal force.
You don’t feel Earth’s rotation, because it’s actually very slow. 1 rotation every 24 hours…it’s not very fast at all, hence why you won’t feel it. Flat Earth gets people focused on the wrong numbers, the wrong variables…and sadly, it works. People should be learning some basic physics, then these things wouldn’t even be a question.
3
-
3
-
@saltysergeant4284 Here’s a very simple reason why public opinion should not sway the conclusions of experts. Would you expect a panel of non-experts, to decide what open heart surgeons do in surgery? Do we ask panels of layman to decide how an electrician should wire a building? Do nuclear physicists ask a panel of people off the street, to approve the designs for a nuclear reactor?
No, of course not...so why do people all of a sudden think they should have a say, in the conclusions of physics and Earth science? If you don’t know the basic biology of the human body, then you’re going kill someone during surgery. If you don’t know how basic electrical safety and circuitry works...then you’re very likely to create a major fire hazard. If you don’t know anything about how nuclear reactions work, down to the last detail and calculation...then you’re more likely to build another Chernobyl than a safely functioning nuclear power system.
The same applies to physics...it doesn’t care what people WANT to believe, it just is what it is. General layman THINK they know everything, thanks to the Dunning Krueger effect....the less you know, the more confident you are to think you know everything. It’s a real thing and it’s a problem.
We got a bunch of people right now in Flat Earth circles, who think gravity is fake, claiming it’s just density. But they have NO IDEA how to apply that conclusion. Currently, we use the force of gravity in equations, everything from calculating weight (W=mg), to calculating the buoyancy of sea vessels (Fb=Vpg), to calculating the projectile arcs of long range artillery (sin(2θ)v2/g). You might notice a small ‘g’ in each one of those equations, that’s the downward acceleration of gravity here on Earth; 9.8m/s^2. Right now, that’s how engineers design a great many things...with that measurement and that knowledge. While a few layman online have just claimed it’s density...and called their work done, no further discussion or peer review required, no formulas at all that we can replace the currently used formulas with...they have essentially created ZERO applied science from their conclusion.
Is that the kind of people you really want influencing science? People with no experience or real knowledge in the topic they’re arguing against? Might as well just hand your local gas attendant a scalpel, and get him rolling on some back alley surgery...I’m sure he’ll figure it out eventually. :/
3
-
@saltysergeant4284 Ok, I don’t mind a civil discussion. I do tend to ramble yes, so apologies for the lengthy posts, I’ll try and keep things more focused and short if possible. Understand that I’m not new to this discussion in particular, and I’m quite well versed in general physics, geometry, astronomy and Earth science. So no, I have several experiments that verify Earth’s rotation and it’s shape, I’ve even performed many of them. So please, if we continue, do not assume to know what I know or have seen and I’ll treat you with the same respect.
I am busy currently, but if there’s any points in particular you’d like to start with, by all means, I’ll do my best to address them.
3
-
@saltysergeant4284 Considering the enormous size of the Earth, at its measured dimensions, it takes roughly 70 miles to arc even 1 degree of difference (divide 25,000 miles by 360 degrees= 1 degree for every 69.44 miles). How much angle do you expect to see in just a few centimetres of a cup or bottle? Even a massive ocean, at 6’ viewing height you’ll only see on average for 3-5 miles, depending on refraction. How much angle is there in about 3 miles? Very very little...so of course it’s going to appear flat, you’re really not observing very much of it. We can all at least agree the Earth is massive, doesn’t take much to confirm that much for ones self at least.
So It’s a little too intuitive to say “it looks flat, therefore it is”, basic geometry would tell you, that if the sphere is large enough compared to the observer...it would appear completely flat to them, if directly at the surface. So of course your cup of water appears flat...if gravity forms a perfect equipotential field of force from centre of mass, then it’s going to follow Earth’s dimensions.
Again, it’s a bit too intuitive to conclude things on appearances, we have to probe deeper and pay closer attention.
3
-
@saltysergeant4284 I’m a digital illustrator, and I’m self employed for the most part. I illustrate for books, comics, video games. But before I decided to make that my profession, I was both a pipe fitter and an insulator in the trades. Never made it to journeyman for either, but I do have several thousand hours in both, working industrial construction in both uranium mines, potash and the oil fields. My other choice vocation has always been as a teacher, more specifically in science, biology, chemistry and physics. I’ve no secondary education, but I have studied general science most my life, just as a hobby. Astronomy as well...which is what got me into this discussion for the most part, because before I ever even heard of this movement, I had travelled and on a couple of these travels I happened to make several astronomical observation in the South hemisphere. Such as measuring the angle drop of stars to the horizon by latitude (which is how sextant navigation works) and I happened to join an astronomy group on a night they were photographing the South celestial rotation.
That was 10 years ago, and I’ve been researching FE for 4 years now.
The other thing that got me into this discussion, was the claims of perspective. FE often calls on perspectives to describe how a sunset occurs or how a boat sinks into horizon...but as an artist, who’s studied perspective for over 20 years, at this point I consider myself an expert on that subject...and they are grossly butchering the fundamentals of perspective to force their conclusions. To me, their explanations of perspective causing a sunset, is more akin to a child ramming a square peg into a round hole. And even after 4 years of chatting with hundreds of Flat Earthers, that is still how I see their conclusion. Perspective simply does not work the way they claim it does, I’ve seen or heard no explanation so far that has convinced me otherwise.
So now you know my background, may I ask what you do for a living?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Level is just a word, we created it, it has no baring on physical reality, that’s important to keep in mind first of all. But, words in English also have many different definitions, depending on the context, also important to remember. They use the word in “sea level” to imply a surface at equipotential, meaning, a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre...all spheres are defined this way, having a level surface at equipotential distance from centre. That is what’s implied by the word “level” in the context of land elevation. The oceans surface is an equipotential surface, so it is level at equipotential.
3
-
3
-
They’re not threatened, they’re just not in the habit of rolling over and accepting claims made by non experts, without any substantial evidence to support those claims. Most of the “evidence” FE puts forth, is not really evidence, it’s mostly empty conjectures, cherry picked dialogue taken out of context, and misunderstood science. Then when they do finally provide anything that’s actually scientific, they get upset when any attempt to peer review the work is made...as if they think the same standards of review somehiw don’t apply to them.
Science isn’t threatened by you people, it’s fascinated that you somehow think your approach is rational. It’s not threatened, it’s just annoyed that you people seem to think forcing your conclusions and not allowing any rebuttal, is a reasonable way to conduct science. Peer review is important...you are not infallible. So you have to accept that people are going to question you, when you make a claim...that’s just how it is.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ajmpatriot4899 You fly any symbol or flag representing a group, and that right there declares you as a member. Whether that registers for you or not…you’re a follower of a group ideology, sorry to have to break it to you. At least own it…like why bother with deluding yourself?
You follow the bread crumbs from a cryptic online puzzle maker, that has led to extreme devision within nations, violence against communities, and has done harm to the family members who have to deal with you people…and then you justify it all as “freedom” and “healthy skepticism”? You’re not free 😂 you’re a hypnotized drone, following the cryptic bullshit of online propaganda, sold to you under the guise of freedom. It’s a song as old as nations, same bullshit, new paint job. Guess how the Nazi party sold their bullshit to the German people pre WW2? You think the swastika was always a symbol for oppression? You think the German people were all just evil? No, they were regular people, sold lies through propaganda, that convinced them they’d be freed from tyranny if they signed up. The Q keeps up what it’s doing, and it’ll be the new symbol of oppression in no time, you just watch.
3
-
3
-
@ajmpatriot4899 I’ll just list off some core Qanon beliefs I’m aware of, you just let me know which ones you feel are false.
1. High level politicians, specifically democrats, are running a child sex ring.
2. These evil politicians are part of a secret society that has been controlling governments around the world, for centuries.
3. There’s a plan Q is orchestrating to overthrow this “Cabal”, that you must have faith in.
4. Trump and some other higher level officials are secretly working to “drain the swamp”, in other words, dismantle the corrupt government through mass arrests.
5. Hillary Clinton is definitely part of the scandal and is near the top of the corruption.
6. You have a rally cry “WWG1WGA”, meaning “Where we go one, we go all.”
Feel free to check off any you don’t agree with…but I’m sure it’s gonna be really difficult to do so.
These are all beliefs that a group of people share…making it a group ideology. Seriously, they have a rally cry…that basically translates too “following one idiot like a herd of sheep, without question and with complete compliance, as soon as the first stone is cast.” How can anyone think they’re not part of a group mindset, when they have a fucking group rally cry they put on shirts and flags, that literally tells them to follow the group no matter what? 😂 It’s just incredible to me how delusional people can be.
3
-
3
-
@pavelinho1 We don’t actually feel motion itself, it’s a common misconception that we do. When you’re on a plane going 500 mph, do you ever really feel that motion? No, you’re not struggling to stand, you’re not constantly sucked to your seat. So why is that? 500 mph is pretty fast, wouldn’t you agree? So this can teach us something about motion, that we don’t really notice motion if it is constant, what we feel isn’t motion itself, it’s sudden or rapid CHANGES in motion. Vibrations, accelerations, friction causing drag, etc, anything that disturbs a constant motion suddenly, that is what we feel and notice.
Every single one of Earth’s motions are constant, with only small gradual changes over long periods of time. And since space is a vacuum, there’s no air to cause drag force, so we don’t experience any vibration due to friction. So we really wouldn’t expect to feel any motion.
3
-
@michael.forkert The equation isn’t calculating a speed, it’s calculating mass to energy conversion, it’s mass times the speed of light AND THEN you square it, to give you the energy equivalence. So you’re just misunderstanding the equation, by taking a small part of it out of context...which is interesting, cause usually flat Earthers are quote mining and taking words out if context, but this is next level stuff taking math and misinterpreting it.
But seriously my dude...do you really think you caught something that millions of actual scientists and mathematicians missed...for the most famous equation ever derived? You do realize this equation is an applied science today, right? Meaning it’s used today in a lot of industry and technology....you really think it’s capable of that much, if it’s been wrong this whole time?
I mean, points for originality I guess, but the Earth still aint flat I’m afraid.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SKATEtime41 Well here’s the thing, it’s kind of a half truth. The equation is accurate (up to a point, about 100 miles, then it drops off into a parabola), but it doesn’t represent line of sight, it’s just for surface curvature. The trouble here is, that you’re making line of sight observations…but this equation does not represent line of sight, it traces an imaginary tangent line from sea level. So unless your eye rests at sea level (which is never the case)…then it’s not going to give you an accurate line of sight calculation. Surveyors can use it as a quick reference guide for topography, but you’re not gonna be able to use it for determining how much of something should be hidden by curvature…because it’s pretty common sense that you’re able to see further the higher you go, so height of observer needs to be a variable, but there is no variable for that in that equation. Look at it this way, 8 inches per mile squared gives you one figure, that figure is the same whether you’re at sea level, or 100 feet off the surface…yet you go higher and you see further. Do you see the problem? You go higher, you can then see further, but the math doesn’t adjust for this, it still gives you the exact same figure, telling you that you shouldn’t see what you’re seeing. The reason…because it’s not a line of sight calculation.
Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion. It’s a rule of thumb in science and mathematics, to always double check your math, because there’s always the chance your calculations are off, simply because you’re using the wrong equations. Height of the observer is just one of many variables 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t factor though, it also ignores horizon distance, tilt angles, refraction, land elevation, etc…it’s just not a great equation to use for long distance observations.
Here’s a better equation using basic trig functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Earth radius
d= Distance to object
h= height of observer
That’s a far more accurate equation for line of sight and curvature, though that’s purely geometric, even that ignores things like atmospheric refraction, which does matter as well, here’s a quick demonstration for why https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA. There’s some great curve calculators online like the one at Metabunk, but the best one I’ve seen is the Walter Bislin curvature simulator. It’s a simulator that includes pretty much every relevant variable, even includes camera optics like barrel distortion and focal length, it’s crazy precise. And it’s free to use online, so even better. Bit of a learning curve to that one, because you have to manually set up your observations, but pretty great once you get it. It even switches between flat Earth and Globe Earth so you can compare…because I think people tend to forget about considering what you should see if Earth were flat.
Anyway, point is, the math that Flat Earth has been using is incorrect for what they use it for, so it’s really not difficult to see why so many have reached the flat conclusion…they’re using the wrong math, and should have checked it. It’s a good quick approximation calculation that surveyors can use for determining a land drop from a tangent, but it’s not very useful for line of sight observations, and so you will reach a false conclusion if you use it for that.
I hope that information is at the very least interesting, if you have any other questions or rebuttals feel free.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@luckyhaskins69 Have you tried? It just kinda puts your argument at a stalemate really, saying “nobody’s ever gone to see the midnight Sun”, making the claim that if you’ve never done something yourself then you can’t make the clam...but then I talk to people who have seen it, it really makes me turn around and wonder about your claim. I mean, claiming nobody has ever really seen it is a pretty strong claim, but seems to me you reached the conclusion from lack of personal experience. So just sayin, why not try it?
Either way, it’s a bit pointless, your claim of people never seeing it, is just about the same as someone claiming they have, so it’s a dumb argument really. It’s more for your benefit though...I mean if this argument really means that much to you personally, why not at least try to take the trip? I’m just curious why flat Earthers don’t do more...it just seems like they’d rather argue from ignorance, cause it’s easier. Which doesn’t really add much for their credibility.
3
-
@luckyhaskins69 Well, I’d rather talk about my own personal accounts of Southern Hemisphere travel, because I’m willing to concede that the midnight Sun is something I’ve never witnessed either, was mainly just pointing out that it’s a bit of a weak argument to reach a claim of fakery, when you have no first hand experience either, see the point? There are however plenty of time lapse videos online of the midnight Sun, but obviously nothing that would convince you, so bit of a moot point. Star trails on the other hand, anyone with a good camera and a bit of free time can verify this one easily.
So your new claim now though, is that it’s just the Northern pole rotation, but somehow being really far away creates an illusion like it’s rotating the other way? You do realize you have to point your camera South to capture the Southern rotation right? Soooo...if you’re looking south, how exactly does the Northern sky take up your view? You are also aware that the stars and constellations are different as well right? Most notably, the pole star, which is not nearly as bright in the Southern rotation...so, if it’s just the Northern rotation we’re seeing in actuality, as you’re claiming, how does the distance cause Polaris to dim until not visible...but the other stars don’t see the same dimming effect? Also, the opposite rotation is quite clear...and you are also aware that you can still capture the Northern rotation while in the South right? You can’t see it in full, but you can see its outer edge just fine, just turn the camera the other way and there you go. At the Equator, you can easily capture both...confirming there are two, not one.
See, you’re trying really hard to slot in an answer...but like, really stop and look at your explanation, cause it’s very flimsy and forced and illogical. I know you really want to believe this is true, so you can confirm a strong bias you have, that bias being you want the ultimate reason to justify your belief in an evil cabal ruling the world, but you really have to realize how ridiculous you’re being on this one.
It’s just incredible to me how someone can appear quite logical and articulate, reaching other conclusions that signify intelligence...but then when it comes to the most basic geometric stuff...it’s like you hit your head and are now 5. Sorry...it just raises red flags, you will claim to be unbiased then use very similar behaviour for a person looking to confirm bias at any and all cost, mental gymnastics and ad hoc explanations...meanwhile the globe answers for the observation with absolute ease.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@louway2400 The stars do change monthly, these are known as the seasonal stars, you know many of them as the zodiac constellations. This is basic astronomy knowledge. There are two types of stars and constellations, the seasonal stars, which lie close to the ecliptic plain and are periodically blocked by the Sun during our orbit, and then there are the circumpolar stars, which are closer to each polar axis, one for each hemisphere. These stars are never blocked by the Sun, hence why they’re always visible year round. You need to think in 3 dimensions here, and probably do your research a bit better before embarrassing yourself.
Your core question is just a lack of knowledge that is your own. You just assumed the stars never change, cause your knowledge of astronomy starts and ends at the Big Dipper…but if you actually knew anything about astronomy, you’d know the stars actually do change. That’s the problem with Flat Earthers, thinking you know everything, and thinking your questions somehow amount to evidence…never realizing your questions are easily answered, if you’d just bother to do a few extra seconds of research.
Someone else has already pointed this out as well, but there are two hemisphere skies, with two perfect circle rotations around their own pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South. You don’t have to be a genius of geometry to understand how impossible that is on a flat Earth with only one sky, it is however exactly what we would expect to see on a globe. So why does this simple geometry never click for you guys?
3
-
@louway2400 You gotta think in 3 dimensions my dude. The Sun never comes between us and the stars directly above both the poles. So when you’re on the night side of the Earth, you’ll be able to see those stars. You can’t see all the seasonal stars at one time, because you’re facing a completely different direction on the ecliptic, but the polar axis is always pointing in the same two directions. So here, picture it this way, if you’re facing the West wall of your room, you can’t see the East wall, correct? But no matter which direction you face, you can still see the ceiling and the floor, right? Just gotta think a little more 3 dimensionally. Our axis is always pointed at Polaris, think of that as our ceiling, the circumpolar stars are the ceiling, the ecliptic plain is the walls, so seasonal stars are the walls. Does that help?
Yes our orbit is millions of miles wide, but in the grand scale of things, that’s really not that far, compared to the distance of stars. If you were to scale that down, picture a street light 3 miles away, now move an inch to the left. That’s the difference in distances (roughly) scaled down. This is enough to create a parallax though, which is something astronomers do measure each year, just look up stellar parallax. Stellar parallax does occur, which is what we’d expect to see occur if the Earth was orbiting around the Sun. This was one of the first measured observations that led astronomers to consider the possibility that Earth was not at the centre, that the Sun was.
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
-
@Murphy_Gaspard Can you look at a sunset every day? Then you can prove for yourself the Earth is spherical. Only takes a basic understanding of geometry to realize that a sunset is not a very likely occurrence, if line of sight to the Sun is never physically blocked…certainly not how we see it each day, with a Sun that clearly maintains the same angular size and dips under horizon and under your eye level. Any art student could tell you that a pretty fundamental rule of perspective, is that anything above your eye level can not drop below it, from perspective alone…and yet the Sun is clearly observed every single day, to dip into and under horizon, under your eye level. A flat Earth with a Sun that’s always above you could not do that. A curvature however, could absolutely cause that. So flat Earth is debunked with one simple observation…while the globe accounts for this observation with absolute ease.
This is the real problem as I see it; people who become flat Earthers seem to think the knowledge of the globe is off limits to them and impossible to obtain themselves. And I find that odd…since most of this knowledge was obtained by ancient civilizations like the Greeks, using nothing more than a few basic tools, and some simple observations…observations that anyone can repeat. At least when it comes to Earth’s geometry, the higher physics did take a bit more effort, but the geometry, only takes a few simple observations to prove the Earth’s surface shape can only be spherical.
There’s also this air of paranoia I don’t quite understand…you really think millions of various experts are lying to you? Do you honestly think every scientist is some sort of evil bond villain out to get you? Have you ever met a scientist? They’re just regular people, and I do feel the the vast majority of people are good, it’s the only way our society can thrive really, by working together, the majority wishing no ill will upon anyone else.
It’s just a very paranoid position to have. To hide a false conclusion of this magnitude, from literally millions of various experts, would be an impossible task. The knowledge of Earths basic geometry, is pretty important knowledge to have, for everything from navigation, to communication, engineering and infrastructure. It’s not likely we’d explore and conquer the entire world, without first acquiring accurate knowledge of its basic shape. It’s odd to me that people could actually think that’s possible…I’m sure you know how important it is for navigating anywhere, to first have accurate knowledge of the surface you’re navigating, that should be pretty common sense I feel. And you can actually test that yourself…anyone can learn to navigate, we live in the information age, you can learn how navigation works at any time you choose…this is not information that is off limits to you, it’s just a few keystrokes away and then maybe an hour of your time. You learn pretty quickly how important knowledge of surface geometry is too navigating anywhere on Earth.
So idk, are Flat Earthers just really bad at basic geometry? Are they really paranoid? Do they lack real world experience? Do they just hold a deep resentment for the scientific community and are looking to spite them in any way they can? I get the feeling it’s all of the above.
You can verify the Earth is spherical at anytime. This is not knowledge that’s off limits to you, and no government can stop you from reacquainting yourself with that information. So I don’t agree with you in the slightest, that you can’t prove the globe model for yourself…you absolutely can. You want an example of probably the best way to prove it for yourself? Learn to navigate, watch a tutorial video in celestial navigation…the entire practice of navigation requires accurate knowledge of surface, this is fact, not an opinion. People need to stop thinking things are impossible or off limits to them, and start actually trying.
3
-
3
-
Actually, mathematics is exactly how we do prove it. We use gravity in everything from calculating your weight (W=mg), to determining buoyancy force (Fb=Vpg), to ballistics (y = h + Vᵧ * t - g * t² / 2), to determining an airplanes thrust to weight ratio, atmosphere pressure, orbital mechanics, predicting celestial events, recreating nucleat fusion on smaller scales…the list goes on and on. Gravity is a variable in an almost countless number of working equations today.
You know how you can tell when your science is accurate? When you can apply it, and it works. Inversely, you know the best way to spot pseudoscience? It simply doesn’t work.
No, they are not all composites, that is a straight up lie…that you repeat for some reason. For example, they took hundreds of photos of Earth during the Apollo missions…how exactly did they create a composite before the satellites were in orbit to do it, and before computers and software were available to make a composite with? On top of that, a composite requires satellites in orbit to scan the surface, so the data can then be used to compile a composite image…so if Earth isn’t a globe, with gravity, then how exactly is an orbit achieved? Satellites use both gravity and Earth’s spherical shape to achieve an orbit…what’s up there scanning the Earth to make these composites with?
No, in reality, only a few pictures of Earth are composite, while the majority are pictures taken from weather satellites in geostationary orbits, taking full pictures of Earth around the clock. You need to pay closer attention to the details and deeper context, and stop blindly believing every superficial claim you hear online.
Entropy will always win in the end, but for many systems it’s going to take trillions of years…until the attractive forces of nature that contain and slow entropy break down, we’re fine.
3
-
bob smith “I did not know you knew Mark Sargent and his qualifications.”
Well, here’s a big problem with Flat Earthers, they tend to assume that just because people disagree with them, it must mean those people haven’t done the research. Instead of considering the other very real possibility...that they could be wrong and they have been successfully conned by people like Mark Sargent. There is a very good reason why many of us do not bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, we understand what they’re getting wrong.
You’re misunderstanding a lot of physics in your questioning, and that’s another big problem of Flat Earth I find, assuming that just because you don’t personally understand something, it must mean it’s false. Flat Earth tends to hold questions up, almost as if they’re proof of something...instead of considering the possibility, that there might be some science you’re either not aware of, or that you don’t quite fully understand yet.
Honestly, the vacuum question is a great question to ask, the trouble is...Flat Earth isn’t really asking for an answer, they have already concluded it has no answer, and that’s why they’re asking it...cause they feel it is a proof of the Globe models flaws. But they are wrong in that assumption, modern science has done more than just answered for this...they’ve measured it, tested it, observed it, they do have an answer now, with evidence to support that answer. If Flat Earth really had an open mind (as they claim they do), then they’d be interested to hear that answer and look over the evidence...but that does take time and effort, and most people don’t have that kind of patience...unless they’re in school to become a physicist. Most people want quick, easy to digest answers...and that’s what Flat Earth offers.
A better question to ask though I find, is where is this dome/container? Why is there no tangible evidence for its existence yet? It is a physical object, correct? Surely we should have interacted with it in some capacity by now. But, so far I’ve not seen any evidence for this barrier, what I have seen though is mountains of evidence for the existence of space. Even Flat Earthers have sent their own weather balloons up to the fringes of our atmosphere, and those balloons always pop once they’ve reached vacuum conditions...so without realizing it, even they have measured the vacuum of space, while finding no dome barrier separating our atmosphere from space.
It’s fine to question things, but it’s become easier then ever before to spread misinformation...so I think people should remain sceptical of all sources of information, not just the mainstream. The internet as it is today, is a con mans paradise...and if you think you can’t be conned, then that’s just the right amount of over confidence they’re looking for.
3
-
@sittingstill3578 Free speech goes both ways, you may not like an opposition questioning you and sharing a different perspective, but if you claim to be a true advocate for freedom of speech, then you’d welcome differing opinions and engage with them. You don’t have to agree, freedoms of speech don’t mean we can force people to agree with us, it just means an opinion has the right to exist and be voiced. But even that has limits, freedom of speech is not absolute like people seem to think it is, there are limits that are recognized under law.
I was merely pointing out that YouTube has every right to promote the content it chooses, it’s their business, their space, they can do what they want in that regard. These people still have the right to speak, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to be promoted or advertised on someone else’s space or platform. That’s not something freedom of speech protects.
3
-
3
-
So you think it’s NASA who solved Earths geometry? 🧐 If so, then I think you could use a science history lesson my dude.
But of course you’ll always get a seemingly better case, from a group forged from confirmation bias, they’re more invested…the rest of us could give a fuck. Seriously, the fact they even call themselves “flat Earthers”, is your first red flag they might have a bit of a biased opinion on things. Do you see scientists calling themselves “globe Earthers”? No, they’re just scientists, cause they couldn’t give a fuck what shape the Earth is, they just reach conclusions from all the evidence they have, rather than seek the evidence that support the conclusions they want.
Just cause the bullshit is consistent, doesn’t change the fact that it’s still bullshit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tubamirum007 So we’re just gonna ignore the fact that you lied about what year the Van Allen Belt was discovered? Alright then...but it does point out the kind of person I’m dealing with, so it’s noted. Here’s the problem as I see it, you’re not really forming conclusions around solid evidence, you’re finding a million and one things you can speculate on, that all add for you to confirm your bias, twisting a few details here and there to make things appear fishier, all under the guise of “just asking questions”. But when you really analyze everything you’re claiming, you find there’s logical answers for all of it and you’re just building a case on pure speculation and paranoia. It’s all flimsy bullshit, it’s gish gallop, nothing more. That’s the truth of your arguments. I won’t leave you hanging though, you’re here to argue, so I’ll take some time to provide some of those logical answers.
Telemetry data isn’t very useful...when you already know how to get to the Moon. It’s right there, it’s not going anywhere, we know where it is and how to get back, so why would we need to keep telemetry data? In the grand scheme of things, we don’t, it would have some historical value to the nerds and scientists who care, but that’s about it. The data was stored on reels of old magnetic strip tapes, that eventually erode over time, requiring that they be transferred onto new tape or other data storage systems...which costs money and time. So, the higher ups likely made a call to not waste money on something that didn’t really have very high importance on the scale of things. Only the scientists would really cars about that data...but they don’t run NASA, your typical money crunchers and pencil pushers do. That data isn’t as important as the modules, the space suites, the physical gear they can hang up in a museum...telemetry data though, where’s the marketable value in that? Waste of costs, waste of time, waste of storage, it’s going to eventually get the cut.
The UN flag was likely a design choice. As an illustrator for a living, I’ve done lots of logo design, the AE map has a nice pleasing composition, it forms a balanced triad composition, which is pretty common in logo design. It’s likely for the same reason flat Earth chose it as their map, it’s pleasing to the eye...humans are like that naturally, we’re drawn to balance and symmetry. Also, it fits well with what the UN stands for, which is to represent every nation. You can’t display the entirety of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D surface, so a projection map of the Globe must be used, if you’re going to represent every nation on a flag. It works even better, having that flag not favour any particular nation, having it centred in a neutral zone, like the Arctic circle. So it just ticks every box design wise, if I was tasked to design that flag and asked to include a map, that’s likely the projection map I’d use as well.
See I can go through every claim you make, and provide a logical answer...but in the end it’s just pointless, cause all we’re both doing is speculating. I don’t really know what went down and neither do you...so all we’re doing is speculating endlessly, it’s fucking pointless. Do you like chasing endless speculations? I sure don’t. Evidence is what I care about...not gish gallop.
This is how con men think...stirring doubt, and feeding your fears. It’s brainwashing 101, robbing you of your ability to spot the difference between speculation and evidence.
You don’t need NASA to verify the shape of the planet, you can do it for yourself, with some very simple first hand observations and some common sense. Focus more on the ground beneath your feet, you can test its geometry whenever you like, free from anything NASA or government.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pauldooris539 Yes, these experiments only detect rotational motion, not a movement through space around the Sun. Very good, glad to know you are paying attention, my apologies if I worded it poorly, you are correct. See I’m fine with a discussion where we can respect each other’s knowledge and current position on the topic, it’s a good middle ground to be in for sure, I agree. I’m not trying to be dismissive of you and your points, I’m just challenging them. Best way to learn I find; talking openly and honestly with an opposing viewpoint. Regardless of who’s right or wrong in the end, we can both learn something new in a conversation.
I would like to say a large enough interferometer could be used in a Sagnac configuration (a loop rather than a cross), to detect Earth’s motion around the Sun…but that would require some extremely precise equipment and some far heftier mathematics, and I’m really not certain if it has been done yet. I’m aware of the larger versions currently being used to detect Seismic activity (as well as measure Earth rotation), but I’m not sure if they’ve been used to detect Earth’s motion around the Sun…or if they even could. Worth looking into though, I’d say look up the ROMY ring laser interferometer sometime, perhaps they have tried this.
Satellites are probably the best evidence we have of the heliocentric solar system model; we have several in orbits around the Sun between Earth and the Sun, the DSCOVR satellite being the most prominent and well known. Trouble is…most Flat Earthers do not accept satellite technology as evidence, they typically dismiss them as fake tech. So really tough to submit as evidence if they’re not likely to accept it…as much as that frustrates me, I’ve never worked on or with a satellite, so I suppose I can in some part see why they’re dismissive. Though I will submit this for you that’s probably my best evidence that satellites do exist. https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY This is s group of hobbyists who built their own radio telescope out of junk parts, and then used them to pull image data from geostationary weather satellites in orbit.
But if satellites don’t do much for ya, next up in terms of evidence (as far as I’m currently aware) is the astronomy data for our local system. Many have tried to fit the data within the geocentric model (both flat and spherical), but it becomes a mess pretty quickly, while the heliocentric model fits the data almost perfectly. To test that, you could try the mathematical method currently used to predict eclipses with, it uses Earth’s motion through space as a variable, namely Keplers laws of planetary motion. So it’s also something worth checking if this interests you https://youtu.be/w9CM_MxG1vQ. Though perhaps it’s a poor example, I assume most simpler math probably ignores Earth’s motion now that I think about it. But astronomy has many useful celestial events to draw from, perhaps predictions of Mars retrograde, Venus transit across the Sun, or Sun Analemma are better for Earth motion. In any case, Astronomy is largely how the conclusion of the heliocentric model was settled…it’s the only model that accurately predicts what we observe around us.
Anyway, I’m off to bed. Take care for now.
3
-
@pauldooris539 Well, I do appreciate the shorter videos, so thank you. Sorry if I assume too much about you personally, I’ve just had a lot of time to form an opinion on this and other conspiracies, and I can’t help but notice those who investigate them share similarities. I will say you’re far more sane and rational than most Flat Earthers I’ve conversed with (and it’s been hundreds at this point), Moon landing skeptics typically are I find…I just don’t care for speculative evidence. I prefer science, if it’s not scientific in nature, and if it’s not conclusive, I’ll just roll my eyes at it.
Now your next argument is a lot more scientific, so I’m far more interested. And as an amateur astronomer (hobbyist, not professional), I know a thing or two about astro-photography. I think at about 14 minutes into your video, the Apollo 17 Astronaut Gene Cernan explained it best; roughly stating that you can see stars, but it requires you be in the shade shielded by the intense light of the Sun and you have to let your eyes adjust, then it becomes possible. That would be correct as far as I’m concerned, because our eyes work a lot like a camera lens actually, our eyes auto adjust for light exposure. That’s why as you stay in the dark for awhile, your eyes adjust, and you can then see better in the dark. What’s happening is the iris of your eye is opening slowly allowing more light into your eye, allowing you to see more in the dark. But when you’re in intense light (like they would be on the day side of the Moon), then your eye does the opposite, it closes, allowing less light through. This makes it difficult to see things that are dimly lit. Ever stood in the headlights of a car at night, and notice how difficult it is to see anything around you and outside of the beams? Even when a person is standing right there outside the beam, they’re difficult to see. A similar thing would occur on the Moon, while on the day side…or in space, because most of the time you’d be right in the headlights of the Sun, so your eyes would be adjusted for that, most of the time.
This works exactly like the exposure on a camera, a camera exposure setting basically opens the shutter wider or closes it more, to allow less or more light through the lens and onto the film, depending on the surrounding light. When you increase exposure, you are able to see objects that are less bright, more dimly lit. This is crucial in astro-photography, to get those really bright shots of the night sky, you have to crank open the shutter, increasing exposure time greatly. But, to get a clear shot of anything while inside a path of intense light, you have to do the opposite, or else your film will be overexposed, and essentially nothing but a big white blur. Over and under exposure is basic photography 101, it’s one of the first things you learn in photography.
He briefly touches on this, but he doesn’t really explain much on how a camera works…actually, he almost makes it out to be too complicated for the average person to learn. I find that a little odd…since they’re supposed to be “detectives”. Shouldn’t they learn how a camera works, if it’s very relevant information towards what they’re investigating? It’s really not that difficult to learn how a cameras exposure works…it’s like he kind of understood, but then treated it like gobbledygook at the same tine. Personally, I find that odd…this is pretty easy stuff honestly.
He asks why the astronauts didn’t adjust the exposure to photograph the stars, and that’s a great question. The answer is because if they did, the film would then be overexposed and you then wouldn’t be able to see anything, it would just be mostly a white blur. Could you find a happy medium? In the shade, perhaps, I mean you can do astro photography during the day to see stars, but it takes some doing (namely a lot of shade, anything to lower direct sunlight without lowering exposure to much) and a pretty good knowledge of cameras. The crew were not photographers (as far as I’m aware), they probably wouldn’t have had the slightest clue how to do this proper. And I’d imagine the cameras were auto set, and so they probably couldn’t adjust exposure manually even if they wanted too. That’s my speculation, but it’s plausible, I’d have to research the camera more to know for certain on that…but personally, if I was sending them up there, snd they didn’t know much about cameras, I’d give them the rundown of course…but I’d also make it super easy for them, and just auto set the exposure and shutter speeds.
But, that’s why stars aren’t in photographs from space, and why astronauts could only see them sometimes. Because the camera exposures were set too low, and our eyes naturally adjust to intense light…and in space, there’s not a whole lot of things blocking the Sun’s light, so most of the time their eyes are adjusted for more intense light.
I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed, but most of the stars really aren’t that bright. Even out in the countryside, where light pollution is far less, you still have to strain to see them clearly. Can our eyes see the night sky as brightly as a camera set to extremely high exposure can? No, of course it can’t…our eyes are pretty limited compared to most of our technology, the photos of the night sky he was sharing, are not how we see them naturally with our eyes, they are photographs with a lot of exposure. So, it doesn’t take much to under expose them so they can’t be seen, stars really aren’t that bright.
He also pulls from a few quotes from astronauts in LEO orbit claiming to have seen the stars brighter than they had ever seen them before…but fails to mention at what point they made those observations. If they were on the night side of the planet during those observations, then ya, you probably would….so what side of the Earth were they on when they saw the stars so bright? He doesn’t mention……how convenient, almost like he’s trying to lead you to his biased conclusion. :/
See, that’s the kind of stuff I can really sink my teeth into, because that argument has more science too it. There is a reason stars don’t appear in photographs from space, and I’m happy to explain it to people. And there’s a logical reason why the astronauts would receive that question with some hesitance…because there’s nuance to the answer. The simplest answer would be No, BUT you can see the stars under certain conditions. That’s the truth, there’s nuance, it would really depend on who gave a damn enough to really try, and if any time was really spent on the night side of Earth or the Moon.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful. My apologies if these get long…unfortunately, scientific/technical explanations are rarely short, there’s a lot of little details and nuances to cover. I understand that you might take this as just convenient for the “believers” arguments…but I’m really just stating some facts about how our eyes and cameras work. It’s all stuff that’s relevant to this argument…and a lot of it is pretty common sense, I feel. So I don’t feel it’s convenient, I feel it shouldn’t be ignored.
3
-
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
-
3
-
@aarondavis7826 You’re trying really hard to deny what we’re telling you…those are mathematical models, that are simplifying variables, this isn’t difficult to understand.
The paper deals with a vehicle while in flight, so yes, the mass of the entire vehicle, fuel and all, does change over time. This model ignores that, because it’s not required for what that particular math is being used for. Shape of the Earth and its motions do not matter in the math either, so the author is just making it VERY CLEAR what variables are not included in the math….that’s how these papers work. They’re not making a literal statement about Earth…it is a math simplification, for a mathematical model.
You’re not stupid, so I know some of this is clicking with you. Flat Earthers are cherry picking information…do you know what that is? I’m sure you do, it’s when you take words or phrases out of their context, and then spin it into your own biased interpretation…it’s confirmation bias at its worst.
We’re just trying to help you….flat Earth is a con, don’t be another sucker.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Now I have some questions for you. You stated in an earlier exchange and I quote “the object itself manifests as a force while it’s falling”. Many questions arise as to how exactly you’ve reached that conclusion, but the one I’d like to ask is this, if matter becomes a force itself (which I feel is nonsense, but hypothetically if I were to agree), does it stop being a force while at rest on surface? You said as much and I’ll paraphrase what you basically said on that “objects are picked up out of equilibrium, once they’ve fallen and are at rest, they are back in equilibrium”. Which I’ll interpret as a yes to my question. I mean, you’re basically describing potential energy, that’s the proper term used for what you’re describing here. When you pick something up, you’re giving it more potential energy, which can be transferred into Kinect energy, once it’s in motion, but I digress.
My next question then is, once at “equilibrium”, if it’s no longer a force, then how exactly can we still measure the objects weight with a scale? You’re aware how a scale works I’m sure, you apply a downward force to the top of scale, it then measures the force being applied through the pressure exerted. So if a mass sits on a scale, but no downward accelerating force is being created anymore, then how exactly is the mass squeezing down on the scale to measure the pressure? You said it’s at “equilibrium”, here’s a screencap from our previous exchange https://ibb.co/3Fb3Pcz. So I assume this means no downward force being applied...ok, so if no downward force while at equilibrium, how does it press down on a scale?
You’re making a lot of empty assertions and for some reason you’re fine with believing them, no evidence or explanation required. I’ve been very patient with you, providing what answers I can for you, providing as much evidence as I can in support of claims I make....what makes you think you shouldn’t be required to do the same?
I’m also curious about the way you put it “the object itself manifests as a force while it’s falling”...I pointed this out before, but you’ve basically admitted there’s a downward force, without directly saying it. It’s incredible to me what lengths you’ll go to, just to deny a very simple phenomenon of nature. Then you say it’s us who is experiencing cognitive dissonance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cabbagefart7432 You sure make a lot of assumptions. Frankie has been in these comments for years now questioning the claims made by people on this subject, as have many of those responding to you currently. From what I've gathered so far, Frankie is also an experienced sea mariner, with years of actual experience out at sea...so not a "noob" in the slightest when it comes to this topic, an expert would be a more accurate title. Though he doesn't require me to defend him, but now you know.
Now what is your evidence of seeing for 50 miles? Do you have any, or are empty claims how you intend to argue? It shouldn't be very unreasonable to ask for evidence for a claim, is it? Should be pretty standard practice...yet many in FE seem to think it's completely unnecessary. With your observation, what is your observation height? Because I'm sure you know, horizon is at 3 miles from a 6 foot viewing height from sea level...but that distance extends the higher you are, so observation height is pretty important to factor. What is the height of the object you're observing? That is also important to factor. Point is, there are variables to these observations that shouldn't be ignored, so I do hope you haven't ignored them in your observations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tombass3288 So your argument now is basically “books are not always right”. I agree, so if we both agree that just because it’s written down, doesn’t mean it’s correct by default, then what makes you think the Bible is correct? Or that your “200 proofs” book is correct? Seems you’re quite selective on what you consider true or correct, probably choosing what’s correct mostly from pure belief and bias, than from rational reasoning.
I’m merely questioning your claims, because we have every reason too, and I did it with simply verified scientific evidence. While you’re arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity, then hoping nobody calls you out on it. Good job...but I’m afraid it doesn’t do much. Earth is still a globe, modern science has more than verified that. If you have any actual evidence, you just let us know...not really interested in your delusions of grandeur, or your arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.
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
-
3
-
Well, considering this geo corona of hydrogen gas, that has been discovered to extend past the Moon, is like 10 molecules within every mile, it’s still basically empty space. Technically, space officially starts at the Karman line, which is 100 miles elevation, far more molecules of gas are found at this elevation, but it’s still basically a vacuum for all intents and purposes, so it’s space. Though technically...everything is in space, so you could say we’re in space right now even. 😋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@patrickhickman8723 Centrifugal force is dependent on rate of rotation…not linear velocities, like miles per hour. Here, I’ll even provide you with a simple thought experiment to help you realize this.
Picture yourself in a race car, going at a constant 200 mph, around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 metres circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, in fact it would likely be very difficult to stay on the track there would be so much centrifugal force occurring here. Ok, now lets do it again, same car at the same linear velocity of 200 mph, except now the track is 1000 miles circumference. Would you expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? No, not even close, in fact now the track would be curving so gradually it’d almost feel like a straight road, the centrifugal force in this example would almost non existent.
But wait…the velocity was the same, so why wasn’t the centrifugal force the same? Almost like linear velocity isn’t what really effects centrifugal force output. Hmmmm…🧐
The real difference is the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is increased by rate of rotation, or revolutions per minute (RPM’s). That’s what really effects centrifugal force strength…rate of rotation, not linear velocity. In the first example, the car would be completing several laps every minute. In the second, the car would only complete ONE lap, every 5 hours. So his rate of angular velocity change per second is greatly reduced.
Earth completes ONE rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes, that’s a sidereal rotation. This is roughly 0.000694 RPM’s at the equator, which negates only about 0.3% of Earth’s gravity…at the equator.
Fun fact, that’s actually why things weigh slightly less at the equator.
So again…you’re just proving to all of us your general lack of knowledge and understanding in basic physics. Great argument Patrick…just more personal misunderstandings of basic science. 👌
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheCollages This isn’t difficult dude🤦♂️…you can’t successfully navigate a surface, with pinpoint precision, until you have accurate information of that surface. The shape of that surface will absolutely effect distances and locations…this is just basic geometry. A sphere adds a third dimension of travel, a flat surface only uses 2 dimensions…this matters. It means it’s one or the other, if we use the wrong model, then navigation simply will not work, locations will be wrong, distances will be wrong, navigation becomes impossible. Our system of navigation works, that system is geodesic designed for a globe, that’s a fact. So we prove Earth is spherical every single time we successfully arrive at a destination, while using that model to help us do it…so thousands of times per day. :/
You gotta hit your head pretty hard, to be convinced that navigation doesn’t require an accurate map of surface.
3
-
3
-
Well let’s think about it in terms of degrees, cause that’s the shift it’s going to be making, a degree shift. Takes about 70 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth, at 25,000 miles circumference. A passenger jet can cover that distance in about 15 minutes. So 15 minutes to arc 1 degree of pitch….you really think you’d be able to notice that extremely slow shift? Jeez that’s way slower of a shift than any curve you make on a highway…bet you don’t really notice, you just instinctively do it. Think it would be much different in a plane?
Pilots are constantly making tiny adjustments, to stay in line with both the altimeter and the horizon indicator. Tiny adjustments, over time, that all add up to a shift without any notice. Tiny adjustments, that are all instinctive, no thought required, that they’d never notice…not much different from the tiny adjustments you’re constantly making while driving, that you do on instinct and never notice.
Also, gravity is constantly adjusting their altitude as well. You think gravity just shuts off when a plane is flying? You think pitching down would be the only way to lower its altitude? No…just slow the thrust, and let gravity do the rest…no pitching down required.
3
-
@jaredzimmy Have you ever navigated across an ocean? Cause you’re acting like you’re an experienced expert on the topic. From what I’ve learned from paying attention to these comments here, Frankie is an actual mariner, with actual experience navigating out at sea…pretty sure he’d know what he’s talking about.
Not that he or anyone needs to be an experienced sailor, even having just a basic understanding of geometry, can debunk what you’re claiming. It’s not just a coincidence that the globe model works perfectly for navigation…you add a third axis of travel when you use a globe (the z axis, depth), this third dimension of travel adds distance, so if you use a globe to navigate a flat Earth with only 2 dimensions, you’re gonna get lost a lot, because the distances won’t be the same. And vice versa, if you use a flat Earth model to navigate a globe, it’s not gonna work very well, because the distances are gonna be different…sailors of old learned that the hard way, that’s why sailing was a pretty difficult profession up until Ptolemy started to design the first geodesic maps, designed fir a globe, some 2000 years ago.
All navigation today uses a system designed for a globe with two equal hemispheres…that is a fact, not an opinion. If you think otherwise, well, you’re just wrong…that’s really all there is too it. Learn to navigate, you learn pretty quickly which model is actually used and why it works.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tombass3288 Many of the stars actually do change periodically throughout a year...you’d know that if you actually spent any time observing and tracking them over a long period of time. There are two types of stars, seasonal and circumpolar. The seasonal stars lie along the ecliptic plain, and are periodically blocked by the Sun. You even know many of the constellation names...they are the zodiac constellations. The circumpolar stars are locked to each polar axis, and are never blocked by the Sun...hence why we see them all year round.
This is actually a great proof that the Earth is spherical and travels around the Sun, because there are two different hemispheres, with two different night skies, and the stars along the ecliptic DO CHANGE throughout a year...just like we’d expect, on a globe orbiting the Sun.
You reached an ignorant conclusion, from pure assumptions...verifying to us that you know absolutely nothing about astronomy, yet you seem to think you’re an expert. If you took even a second longer to research some basic astronomy, you’d know how wrong you are here. Then you tell the rest of us to wake up? Just wow. :/
3
-
You can’t use a simple spirit level for such an experiment, because gravity is what causes the buoyancy effect within the tube of liquid and air, so it levels to center of gravity, so it will shift with gravity vectors. So the results would be the same for both models, making it an inconclusive experiment. They’re ignoring gravity physics...you can’t ignore variables in an experiment, you have to factor every known variable and run control experiments to account for potential hidden variables, or you risk reaching a false conclusion...which is what they’ve done. So basically, it’s a very poor experiment, it does not render any conclusive results.
What it does do though, is demonstrate how bad these people are at conducting science experiments. No wonder they’re reaching so many false conclusions...they have no clue what they’re doing.
For the second experiment, he was talking about light refraction, which is a bending of light that occurs when light passes through a denser medium. I’m sure you’ve seen how objects distort while under water, that’s an example of light refraction. It’s very well understood in physics how it works, and it is well known that atmospheric conditions can cause light refraction, essentially distorting what we see at distances. There is always a standard refraction index in atmosphere, over water where the air above the water is cooler, it becomes more dense, which causes light to refract down, essentially causing distant objects to appear higher then they really are. This makes it possible to see objects further away, than what should be possible geometrically.
Here’s the clearest demonstration of this effect https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs.
So again, it was a sloppy experiment. Rowbotham ignored variables and didn’t do enough to render a more conclusive result. At least in his case, it’s actually a pretty good experiment, unlike the level on the plane which can never give a conclusive result in its current form. In Rowbothams case though, all he had to do, was just a better job. Here’s a thorough recreation of that experiment today http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. The conclusion here is conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be given its known dimensions.
So here’s the problem...we’re dealing with people who don’t know what they’re doing, don’t know how to properly conduct experiments, but they’re doing it anyway...and then to make it worse, they’re publishing these erroneous findings on public platforms...skipping over all peer review. It’s becoming a real problem, because it’s spreading misinformation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK Overcomplicating it? I’m sorry physics isn’t as easy as you’d like it to be (though it’s still pretty darn easy, for most of us anyway)...and I’m sorry I’m not as dumb as you were, to just agree blindly to strangers on the internet, who clearly don’t know fuck all about basic physics. 😄 Your ignorance and inability to understand things, doesn’t change reality bud.
“Remember most human beings first reaction to someone telling them they were lied to is frustration”
You mean like how frustrated you seem in these flustered comments? Eric Dubay is a Nazi sympathizing yoga teacher and a conman, and DITRH is a lying grifter...so you’ve been conned by huxters online, to believe bullshit....and now you think we should all be impressed by that? You fell for an internet hoax...because you’re an idiot. Good job. 👏 I know it’s frustrating to learn you were lied too by these conmen, but hopefully it doesn’t sting too much and you can eventually screw your head back on.
Here’s a great example of your idiocy.
“Why is your so called gravity strong enough to pull the apple down to the ground - But not strong enough to pull a feather down to the ground ? Why is it strong enough to hold thousands of pounds of water to a Ball but not strong enough to pull a kite down”
Last I checked...everything you just mentioned, still clings to the Earth, none of it goes flying off into space, right? It all eventually comes back down to Earth. Gee...I wonder why? A feather will drop slower in atmosphere because of AIR RESISTANCE...maybe you’ve heard of it? A feather has less mass and is far less dense, so it will be effected by the air a lot more, slowing its decent. See, density is already apart of the theory of gravity...but density did not move the apple or the feather, only a FORCE can move an object. Gravity is the name we gave to the force that PUTS EVERYTHING INTO MOTION. Get it yet? Drop a feather in a vacuum chamber, and then watch as it drops just as quickly as that apple, or any other dense object https://youtu.be/s9Zb3xAgIoY. It’s basic physics. Put a kite in a vacuum chamber, with no air or wind to whisk it upwards, and watch it drop like a paper weight. Everything falls, falling is a motion, motion requires a force, we called that falling motion gravity....it’s not complicated in the slightest. Gravity keeps everything on the surface, be it water, an apple, a feather, a kite, even air.
Your density argument does nothing to explain the motion that occurs in falling masses...and that’s why it’s useless. Falling motion is an undeniable fact if reality, it happens. Falling is a motion...motion does not happen without a FORCE, that’s basic physics. Density is not a force, so it has no means of putting matter into motion. So all you’re doing is denying simple facts of reality. Doesn’t make for a very good argument...just makes you look ignorant and stupid.
You’re taking gravity physics and chopping out the force that explains falling motion...that’s all FE has done. And again, as explained in my first comment, by doing so you’ve now made the physics useless. You’re missing variables now, so applied science can no longer use that knowledge. That’s the problem with FE...it’s teaching a whole lot of butchered physics, making people ignorant and essentially destroying any chance of you guys contributing to applied science, like engineering. Not like you were ever gonna be a scientist or engineer anyway, but good luck engineering anything now, with a butchered understanding of basic physics. 😂
3
-
3
-
@chrisskully1228 Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume…it’s a scaler variable, it does not cause motion. All you’re doing is butchering established physics, cutting out a word you don’t like and replacing it with another word that already has its place in physics, all so you can confirm a bias you have. Density can’t be both a force and a scaler…it doesn’t work that way. 🤦
You’re just blindly repeating what Flat Earthers told you, without applying any real thought to it.
Density is not a force…a force is something that causes motion or generates pressure. Density is just how much mass occupies a volume of space…nothing more, that’s its role in physics. We need to identify forces in physics, and give them their own distinction and labels, otherwise we can’t use them in formulas to make predictions with. Almost every physics equation requires at least one force variable, and one scaler variable. Like the formula for calculating weight; W=mg. Mass times downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). How would you write that equation without a force variable? W=mD? Well, mass was already a part of the equation, so now it’s just redundant…we need the variable that describes the motion, or we can’t calculate weight. So the formula makes no sense now, it’s now broken, and useless.
All you’re succeeding at is proving how scientifically illiterate you are, and how gullible you are, blindly believing huxters online, feeding you whatever butchered physics they want.
Like I said, Flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. 😔
3
-
Two reasons, Rowbotham (Parallax) didn’t use the correct math, so his figures were off and because of atmospheric refraction, which can and will cause an object to be more visible over a curvature. Here’s a great video demonstrating this form of refraction https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. This occurs because moisture in the air makes it more dense, causing light to bend before it meets your eye. It happens most often, over large bodies of water, where air humidity is going to be higher.
There are a few other flaws in his experiment, like not collecting enough data sets or running any controls, etc, but basically it’s just an example of a poorly conducted experiment, done to confirm a bias. This is why an experiment has to be done properly, because if every variable isn’t accounted for and controlled, then you risk reaching a false conclusion. It’s also the reason why science has included peer review to the scientific method, it weeds out errors, bias and liars. His experiment was a good experiment, he just didn’t do enough to render a more conclusive result, he stopped once his bias was confirmed...which is how you do science wrong. Upon all peer review and recreation of his experiment, the Earth is found to curve and at the rate it should given its scale.
Here’s a very recent recreation of the experiment http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment this time done over 10 km of a frozen lake. This is what an actual scientific research paper looks like...it’s very in depth, accounting for every variable. Rowbotham didn’t go anywhere near this level of experimentation, he took ONE data set, with just ONE marker, then did some bad math and called his work done. So his experiment is rendered inconclusive due to sloppy experimentation.
Anyway, hope this sheds a little more light on things. This experiment is actually taught in most science/physics classes, as an example of how bias and poor experimentation can lead to false conclusions. It also perfectly illustrates the need for proper peer review.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Is it really that hard to observe a sunset, then realize how impossible that daily phenomenon is, if the Sun is never physically blocked from your line of sight? 🤷♂️ That’s just basic geometry, no “fancy science terms” required there. Shouldn’t be difficult to understand that pilots and sailors can’t plot accurate navigation routes, if they don’t know the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating, that’s pretty simple to understand I should hope. Guess which model they’ve been using for centuries?
You should be more grateful some people did decide they had time to learn some science, the device you’re using right now to read this message wouldn’t exist without their efforts. Same goes for pretty much every modern luxury you take for granted today, from your car, to your fridge, to the electricity running through everything, took a lot of hard work, from a great many people, who realized ignorance and laziness gets us nowhere. Knowledge takes effort to acquire, but it is worth the effort, at the very least it can help keep you from falling for online scams like Flat Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Because of conservation of momentum and relative motion. I’m sure you’ve heard of the laws of motion before, perhaps from physics class? All things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force, it’s the first law of motion. So what that means is, the plane is actually still moving with the Earths rotational velocity, while in the air, it conserves that momentum at all times. It’s pretty simple physics to verify for yourself, next time you’re in a moving vehicle, toss something directly up, then notice as it goes straight up and then straight down into your hand. But hold on a second, if you’re travelling at 60 mph down a highway, and if all you did was toss an object straight up…then how exactly did it keep up with the 60 mph forward velocity of the vehicle, to land back into your hand? Because momentum is conserved, causing the object to continue moving with the vehicle.
You can expand on that test too, here’s something more relevant to your questions. Next time you’re on a bus, train, or airplane (any vehicle with a long corridor really), make yourself a quick paper airplane, then start tossing it around. You’ll notice it won’t matter what direction you toss it, it’ll glide along with the vehicle, and behave pretty much exactly as if you were just tossing it around in your room at home. Toss it from back to front, or front to back, with the vehicles forward velocity or against it, and it will have the same travel time through the air, in either direction, it won’t slow down in one direction or speed up in the other. This is an example of relative motion, all things within an inertial system of motion move together, to create an environment that relative to everyone moving inside that system of motion, behaves almost like it’s stationary. It’s why you can get up and walk around the cabin of a passenger jet moving at 500 mph, and it’ll be effortless. Stewardess can pore you a cup of hot coffee, and it won’t go flying out of the cup…because all things in motion, remain in motion.
Conservation of momentum, that’s why planes can fly effortlessly with Earth’s rotation. Basic laws of physics.
Anyway, hope that information is helpful. Take care.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Then by all means, go out and repeat the science, nothings really stopping you but yourselves really. Anything they do can be repeated by anyone. Some higher experiments do require you have the funds and equipment to do it, but it isn't impossible, very unlikely for most people sure...doesn't mean it's not repeatable. Just because you haven't personally done them or because you refuse to go out and try, doesn't mean others haven't either. If it interests you so much, go to school, receive a certification for any profession of your choice and then work towards participating in science for real. Then you'll likely get tons of opportunities to repeat the higher experiments that require a lot more equipment and funding to reproduce. Makes more sense to me, rather then spout off like some armchair pseudo intellectual, that you know more about science then ACTUAL scientists, who do it for a living...while you continue to discover and innovate nothing.
I'm interested in what thousands of scientists think actually, because they bring results and I'm grateful for the work they do, that benefits me directly. I sit in a cozy bed each night, with electricity and heat that comes direct to my house, so that I can get on a computer, that can access the internet, that sends communications through a wifi connection, that was ALL made possible by scientists. What have you built for my benefit? Any discoveries with your greater understanding of science? No? Huh....I wonder why that is...
What you're really saying, is you seen a few people do some experiments and they didn't get the same results. So since they didn't receive the same results, it wasn't actually repeatable, therefore the mainstream conclusions were wrong and have been wrong this whole time.
Ya...OR, they did a sloppy, poorly ran experiment, designed to ONLY confirm a bias, that likely used bad math and only took single data sets and didn't include controls...and that COMPLETELY skipped the peer review process. Then you reached a false conclusion from all that bad science, that you now seem to think we should take seriously...and when we try and point out your errors, you laugh and shrug it off like there's no possible way you could have made an error.
That's more likely to me...cause that's all I've seen from Flat Earth in the 3 years I've been looking at this mess. Please consider the possibility that the reason you couldn't reproduce the experiments, is because you didn't do them correctly. That is also always a possibility as well, so don't jump to conclusions and assume Flat Earth doesn't make errors...in my experience that's all they do is make errors.
3
-
3
-
@Vescere "what is the purpose for such a scam?
" Depends on who's running the scam and what they're after. With Bob Knodel, it's money. With Mark Sargent, it's fame. With Eric Dubay, it's power. They all run the scam differently, and they all want different things. Eric Dubay being the worst of them. I compare him to a cult leader...he wants to be the top dog, he thinks he's some kind of messiah, gods gift to mankind...he's not much different from any cult leader, they crave attention...and his followers, brainless sheep in his herd, hanging off his every word...even though he bullshits on every sentence. Point is, they are scamming people...and it's very obvious. Narcissistic, ignorant, lying, nut jobs who couldn't hack it in the real world...so they decided to create their own world instead and place themselves as the leaders of that make believe land.
3
-
Apparently you skipped over the history portion of the globe Earth…the Greeks, Mesopotamians, Hindu religion, all just a few of the many cultures that over 2000 years ago, verified or believed the Earth to be spherical (the Hindus actually believed it was egg shaped, but close enough…but they’re also the oldest surviving ancient religion today). So she wasn’t lying, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth 2000 years ago, and Ptolemy (an ancient greek geographer/cartographer, among other professions) created some of the first maps of the globe…around 1900 years ago. So she’s not lying…you’re just not very studied on your science history.
500 years ago they were arguing about whether the Earth was centre of the universe…not whether it was a globe. The large majority of scholars of that time already agreed it was spherical, and that’s what they taught. So you could benefit from learning some actual history here.
Also, I find it funny how you’ll scoff at modern science and criticize it heavily for employing theories…then in the next paragraph admit that flat Earth is built on theories, and that’s okay. It’s funny that when modern consensus creates theories, it’s wrong…but when independence researchers do it, it’s perfectly fine. You don’t see a bit of hypocrisy in that? So basically you’re biased…you’re just a contrarian, not really looking for “truth”, just looking to confirm whatever biases you have. That’s how your whole rant above reads to me.
Seems you really haven’t seen any of the real counter evidence to flat Earth and have spent most of your time listening to Flat Earthers talk. Not your fault really, the conversation has dwindled the last few years, so now the only people left talking about it still are flat Earthers. So it is hard to find the real counter arguments and science these days…just left with these big channels and their surface level reviews. But the real hard science against flat Earth is still out there, it’s just harder to find cause they don’t really upload as much anymore (compared to flat Earthers who are extremely invested in the topic), so here’s a few channels you should really be aware of if you truly are looking for counter positions.
Wolfie6020
SlySparkane
Walter Bislin
Soundly
Mick West
Greater Sapien
Bob the Science Guy
Cool Hard Logic
Voysofreason
BaldyCatz
These are all channels doing their own independent research on the subject, from observations to experiments, or just simply explaining the science and mathematics. They’ve all done some really impressive work, debunking and falsifying every claim made by Flat Earth. These channels (and many more) are where you’ll find the actual hard science against Flat Earth. So if you’re truly approaching this from a neutral position and just trying to seek out the best information for both position, then you should search these channels sometime and honestly pay them some of your attention.
3
-
@kingyordens364 Typical…can’t refute the argument, so deflect to a new point instead of even trying. 🙄 So how exactly does a photograph change what we measure and experience, every time we plot and travel successfully a long distance navigation route? Do we just toss out a working model that’s more than proven it’s accurate and effective…because some stranger only told you a picture of Earth was fake, and you believed him…for some reason?
But alright…look up the old photos from the various Apollo missions, shouldn’t be hard to find an archive if you actually try. They took hundreds of photos of Earth, long before CGI or photoshop was even a thing.
Prove that every single one of the photos is fake, include the method on how you verified they were all faked…I’ll wait.
Either way it’s a moot argument. You can’t prove they’re faked, anymore than I can prove they’re real…so why focus on something you can only speculate on? It’s pointless when you can just learn to navigate…where you’ll learn just how important it is to know the surface shape, in order for it to work.
I’m just saying, millions of navigation experts around the world, verifying the Earth is spherical every single day…but you’d rather watch a few YouTube videos from some numpty with zero credentials or experience…tell you the Earth is flat…and for some reason you believed them without question? 🧐 What’s wrong with people today? Seriously…screw your head back on.
3
-
3
-
@jordanemede Refraction is pretty easy to replicate, I’m sure you’ve seen how it distorts objects under water…ever seen a pencil that’s half in a glass of water? It’s easily replicated and very well understood in modern physics. For a more precise demonstration of atmospheric refraction that’s more relevant to this discussion though, I’d urge you to look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime. It’s basically a thorough recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, done across 10 km of a frozen lake. In the report, there’s a whole section on refraction, with a great time lapse video observation, demonstrating very clearly the effect atmospheric refraction can have on what we observe. In that time lapse, as refractive index increases throughout the day, the markers in the distance are observed to rise up, more and more. You can find that video pretty easily on YouTube or at the official blog page for the experiment. It’s a pretty clear proof of atmospheric refraction in action.
So if this topic truly interests you, I’d urge you to check it out. Atmospheric refraction isn’t just an “old wives tale”, it’s a reality. One that Flat Earth thinks it can just ignore…but to ignore variables that are important to an observation, means you’re not being objective.
We don’t see too far, Flat Earthers just haven’t been very good with the math involved, nor are they honest (with themselves or others) about every variable important to the observations they’re making.
3
-
@jordanemede Okay, let’s analyze these emergency flight paths a bit closer. A common one Flat Earth uses is the emergency landing that occurred during a flight from Taiwan to LA. That flight diverted to Alaska. They’ll often draw this path on a Mercator projection map, showing the path flying closer to Hawaii and then draw it on the AE/Gleason projection map, showing how it works out better on the AE. Soooo…they basically used one flat map, to debunk another flat map. Thought this was an argument against the globe, so why don’t they ever use a globe? Go ahead and rewatch those videos sometime, when do they ever plot the courses on an actual globe, using the correct great circle routes? I’ve only ever seen them use either a Mercator map as a comparison, or a crappy model globe they drew on with markers, that didn’t plot the correct great circle route.
Do me a favour, and open up Google Earth, then click on its ruler tool. This tool plots accurate great circle paths, on the globe. Now use that tool and drop the marker in Taiwan, then again LA…and then take a look at the path it makes. You’ll find it does in fact travel along the coast of Alaska…and is nowhere near Hawaii. So the emergency landing in Anchorage fits the globe perfectly.
The emergency landings fit the globe…Flat Earthers are just lying to you, using a sleight of hand trick. :/ Go ahead and use Google Earth to plot even more routes, you’ll find they all fit just fine. You gotta actually plot these routes on an actual globe…that’s been your problem this whole time.
3
-
@jordanemede The UN represents all nations of the world, so a great symbol for an organization like that, is a map of Earth. But unfortunately you can’t put a 3D globe, on a flat 2D flag. So you have to use a flat projection map instead. The AE projection was likely used, because from a designers standpoint, out of all the projection maps of Earth (and there are hundreds), that map has the most balanced composition, it’s the most pleasing to the eye. So they chose it for the same reason Flat Earthers chose it, because it has the most pleasing layout. Humans are creatures of habit, we’re drawn to the same geometric symmetry and balance. That map also puts the centre of the projection from a neutral point, where there is no nation. So it’s perfect as a symbol for something like the UN, or any other world organization.
Whether you agree or not, your paranoid speculations don’t mean much.
3
-
@jordanemede Admiral Byrd was not a Flat Earther, and made no reference to a Flat Earth in any of his writings, or public interviews. He was just among the first to really explore the continent of Antarctica…that’s all. There’s an interview Flat Earthers cherry pick from, where he describes a region beneath the South pole, as being larger than America…and that’s true, you can fit the entire land mass of the United States below the Southern 90 degree pole. So he was describing the continent itself…it’s very big. He wasn’t implying the Earth is flat. Where Flat Earthers get this leap in logic…is just incredible. Seems these huxters could tell you pretty much anything, and you’d eat it all up without question, wouldn’t you?
He also said in that same interview, that Antarctica was “at the bottom of the world”, he says those exact words at least 3 times throughout that televised, 15 minute interview. Why doesn’t flat Earth zero in on those words? Because they can’t spin it into the narrative they’re trying to sell, doesn’t fit their confirmation bias.
Again, you really need to get a better bullshit filter. Flat Earth is conning you…don’t be another sucker.
3
-
@yhenry77 1) You’d have to completely falsify both gravity and the atmospheric pressure gradient we measure in reality, to make your claim that there’s even an issue here. So burden of proofs on you, not me. You’d also have to find evidence for the dome you feel is up there...haven’t seen any tangible evidence yet, but what I have seen is mountains of evidence fir gravity, a clear measurement of atmospheric pressure getting thinner the higher we go, I’ve even seen weather balloons POP in upper atmosphere...something they only tend to do in vacuum conditions. So you’re argument isn’t exactly as strong as FE likes to think it is. A misunderstanding of thermodynamics physics and a denial of gravity...not a hill I’d wanna die on.
2) Good for you, but now I’d ask how it’s an issue? It’s kind of irrelevant. Even if you could prove that nobody has circumnavigated by plane...they’ve still gone around it many times by ship, they’ve flown across MANY times, they’ve been all over the continent now, there’s bases everywhere. You even mentioned an explorer that’s traversed it, Admiral Byrd, there’s a documentary series all about his missions. Furthermore, it’s irrelevant to your point, because you’re claiming this is an issue for the globe...but why would it be? Just because an experiment has not been done, does not mean we toss out EVERYTHING ELSE that already verifies the larger conclusion. Your logic isn’t very sound here.
Also, there’s been several circumpolar navigations now going from Antarctica to Arctic, here’s two examples https://youtu.be/_kVC2AjtCc8.
3) Then you should know better than anyone, that the Earth isn’t flat...it’s not difficult to deduce. But going through your webpage, it’s clear what your motivation really is. Your a religious grifter...you’re selling books. So you are extremely bias on this point, using your engineering experience to sell a lie...shame on you.
4) Geodetic surveyors take measurements of the land, so they are very much a land surveyor, except they take it a step further, there job is to also measure the surface curvature and that’s what they do. Little pointless to have geodetic surveyors...if the Earth is flat, wouldn’t you say?
Oh I’ve watched the whole interview, you see I’ve done my research too. You might notice he also says “at the bottom of the world”, those exact words, about 2-3 times throughout the interview...funny how Flatties don’t latch onto those words. But they can’t, cause they can’t cherry pick those words and spin a narrative with them. Antarctica is huge and the land beyond the pole is larger than America, go ahead and place America on the continent sometime, it’s like 3 times larger...so he was likely talking about Antarctica itself. If Earth was flat...then Antarctica would be fucking HUGE, it would be WAY bigger than America...so why would he use that as his scale in that case?
You’re the very worst kind of Flattie...a grifter, using your education and experience to help sell lies and pseudoscience...as if we should all be impressed that you wired some military planes once. :/
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
-
@niklassarri108 That’s fair, I’m not here to tell people what they should believe (as far as their spiritual beliefs go), I am just sharing my perspective. Personally, I don’t require religious faith to be happy, never have, just looking at the world and realizing how incredible it is, the music, the art, the culture, the food, the life, and I’m filled with joy just from that alone. It’s incredible it all exists at all, that’s enough for me personally. I feel we’re already in paradise, I don’t need to wait for anything that may or may not come after…but it can be a hell, if you choose it to be, and some people don’t get it very good at all…which is why I try not to take what I have for granted.
Some people do choose nihilism, you’re right, and that’s unfortunate…but they choose that. We’re all responsible for our own happiness. For me it’s always been pretty easy, but I get that others struggle, wish I could help them. Just saying, atheists aren’t as miserable as the religious like to think. Many of us live very happy and productive lives. Doesn’t make us better than anyone, just saying, many of us do just fine.
Also though, I for one am not opposed to a God, nor do I rule it out as a possibility. I’m just not going to waste my time believing it, simply because someone else believes it very strongly to be true. I’ll entertain the possibilities, but I’m not going to believe them without evidence. It’s fine if others want to though, I can see how faith in a higher power can be very fulfilling, most atheists don’t really care…we just want to be left alone. That’s all most of us want.
As for Flat Earth, it’s fine if some want to believe that at the end of the day, but in that case it’s out of extreme ignorance and they’re just doing themselves a disservice. Science will likely never disprove the existence of a God, it’s unfalsifiable, but the shape of the Earth…that’s a pretty easy one, it has long been falsified, the evidence against a Flat Earth is staggering. Most of us aren’t really trying to change their mind, we know human psychology is tricky, that most people don’t like being corrected and will just double down even harder at any attempts, we get that. Most of us do it just to provide some counter information, to prevent others from falling into these rabbit holes of misinformation. Claims like these should not go unchecked or unchallenged, if they’re going to make wild claims on public forums, then they should expect to be questioned for it. They’re not free from peer review, nothing in science is. It’s not a waste of time either, I’ve talked with hundreds of Flat Earthers at this point, over a 4 year time frame, and I’ve learned a lot about Earth science. It’s actually been quite rewarding as far as increasing my own knowledge goes, and I have had some success changing a few minds. That’s good enough for me.
Fact is we can’t do much with false information…junk science does not work and it has no use, beyond fooling a few people online to release some dollars. If mankind is gonna continue to thrive, then we need to have all our ducks in a row, we need accurate information to continue innovation. Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science…that’s a fact, not an opinion. So I’m just doing what I can to help people realize that, to counter what I feel is misinformation. I feel it’s necessary, misinformation should not be allowed to fester unchecked.
Anyway, thanks for the civil discussion, I hope I was able to help provide some insight into a different perspective.
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
-
@kateransom8500 Dubay wasn’t in contact with Joe, from my understanding, neither Neil nor Dubay was asked beforehand, Joe was probably just so high he assumed they’d do it. The truth is though, Dubay has been called to countless debates now…he’s accepted none of them so far. So while your bias has you focused on Neil, you’re failing to turn that lens around on Dubay, and failing to realize that he didn’t agree to any debate either, nor has he ever debated.
So why don’t you ask Dubay why he doesn’t debate? People have been trying for years to get him into a debate…if he’s so ready to debate, then why does he turn them all down? Neil, on the other hand, is very clear that he does not do debates, they are of no interest to him. Why should he be forced to do something he has no interest in?
3
-
@dc95811 Well seeing as I catch him lying in every video I’ve watched of his (heck, every sentence almost actually), I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you about his honesty. If you don’t think he’s a liar, that’s fine, but I’d ask you perhaps take a look at this video when you get the chance https://youtu.be/knWCsonQVG4. This is 37 minutes of an actual experienced palaeontologist, breaking down like 5 mins worth of one of Dubay’s videos on dinosaurs. It’s incredible how many lies this guy catches in just a few mins of watching. I’ve been able to do the same with his work, it’s not hard when you really slow things down and take a moment to analyze his claims.The thing about lying is that if it works successfully, then you’ll never be aware of it...Dubay is great at lying, I’ll give him that much.
Doesn’t really matter how smart you are (or think you are), if you lack proper information to a problem, then you’ll likely never solve it. Gloating about IQ is just demonstrating over confidence, a good enough liar can and will use that over confidence against you. But just my opinion on things, from what I’ve seen from Dubay so far (which is quite a lot), he lies effortlessly, it’s like breathing for him. So just a friendly warning, you don’t have to agree of course, but just something to keep in mind.
3
-
3
-
@SuperMic00 Nope, best you’ve done is argued that ONE point to a stalemate, but that’s not even your argument is it? You copy and pasted it from somewhere else. Even then, you’ve twisted some information to fit your bias…or at least the person who originally wrote that did. So no, no “goodby ball”, you haven’t done nearly enough to reach that conclusion.
That’s the trouble with Flat Earth…you think if you could just find one hole, the house crumbles, but that’s not how science works my friend. If it did…then none of you would be Flat Earthers, because as I’ve pointed out to you many times now, you don’t even have a working model. Can’t explain lunar eclipses, sunsets, star trails in the South…heck the entire Southern Hemisphere is a problem for you guys. So I mean, maybe look at the dumpster fire that is your own model? You wanna talk about holes in a model…like damn dude, Flat Earth is sinking fast it’s got so many holes.
So nope, fraid you still got nothin.
3
-
@FAMMCUZ Do you think scientists were actually making these observations of ships over horizon with the naked eye? You must have a really low opinion of science if you think they’re that lazy and stupid. We’re well aware of the vanishing point of your eyes optical limits, but vanishing point converges from every angle...it doesn’t pick and choose what part of an object it starts to make disappear first...horizon does. If Earth is curved, then the bottoms of objects will disappear first. Here’s a bunch of large turbines at 20 or so miles from shore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc now do you notice how much of the bottom of these turbines are obstructed? He zooms the camera in, but the bottoms do not return....this is not perspective and vanishing point that is occurring, the bottom is being blocked by something, the horizon. That would not occur on a flat Earth.
Simple fact is, horizon and vanishing point are not the same thing. If you can bring a boat or object back fully into view with a telescopic lens, then it has not gone over horizon yet, it’s just reached a vanishing point of your eye. It’s the observation of the bottom of objects disappearing first that we’re observing...not the vanishing of the entire object due to perspective, that is completely different.
Here’s another great observation of this effect. https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html notice how more and more of the bottom of this tower lowers into horizon, the further back an observation is made? No amount of zooming will bring the bottom of this tower back, because it’s not vanishing point causing this, it’s a curved horizon.
You rushed your conclusion a bit here and assumed people don’t know how vanishing point works, you also assume flat Earthers are the first people to think to use telescopic lenses for this observation. Science is well aware of optics and the vanishing point and they’re not stupid, of course they’d think to use telescopic lenses as well, they’re not just using their naked eye.
3
-
@FAMMCUZ “You don’t have to be a “scientist” to CREATE.”
That’s a very broad statement that doesn’t apply to everything and you shouldn’t be so naive. For some things, you definitely will not know what you’re doing without a scientific background and training of some sorts. Engineers require a pretty extensive understanding of general physics and at least basic Chemistry. For example, it’s a little hard to create and engineer a wifi router from scratch, without an understanding of what wifi is and how you send and receive those signals...that isn’t knowledge that just came from nothing and with no effort, that’s scientific knowledge that took hundreds of years to acquire and refine...so don’t be stupid, you shouldn’t take this technology for granted, it doesn’t just happen over night. Everything from the car you drive, to the electricity that powers and heats your home, to the computer you’re using to chat with us...it’s all here thanks to science. You should be more grateful.
But yes, Science doesn’t claim to know everything, they’re very humble and up front about that...but you’re really being a bit arrogant and ignorant if you think they’re just lying to you on this one. Do you honestly think they can build everything around you...but they can’t figure out something as trivial as the true geometry of Earth? Do you really think pilots and sailors are navigating around everyday...but they aren’t using accurate maps and models to help them do it?
It’s perfectly fine to question things, but do you ever stop to consider the possibility that you’re maybe falling for a hoax on the internet, that exploits your general lack of scientific knowledge and your growing resentment for the system? It’s easier than ever before to spread bullshit online, it’s a con mans paradise...doesn’t take much to twist a few facts and stir up doubt to get you angry...then if you don’t have the knowledge and experience to counter that bullshit, becomes pretty simple to fall for it. A lot of what you’re arguing is ignorance of basic physics and astronomy...if you just bothered to learn a little more about how science reached these conclusions, you’d understand a little better why it’s all pretty conclusive. Just because YOU don’t personally understand how something works, doesn’t mean it isn’t true and it doesn’t mean you can’t learn if you wanted too.
I’m sorry, but you’re just making arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity mostly...but some questions you’re asking are good opportunities to learn some basic physics, so you really should.
3
-
Rick H I browsed it briefly, but he has a lot of different stuff, anything in particular you’d like for me to see and give my opinion on? From what I was able to catch, him and his group are pretty dead set on the Mercator projection of Earth being the true map and structure of Earth and they’re working on marrying modern religious scriptures with ancient hieroglyphs and stories (Egyptian, Mayan, Inca, etc). From what I watched, I noticed a lot of talking and not a whole lot of scientific evidence...just speculations, interpretations and pattern seeking. I’m more for scientific insights, observations and experiments, physics especially since that’s my interest and knowledge base.
The problem here is, if you’re going to go with a map and model like that, then it has to match with what we observe in reality. There are many questions it creates, many holes I see from a scientific standpoint, that need to be addressed.
All I was seeing was a group of people making empty claims...and not doing a whole lot of science. But I only skimmed 3 random videos, so perhaps there’s something more specific you’d like me to see?
For now, I’ll address one of the more obvious problems I have with the Mercator flat Earth model. So for the Sun to rise and set the way it does in the real world, running East to West, it would cut across the map, rather than circle, so what exactly does it do when it gets to the other end? Where does it go and how does it reappear in the East? The Sun is always visible somewhere, so they’re basically saying the Sun and it’s light does a “pac-man”, warping from one end of the Earth to the other. Planes, same thing, you do realize people fly and sail across the Pacific Ocean every single day right? I’ve taken that flight myself several times, going from LA, to New Zealand, there and back twice, and Japan to Vancouver as well. So are they saying things are magically warped from one side to the other? If so...how, and do they have experimental evidence or data that helps verify this? I think this is a big problem they’d really have to address, so let me know if they have or not.
That’s just one issue for now, I have many more, but I’d rather not pile on to much before you have more time to respond. I’m also off to bed, so I’ll have to comment again later. Catch ya later.
3
-
Rick H Ok, watched a few more videos, and it was much the same...a lot of talking and speculating, but no science. The trouble I have with stuff like this, is that it’s super easy for anyone to talk and make definite statements about things, super easy to make claims...it’s completely another to prove them. I could make a channel, and talk for hours about how the Sun is really a portal into another higher dimension, and it’s our trial in life to reach this portal so that we can ascend into a higher realm. See, everything I just said there is pure bullshit...but I bet if I made countless videos on the topic, talking for hours at a time, throwing around scientific jargon here and there...people would believe me too.
They’re just talking, and making a lot of false equivalence fallacies. That’s basically a fallacy where you compare things that look similar visually, and then say they’re the same with absolute certainty...without doing any further work to verify that claim. Like the sun dawgs that make these odd halos of light that they then associate and match to scriptures and ancient images...reaching full conclusions, from association, not actual testing or experimentation. So are you understanding my gripes yet? They’re pattern seekers...they’re not verifying their claims with science, they’re just SAYING these things are what they’re saying they are and that’s that.
I feel this is a bad habit of mankind, we’re pattern seekers...and it often gets us slotting in puzzle pieces, before we really have any proof that they’re actually pieces we should be adding. That’s why the scientific method was developed, to slow our roll and keep us objective. I’m hearing a lot of scientific jargon...but not seeing any scientific evidence.
So not much to go on really, except for that they use the Mercator projection map, which is easily falsified the moment you try to fit it to reality. I mentioned the Pac-Man warping of the Sun and travelling across the pacific...doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. It’s stuff like that, that people should really be focusing on more...instead of blindly listening to these guys make claims about things they can’t even verify. Another problem is the fact that the Mercator map is a projection of the Globe, that’s how that map was created. This creates a problem, because a 3D surface can not be projected in 2D, without creating distortions...the distortions created on the Mercator map, is the extreme North and South. Greenland is shown on that map, to be larger than Africa or roughly the same size, and that’s not accurate to its true scale at all. In reality, Greenland has a landmass that is MUCH smaller, maybe only 20% the size of the African continent in reality. This is measured, we know the land mass of both, but the Mercator map is a projection of the Globe, which means it is distorted. So they’re using a distorted map, but aligning it with there geometric overlay (that they use in pretty much every video) and then making claims that it fits perfectly...and no, it wouldn’t, the Mercator is a projection of the Globe, so it’s not an accurate map.
So no, I wouldn’t trust anything these guys have to say, but that’s just me personally. I get that people are fed up with systems of authority lying to them for so long, you’re now looking for answers outside of those systems, but people should really keep their heads on their shoulders while they do it. Just because these people are not associated with any system of authority, just because they’re more like you...doesn’t mean they can’t lie and make shit up. People do it all the time, the internet has made it even easier...it’s a con mans paradise. I say recognize the difference between speculation and evidence, that’s how you weed them out. People can pile on mountains of speculation and then it creates enough reasonable doubt that their positions SEEM logical...but speculation is not evidence, if you were to pause and pay attention to each claim and write down how many they make that are verified and solid...you might be shocked to learn that pretty much nothing they’re saying is solid evidence, it’s just one empty conjecture after the next. I don’t know about you, but I would rather form conclusions around solid evidence...not speculation, conjectures and interpretations.
Now, you had some points on some things about the Globe model you’re having trouble with. I do have some verifiable science I can share with you on those points, so I’ll respond again later and see if I can help you out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 When we’re putting satellites into orbit, taking pictures of the Earth 24/7, confirming its shape, then talking to a Nazi Yoga teacher with zero experience in science, is pretty pointless. Yes, old information always has the potential to change as new information is acquired, yes, nothing in science is ever concluded 100%, but conmen absolutely do exploit that technicality to wedge their bullshit into the collective mindset. So scientists should never risk being baited by conmen. Whether you like it or not, that’s just smart…because unfortunately, you CAN win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a better bullshitter. Conmen are pretty good at bullshitting and working a crowd.
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 “…your argument is that there has to be a force that makes things fall and rise.”
Yes, but it’s a bit more than that, you’re ignoring the rest. Gravity starts the motion of matter, and then density displacement occurs. It starts a chain reaction that causes buoyancy. Without the starting motion, then nothing has any reason to displace, everything just occupies the current space they’re in. No motion, then no displacement, pretty simple. Gravity, puts everything into motion downward, more dense matter will occupy lowest position first, which pushes less dense matter out of its way, forcing it upward…causing density displacement, causing buoyancy. So where’s the hole exactly? 🤷♂️
The hole is in your conclusion. There’s no force present at all in your conclusion, no force to cause any motion of any matter, so nothing will move, nothing will displace. Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of matter and volumes, it doesn’t cause any motion. First law of motion is pretty clear, a force is required for all motion. If there’s no force causing any motion…then why would anything displace? It wouldn’t…proven time and again with density columns put in free fall.
This is well understood in physics…which is why gravity is included as a variable in buoyancy equations. Remove that variable, and engineers designing ballast tanks for ships and submarine are gonna find it pretty impossible to do their jobs.
That’s all you people really do…you break working physics.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 Didn’t say there’s no arguing against it, your arguments are just terrible is all. And you’re not fooling anyone, the only reason you deny gravity, is because it’s not very convenient for what you want to believe. If you had real rebuttals, then you’d find this conversation to be going better, but you’re biased…that’s why you believe what you believe, not because you have a point or actual evidence. You want Earth to be flat, because it means science has been lying, which means you get to believe they lied about everything, which means your Bible is no longer contested. That’s the reality here, one big trail of confirmation bias. You’re not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself.
First law of motion states that nothing puts itself into motion without a force present…a force is required for all motion. Falling is a motion, a phenomenon of nature. Science is just a method we use to deduce more about how these phenomena work. We noticed it directly correlates with buoyancy…in fact buoyancy doesn’t occur without the downward motion we noticed. It directly correlates to the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). So we deduced that downward motion (g), acts on the volume of the object (V), inside the density of the fluid (p), to cause buoyancy force (Fb). It’s no coincidence at all, that 9.8m/s^2 can accurately give us the buoyancy force of an object in a fluid…that’s not just a coincidence.
You’re arguing against applied science here…actual engineers use that formula, as well as many many others that use gravity in their framework, to build a LOT of things.
And you seem to think we should throw that all out, because you say “some things go up, some go down, that’s just how it is”. 🤦♂️ Again…can I use that for anything? Can an engineer use that to build a ballast tank for a ship? Can a dock crew use that to determine how much weight a ship can hold before it capsizes?
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 Every conclusion in science, that helps describe HOW a phenomenon works, is a theory…that’s what a scientific theory is. Not to be confused with a scientific law, which just describes WHAT is happening, but makes no attempt to explain why or how, that’s the difference between the two. It’s also very different from a regular theory, because a regular theory is just a best guess based off prior knowledge. In science, hypothesis takes the place of a regular theory in the layman usage, while a scientific theory is a conclusive conclusion compiled of facts and verified hypothesis.
So please learn the language of science. Electromagnetism is also a theory, but you’re currently using technology, that uses that knowledge, to send and receive your wifi data. Nothing goes beyond theory in science, it’s the pinnacle of all research. So there’s a reason nobody bats an eye when people say “it’s just a theory”, all that does is tells us immediately that you’re scientifically illiterate. At that point, you pretty much forfeit yourself from most discussions of science.
Currently, we understand that mass attracts mass, by bending space, causing motion to occur along that curved space, towards both masses…causing an attraction between masses. Mass attraction proven first with the Cavendish experiment, then the bending of space (general relativity) confirmed in experiments like the Eddington experiment of 1919, observations of red shift in stars, time dilation experiments in upper atmosphere, predicting the accurate orbit of Mercury, or more recently the detection of gravitational waves, etc. How it bends space and time, that’s what science doesn’t fully understand yet. Science is a process, it doesn’t automatically know everything right out of the gate, there’s always more to learn…what sucks is that people like yourself exploit that every chance they get, for their “god of the gaps” arguments.
Modern science currently doesn’t know for sure how mass bends space. What it does know, gravity is a thing, and it does bend space and attract mass, it’s why everything observed in space is spherical, why orbits occur, explains our atmosphere, heck it even explains how the Sun burns, through nuclear fusion (basically molecules of hydrogen being fused together by the intense gravity of Stars, causing it to shed electrons, producing energy, something we’ve recreated in fusion reactors by the way).
You don’t seem to get it, when gravity was realized, the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes…and they’re still falling.
It’s fine if people want to disagree…but you better have something better than “some things go up, some go down, that’s just how it is”. Great…if only science could be as lazy and ignorant. Sure would be easier.
3
-
3
-
@themainstreamsaltwater4353 “…you believe in the big bang.”
Never said I did, so now who’s assuming? 😛 But yes, I’m inclined to agree with the current conclusion, because I’ve looked at the evidence, and it’s quite compelling. The 4 pillars of the Big Bang, look them up, actually look at the evidence…then you can comment on whether it’s “lunacy” or not. Not before. Personally I have no problem with the concept of a creator God, but until I see evidence for that, I’m not going to just blindly believe it. If a better model of cosmology comes along, with even more evidence supporting it, then maybe I’ll change my mind…not before, that’s how it works.
“You think you’re spinning, floating, and rotating, but can’t feel it.”
I know our planet is, again, because I’ve seen the evidence, and it’s all legit. Most of it is easily repeatable too, without need for expensive equipment. Doesn’t take much to find a long stairwell, a rope, and a weight, so you can recreate the Foucault pendulum experiment…I’ve seen high schools do that experiment for christ sake. I also understand relative motion, I understand that thanks to the physics of conservation of momentum, I wouldn’t expect to feel any of Earth’s motions. It’s a misunderstanding of basic motion physics, that leads people to think we should feel Earth’s motions. Not my problem if you don’t understand basic Physics. I don’t feel I’m moving in a 500 moh passenger jet either…I wonder why? hmmmm 🧐
“…gravity is strong enough to hold is together, but not strong enough to hold us to the ground.”
Hmmm…last I checked I wasn’t floating off into space…sooooooo, seems to hold us down just fine.
“…and things don’t all fall at the rate of 9.8m/s^2…”
In a vacuum…ya, they do…test it yourself sometime, doesn’t require much to make a vacuum.
“…engineers don’t factor curvature…”
Empty claim and false. I can bring up MANY construction projects, that had to factor curvature. I’ll give you one for now, search the Caltech LIGO stations. On the Caltech website, in the ‘about’ section, under ‘facts’, you’ll find them explain how construction of the two channels had to remain perfectly tangent, but because of Earth’s curvature, each 4km long channel was dealing with about a meter of drop from starting station. So precision concrete pouring was required to counteract the curvature and keep both channels tangent. Just one of many examples I can share. Soooo…you don’t know shit. There’s a reason why it’s irrelevant to most construction, both gravity and Earth’s size factor into why. Not our problem if you can’t understand why.
“…I’m just bringing the facts.”
No, you’re making up bullshit and pretending they’re facts, AND expecting me to believe them without question…anything to convince yourself you’re smarter than millions of actual experts. That’s a fact…if you can’t handle that, then that’s your problem.
“…you can’t bend water.”
Water conforms to any force applied to it…like the surface tension that forms droplets into perfect spheres, or the pressure force that forms a bubble into a sphere. Water bends just fine within a field of force, such as geavity. Your denial of that fact is not an argument…it’s just plain ol’ denial.
“…can’t put a high pressure system next to a low pressure system.”
Hmm, wonder how the Ocean doesn’t burst out into the atmosphere…seeing as the pressure difference is pretty big. Maybe because gravity is keeping it contained? Hmmm…🧐 Thankfully, our atmosphere doesn’t go from 14 psi at surface, right to 0…it’s a gradient. Again, just more misunderstandings of basic physics from you. Even butchering thermodynamics physics doesn’t help you here…actually, it’s more the flat model with a dome, that breaks laws of thermodynamics. Because our Sun is a constant source of energy…so if the energy has no place to go, wouldn’t we expect our little enclosed bubble to heat up exponentially? And new gas is created at surface every day, if it has nowhere to go, wouldn’t the pressure also increase? Yup, I’d say so. Good thing we live in an open universe, where our atmosphere is free to shed energy from the Sun as much as thermodynamics laws dictate. 😁 And with the help of gravity, most of our atmosphere is contained just fine, within that field of force, no dome required.
“…you can’t measure any curvature.”
False, we can and we have, just ask any geodetic surveyor…it’s literally in their job title. Also, again…plot a navigation without the measured knowledge of Earth’s shape, then you just go ahead and let us know how well you do.
“…can’t get a photo cos no one gets past the dome.”
The dome you have SO MUCH evidence for? 😄 Asks for evidence of gravity…yet doesn’t seem to think the same standards apply when it comes to this dome you believe is up there? Hmmmm 🧐
Wow, the Bible really fucks with peoples heads…you’re a reflection of that. You need to pull your face out of that Bible and go visit a science lab….go visit several actually, like damn dude.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@UrbCrafter I have, I’ve reviewed many long distance observation, been doing it for years now, and when I did I used the correct math. It’s not that the math is lying…it’s that PEOPLE providing you the math, have lied to you about what math you should be using. 8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math to use, for line of sight observations. It has absolutely no variable for height of the observer, horizon distance, or atmospheric refraction, among many other variables. It is just a basic xy grid equation for a parabola…so it doesn’t even represent an accurate spherical curvature.
Should be pretty common sense, that if you use the wrong math, it’s not gonna match your observations…why none of you thought to check your math, is beyond me, but it’s caused you to fall for the dumbest hoax ever put out online.
Here’s why this math is inaccurate. 8 inches per mile squared gives you one figure, it assumes an imaginary tangent line at your feet, and drops from that tangent to surface. So it gives you one figure…but everyone knows you see further the higher you go in elevation, pretty common sense. So while you’re seeing further the higher up you go, the math still gives the exact same figure…telling you that you shouldn’t see what you’re now seeing. See the problem?
That math would only be sort of accurate, if your eye rested at surface level…is your eye EVER resting at surface level? 🧐 No….that never happens, your eye level is always above surface. It simply does not represent your actual line of sight, or what would be obscured by line of sight due to horizon. So it’s the wrong math.
Here’s a far better equation you should be using, using basic trigonometry.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Earth radius
d= distance to object in arc length (which isn’t difficult, as every distance recorded is technically an arc length)
h= height of observation
That’s a far better equation, but even this doesn’t include a variable for atmospheric refraction, it’s purely geometric…and yes, atmospheric refraction is a thing and it matters. If you need a solid demonstration for why, I’d urge you to search the Rainy Lake experiment sometime. There’s a great time lapse video demonstrating pretty clearly why refraction can’t be ignored. You can easily include it as an after variable, after you’ve done the geometric calculation, metabunk and the Walter Bislin blog that conducted the Rainy Lake experiment, both have some in depth information on calculating refraction…even some simple calculators that do it for you.
Point is, flat Earth has suckered a lot of people the Earth is flat…and they did it pretty easily, by exploiting the mathematical illiteracy of many people. Use the wrong math, and you shouldn’t be surprised at all that your figures don’t match observations. That’s why it’s so crucial to double check your math.
If you’d like, we can even go through a couple observations, I don’t mind at all.
I hope I’m not coming off as a dick (though that’s pretty unavoidable when correcting or falsifying information)…I’m just tired of people falling for this mess the internet has created. Again, it’s not that the math is lying…it’s that PEOPLE providing you the math, have lied to you about what math you should be using.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@not_anybody_in_particular You’re welcome. Full disclosure, these channels are in support of the globe, so there is bias, and some are a little less patient, understanding, or respectful than others. Wolfie6020, Bob the Science Guy, Jos Leys, Soundly and Walter Bislin are the more neutral and respectful among the list there, but I’d argue they all do strive to remain objective, despite the attitude some do display.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, the Greeks, Mesopotamian and Hebrews knew/believed the Earth was a globe, it’s well documented. In fact a lot of our current understanding of Earth’s geometry comes from the Greeks, who had made many experiments and observations that are easily repeatable today, that verify the Earth is spherical.
What you’re doing is making an argument from antiquity fallacy, assuming that because it’s old, it must mean it’s true. It’s a very common logical fallacy, but old does not equal true. These ancient civilizations believed that, because they didn’t know any better. Earth at first glance appears flat, so that’s what they believed, without much further thought. It’s easy to see how many different cultures would reach that conclusion…but it doesn’t make it true.
Also, NASA played a very small part in our conclusion of Earth’s spherical geometry. Scholars figured that out hundreds if not thousands of years before NASA ever came around. All NASA did was put the final nail in the flat Earth coffin, when they took a picture of Earth…but somehow, 50+ years later, it’s rising from the dead…because people are gullible and under educated, and the modern internet is a haven of misinformation. 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hell N Degenerates "Gravity/Relitivity has no forces involved, so thats gravity debunked!
"
Oh boy...if only it were that simple...only in Flattardia do they think this is good enough to falsify science. xD
"And bodies of water cannot bend, so whats the "exact" point when water begins to bend? No scientists are coming forward to demonstrate this? "
A sphere is always bending...no two points on a sphere are ever tangent to each other...so what kind of argument is this? Think before you talk.
"Why are 50% of the ocean beds table top flat ? Plateaus cover 45% of the earth's surface and are flat!"
Did you know that over 88% of all percentages are made up? :P
"Also explain how Euclidean geometry is still used today and is only concerned with plane and flat surfaces only?"
Because sometimes it has use in geometry...you're acting like everybody only uses ONE method for everything, all the time. Stop thinking in absolutes, it's Flat Earths biggest flaw.
"Explain a sellenellion?"
Why don't you? How does it work on a Flat Earth exactly? Ever stopped to ponder that? But Ok, I'll explain how it works on a Globe, it's an eclipse that occurs very rarely, only seen in areas of high refraction index, because refraction is what causes it, and only seen if the eclipse occurs while those locations are on the direct terminator line of the Earth to make it possible. Here's a simple diagram to help you out, cause I know idiots need pictures. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c6YPbIzYhAM/W1uwZISwuxI/AAAAAAAAIlU/-Oiyc2zLhvMp0flWdHwhk4mHKDM1GCFHwCLcBGAs/s1600/selenelion.jpg Don't you find it odd, that these conditions must be met, before this eclipse can occur? How exactly does a Flat Earth explain this occurrence? Cause a Globe can explain why it happens...but how the fuck does a Lunar Eclipse happen AT ALL on a Flat Earth? I Think you should spend less time pondering small anomalies in the Globe model, and take a closer look at your own broken ass flat Earth model bud...it can't even explain a simple sunset, let alone a regular lunar eclipse. xD Why do you people always demand so much of the Globe, but NEVER do you bother to spin these questions back on your Flat Earth.
"Explain why every US states is above 97% flat! Kansas university said, the USA is flatter than a pancake!!"
Because topographically speaking, they are flat. Flat takes on a different meaning, within the context of topography. A bowling balls surface for example, would be considered topographically flat and smooth....but you're not about to go saying the overall geometry is flat are you? No, but in the context of topography, you can use the word FLAT or LEVEL to mean basically, smooth or, maintaining the same elevation from center of Earth to surface. So you're misunderstanding of how topography works, is your error here. You do realize words in the English language take on different meanings, when applied in different contexts, correct? Again...STOP THINKING IN ABOSLUTES! That's where Flat Earth goes wrong every time. Only idiots think in absolutes.
"Explain why the military and nasa use flat none rotating coordinates?"
They don't...and you're again an idiot if you think they do. I'm assuming you're referring to the aeronautics manuals yes? Firstly, those are not coordinates...so strike one there. Second, those are the SUMMARY sections for running hypothetical math calculations! A summary section of those manuals and research papers, are NOT for stating conclusions or making literal statements...they are for letting the reader know what variables will be excluded or included in the math to follow....that is it. That is why they will often word those sections with the word "ASSUME"...because it is a hypothetical calculation. YOU have no idea what you're reading, YOU have no training in how to read, write, or interpret those documents, so YOU have reached a false conclusion by taking words out of context and spinning a false narrative upon them. It is cherry picking 101...flat Earthers are masters at taking things out of context and spinning it to fit their bias. Good job bud...you're just confirming how bias you actually are.
"he North Atlantic the Sohm Plain alone has an area of approximately 900,000 square km (350,000 square miles) to say the abysaal plain is flat is considered an understatement!
So not "Level" (FLAT)"
Again........your misunderstanding of how elevation and topography works, is not an argument, it's just a personal misunderstanding that YOU have.
So no, not screwed...just slightly annoyed. Is life scary for people like you? Living in a world where you don't understand anything, constantly fabricating whatever bullshit will ease your paranoia. Must really suck being you.
3
-
Hell N Degenerates I think you're confused on a what relativity is for. Relativity is a theory that is there to help explain further how gravity works at the fundamental levels of physical reality, it's there to help us further solve the mystery of what causes it. If we can figure out what causes it, then we can use that knowledge for invention and innovation, and that's what we've done with it so far...so it's been useful whether you like it or not. That's all theories in science are there to do, to offer an explanation for why and how things work at the mechanical level....that's all. But it doesn't just graduate into theory over night, it requires evidence, which we have today...lots of it. All your camp does is ignores that evidence and then claims victory.....do you really think science can achieve anything with ignorance?
I don't really see why some people, like yourself, get so bent out of shape for science attempting to figure out how things work. Thanks to those efforts, you get a new piece of technology to enjoy and human society advances further. Thanks to the science of relativity, we've put satellites into orbit and we've unlocked the mysteries of nuclear fusion, and it's going to help us master space travel someday...so be patient.
Is the model of General Relativity complete? No, there's still LOTS to learn and they could be wrong still on much of their conclusions...but whining about that on YouTube comment sections doesn't achieve anything. You want to falsify relativity, go right the fuck ahead...you wouldn't be the first to try, scientists around the world have been trying to falsify Relativity for over 100 years since the very first experiment that verified it (the Eddington experiment of 1919). In all their attempts, all they've done is verified the science further...so I'm sorry, but it will remain the dominant model of gravity, until it can be falsified...that's how science works.
It's a process, we don't just go from 0 - 100 over night...learning how physical reality works at its core, is going to take us a long time still, relativity is helping us understand it better, so it's useful. It's also an applied science now, so your whining is falling on deaf ears bud. You have no idea how useful this science has been for the last 100 years of human advancement.
Again, if you want to falsify the theory, then get to school and learn about it further, then get to work on falsifying it....you're just wasting your time arguing with strangers online about it, displaying your ignorance on the subject.
3
-
@yestervue4697 Yup, stated in the summary section, which is to let the reader know what variables will be excluded from the math to follow, to SIMPLIFY the math. They’re not making a literal statement, they are simplifying math, that’s all. Variables like surface geometry and motion of that surface are not required for what they’re solving here, and so they just overcomplicate the math. So when they simplify by removing variables, they have to state VERY CLEARLY which variables are being excluded. For example, they talk a lot in that report about wind aerodynamics...shape of the surface matters very little to those equations, it’s focusing on the frame of the vehicle, not the Earth, so it removes variables that are irrelevant.
Here’s what’s happened, you cherry picked a phrase, and didn’t think any further on the context for that phrase. What you’ve done is just demonstrated why layman should probably stay out of science...because you don’t even know how to read or interpret research papers such as these.
It’s classic confirmation bias. Now I’ve shared an entire paper on Geodesy, an official government document, you’ll find tons of information in there about Earth’s surface curvature...so why not read any of that? Or the thousands of other official documents that state Earths spherical geometry? I’ll tell you why, because you don’t really care what’s true...you just want desperately to be right.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Science isn’t settled by public debates, where a winner is determined by an audience of layman. Most scientists take years to become experts in their chosen field…who in their right mind would ever think that knowledge could be distilled into a single 1 or 2 hour debate? 🤷♂️ Science is settled by evidence that is repeatable, and peer reviewed by other experts, who actually understand what they’re reviewing. Anyone with a silver tongue can go up on stage and dazzle an audience of non experts…it doesn’t mean they’re right, just because they can charm an audience. But sadly…that’s typically how you win a debate, by just being the better speaker. Win the audience, and you win the debate…this can be achieved even if you’re 100% wrong.
Huxters love debates, because they’re deadly aware of this. So they will actively bait scientists and experts into public debates…just so they can roast them, and appear to an audience like the superior intellect, just cause they can bullshit better than someone bogged down with all the boring facts and data. It’s theatre…a show to dazzle idiots, and it’s very effective at conning average people. It’s perfect advertising for them, so it’s win win no matter how the debate goes…either way, they’re getting attention and an audience they wouldn’t be able to garner otherwise, it’s basically free publicity, to help them sell their grift.
For this reason, it’s an unspoken rule of thumb in scientific circles, to never debate layman. If they did not earn a degree, then they did not earn the right to speak amongst experts. It’s a way of filtering out huxters, because most conmen don’t bother to put in the work required to earn academic credentials. Dubay is a perfect example…he’s a yoga teacher, with no scientific background or experience, has probably never stepped foot in a laboratory before, or conducted a true field experiment. So why should anyone take him seriously? 🤷♂️
Neil is wise not to take the bait, it just helps a conman spread bullshit. A celebrity scientist has to be doubly careful, because they can draw an audience in the millions. You better believe a con artist would LOVE to get that kind of attention! Whine all you like, but It’s much smarter to just allow huxters like Dubay to fade away into obscurity, rather than give them what they want…attention.
3
-
@Micscience He has a doctorate of astrophysics, which required he conduct deep research on a subject, and write a thesis paper on that subject…have you written a thesis paper? This requires tremendous effort, earning him the title of scientist. But he chose science communication over research, that’s perfectly fine, we do need more science communicators…doesn’t mean he’s not a scientist. It’s just a waste of time though, to use that platform, to help conmen, by providing them with an audience they couldn’t garner otherwise. It does more damage than good, it just gives them free advertising to spread their bullshit, to far more people. Neil knows this, he understands his status as celebrity paints a target on him to be exploited by people for their gain. So he’s not going to take that bait…and let’s be honest, that’s what comments like yours really are. You’re like the kid on the playground, calling people chicken, to get them to do what you want.
Most flat Earthers have chosen their side already, so what’s a debate going to do? I’ve been debunking Flat Earth for roughly 6 years now, I’ve talked with hundreds of them at great length…it doesn’t matter what I show them, how well I articulate explanations to dispel their misunderstandings, they just refuse to admit they could be wrong. I’ve maybe convinced 2 people at this point, 2 people out of hundreds…that I’m aware of, and it took a lot of effort, but these specific individuals were actually open minded and pleasant…the majority are not. I’ve never met a group of people more close minded, than Flat Earthers. Except religious fundamentalists…which most Flat Earthers also are I might add. You wanna know another common trait they all generally share? None of them are experienced experts in any field relevant to the discussion…I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
“There doesn’t need to be any audience”
Typically debates have audience, what’s the point otherwise? You want him to just sit down and chat with Dubay privately? I’m not sure I understand your point here.
Scientists make their careers by challenging consensus…you think Einstein is famous today because he went with the flow? Heck no, he challenged the work of Newton, and he succeeded…he was not a very popular person when he was just starting out though, but he cared about the truth above all else and the evidence stood for itself. Of course you’re not entirely wrong, there’s a lot of yes men in science, but you’re acting like every single one of them is a yes man, that not a single one of them would notice by now, that the Earth isn’t a globe, if it wasn’t. You’ll always have upstarts in the scientific community, whistleblowers, people not afraid to take criticism. There’s always a Galileo in the mix somewhere…but nobody in academia so far has said a word on this point?
We’re talking millions of scientists and experts, over hundreds of years…you honestly think none of them would notice? Do you honestly think all of them wouldn’t say anything if they did? Why is it only layman saying the Earth is flat? It doesn’t take much to deduce it’s because layman, with zero experience in science, are easily fooled.
We’re putting satellites into orbit today, taking pictures around the clock. Pilots and sailors are successfully navigating the Earth every single day using the globe model as their foundation. But who needs all that…one sunset falsifies Flat Earth, so anyone with a basic understanding of geometry can falsify FE. There is no debate on this topic anymore…I don’t think it’s beneficial to give it any more attention, it would just send the wrong impression to the public, that there is any legitimacy to Flat Earth.
If the problem gets worse, sure, there’s a time to address it…but I’ve been following it closely for years now (it’s a sad hobby, I know), and it’s becoming more and more difficult to find Flat Earthers to engage with. I used to average 30 or more a week…now it’s more like 2-3, maybe. They are dwindling, because the fad is over. No point giving them attention, they’ll fade into obscurity on their own, they’re pretty much there already. Neil is wise not to bend to children on the playground, calling him chicken.
3
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Well, dynamics has little to do with the geometry of Earth, it's the study of forces and their effect on motion in particular. So no...it doesn't "clearly state" anywhere in its framework, that the place we live on is flat...in fact it's quite the opposite, the laws of motion is the science that actually explains how a cup of water in motion will not be disturbed by that motion...so it does more to support the heliocentric model, than refute it. It's the physics that basically destroy's a whole swath of arguments from flat Earth concerning motion. Spinning your own flat Earth narrative on science that anyone can look up, study and recreate themselves...is not a very good way to start an argument, especially not with someone who's well read in physics and knows you're bullshitting.
But alright, ever seen a glass of water while in a moving plane, train, automobile? Pretty still, almost like the motion of that vehicle, if it maintains a steady velocity, the water will be completely unaffected. It's the first Law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass...it's conservation of momentum, and it's basic Newtonian physics of motion. There's nothing to dispute here, Newton was one of the first people who first penned the laws of motion and CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM. Relative motion is part of his body of work too, and it explains pretty thoroughly how objects moving within a inertial reference frame of motion, will conserve the momentum of that inertial frame of motion, and will not notice they are moving at all thanks to conservation of momentum, so long as that motion remains constant and steady...that includes a surface of water that is moving within that inertial reference frame of motion.
Opposing Inertia is what would cause that glass of water to ripple, bend, tilt, etc. Inertia that is caused by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in forward motion. The Earth travels at a steady rate of motion, in every single one of its motions, so there will be no inertia created by those motions...it's pretty simple physics. The only velocity we can measure easily without super sensitive equipment, is the rotation of the Earth, which creates a centrifugal force strong enough to effect gravity on a noticeable scale. This is greatest at the Equator, which is why things weigh slightly less at the equator. Here's an easy little experiment that helps to verify this, which also helps to verify Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t give it a look sometime, it's quite thorough and also very easy to reproduce.
I suggest you relearn some physics and this time actually pay attention, rather then just cherry pick the parts you think you can twist into your bias narrative. It won't do you much good talking to me about physics you have clearly butchered for your own ends.
3
-
Michelson and Morley's experiment was inconclusive. Upon all recreation and peer review, that holds true and even those two scientists agreed this was true. Meaning if you apply any conclusion to it in support of any hypothesis, then you're doing so out of bias, not objective science. So no, it didn't prove "without doubt" that the Earth is stationary, the only people who say that it does...are bias flat Earthers, who don't know what an inconclusive experiment means.
All you're doing by making lies like that, is verifying that you don't know how science really operates.
"project high jump and operation fish bowl are not theory's it's documented facts"
True, but Flat Earth does a LOT of speculating on these documented experiments and not a whole lot of objective research. You make empty claims about these experiments, and twist them to fit your bias. Just further examples of confirmation bias really, you're not really paying attention to what those experiments were really doing, all you pay attention too is what Flat Earth tells you these experiments were attempting. Then you nod and agree without ever really looking for yourself. For example, Flat Earth will say project fishbowl was an attempt to blast a hole in the "dome firmament", while the documents states pretty clearly, that what it was really doing was testing nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere, to study what it would do. That's what you do when you develop new arsenal, you test it in different environments to see what it can do. They learned a lot from those 6 detonations they did, they learned that the EMP blast travels WAY further, blocking out communications for a larger span. They also learned that the radioactive fall out travels further and sticks around longer as well, AND that it was possible to detonate nuclear arsenal in upper atmosphere. The tests were VERY helpful, they learned a lot...as you do in these types of experiments. The reason they were classified for so long, is because they didn't want their enemies learning this same information...it's pretty simple. When they detonated, it blasted a hole in the clouds, that made the sky look like a fishbowl...hence the name.
Getting it yet? All Flat Earth does is speculates...and doesn't really look at things objectively. You are bias researchers who don't really care what's actually true, only what you WANT to be true.
Jtolan is actually one of the best Globe Earth curvature finders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU He's helped the Globe more then he realizes.
"even the Bible knows it's not a ball"
So does Lord of the Rings...but we're not using that book of fiction to help us solve mysteries of science now are we? The Bible holds no place in a discussion of science. The world has rules, physical laws that have never been witnessed to be broken. Magic does not exist, so we do not turn to books speaking of magic, to help us solve the mysteries of reality. You should probably grow up and stop reading so much fiction.
"United Nations logo is a flat earth map"
So what? Not sure if you're aware of this, but you can't represent all of a spherical 3D surface, on a single flat flag, without flattening it. The UN represents ALL NATIONS of the world, so how else are they going to create a flag that shows ALL NATIONS of the world on it? Just more paranoid bias and speculations. This is not evidence...learn the difference between speculation and evidence!
I think YOU really need to wake up bud. Flat Earth has successfully conned you and it's pretty obvious for anyone who actually gives a damn about what's objectively true.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@terry3002 Yes, perfectly fine to disagree, just nice to have an actual conversation for a change, where disagreements can be accepted and nobody gets upset, like mature adults. I’ve never thought Flat Earth was stupid, seeing the depths of some of the arguments, proves they’re actually quite well formed ideas. So at its core, it’s just good people, looking out for the rest of us, keeping an eye on potential threats. Though I do feel they’re lacking some scientific information, I do see the logic in their current conclusions.
I suppose my main point has been just to illustrate the difference between scientific knowledge and the scientific method. It’s fair to question the collected knowledge of science, even logical to ponder the possibility that much of it could be fabricated to sell us a grand illusion. But like I keep saying, the method itself is quite a different story. You don’t have to just take peoples word for it, most of the core sciences are easily repeatable. Most of Earth science, is just basic geometry and simple physics, all of which is simple to verify for yourself.
So question the body of knowledge, but don’t forget to also check it for yourself. The community of science does have some dogma too it, they have a system, that system can be corrupted. The method of science however, I do feel is the best method mankind has ever produced, for probing into the real truths of physical reality. It’s just a tool, like any other, it has no more agenda than a hammer does...it’s the individual who uses it, that’s where the agenda is. So conducting science yourself, can help you avoid potential corruption from others, the only thing you have to worry about after that, is your bias. But even that can be overcome, if you’re diligent. First by accepting you have bias, then identifying it, then it’s easier to keep it in check. My bias is a general trust in science, I tend to listen to experts more, rather than challenging them. I feel I combat that bias though, by having these kinds of chats, because where I might have overlooked something due to that bias, somebody without that bias is going to spot them and help me notice them. That’s part of why I engage in chats like this, to challenge what I think I know, it helps me remain a little more objective.
Anyway, off to bed, I’ll drop by again tomorrow perhaps, see what other questions I can provide information for.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisross4898 I’ll elaborate further. Gravity causes the buoyancy effect within the density column of a spirit level. So the bubble is levelling to centre of gravity, the tube perpendicular to gravity, renders it level. So gravity on the flat model points in one vector, down towards surface, gravity on the globe points in many vectors towards centre of Earth. If Earth is flat and gravity works as they believe it does, the bubble won’t appear to move. If the Earth is a globe and gravity works the way they believe it does, the bubble still won’t appear to move. The bubble is conforming to gravity, then it’s going to move with it. So you see the problem? The experiment doesn’t prove either model, it is inconclusive. To conclude it proves FE, completely ignores and misunderstands the globe model physics.
This is immediately obvious to anyone who does understand the globe physics, while the only people who see this experiment as proof of FE, clearly never seem to understand how it would also work with globe physics...which means they don’t understand the globe physics. So the error is their own, not the model they’re trying to refute.
Either way, it’s an inconclusive experiment, proves neither conclusion, that’s the basic fact of things.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisross4898 Gaia is most definitely a con job...did you pay a subscription for their service? Are they selling books, dvd’s, oils, any merchandise? That’s a rhetorical question, I know they are, I’ve been there myself. Odds are pretty good they have a financial motive to continue, no matter how full of shit their content is...so ya, it’s a con, they are modern day snake oil sellers, pushing their products on the scientifically illiterate. Spend some time on youtube or other websites like reddit, that break down in great detail how Gaia pushes pseudoscience on people for profit. It’s all BS.
3
-
@koba2322 Yeah, no, that’s not what happened…Neil never agreed to ANY debate, Joe just assumed he would do it, so he penciled him in without asking first. Would you agree to do a debate you were not asked about and agreed too before hand? Probably not…so why should Neil? 🧐 On top of that, Neil has stated many times publicly that he does not do debates, so why should he be forced to do something he has no interest in? 🧐
Science actually has to be VERY careful who it gives an audience too…because unfortunately conmen do exist, and unfortunately debates can be won even if a person is 100% wrong, all they have to be is a better bullshitter/talker…which is typically something a conman is very good at. So science has to be careful, the only person who gains anything here would be Dubay, because he expands his audience to millions of people he couldn’t reach otherwise…it’s free advertising, which is exactly what he wants. Conmen should NEVER be given that kind of audience, it’s smarter to just let them fade and fizzle away on their own, never giving them any further boosts of attention.
As for those “declassified CIA documents claiming the Earth is flat”, that’s not accurate…those were math simplification models for flight dynamics, and they were never classified. A math simplification model is just what it sounds like, mathematicians taking complex equations and finding ways of simplifying them. Best way to do that, remove variables that do not effect what the equations will be used for. In flight dynamics, say a vehicle’s wind resistance, the shape and motion of the Earth do not matter for calculating something like that, so those variables can be removed. This now makes it easier on an engineer, who will use those equations, to help him design the vehicle’s frame. When you do this in these mathematical models, you must let the reader know exactly what variables are being removed…so you’ll get wordings like this in the summary sections “for this model we will be assuming a flat and stationary Earth”. That is an ASSUMED premise, to simplify the math…not a literal statement or a conclusion. But flat Earth doesn’t care, all they see are the words in the order they want them in, that confirms their bias, they could care less about the context. So it becomes classic cherry picking…confirmation bias at its worst.
This is why it’s dangerous to debate with layman…because most layman don’t care about the details, they just care about the simplified conclusion being presented to them. The conclusion Flat Earth sold you was “declassified CIA documents saying the Earth is flat”, and you were happy to believe that…when in reality they were really just math simplification models, that were never classified, and were never meant to be taken literally. Good luck explaining that to an audience of layman though, who have no idea how these kinds of mathematical models work and are written. You’ll get a lot of glazed over faces, that will completely ignore what you’re saying…in favour of the more exciting and interesting, and easy to understand information, being presented by the conman spouting pure bullshit. What’s more interesting, that the CIA hid the Earth’s true shape, or that some egghead mathematicians just wanted some simpler equations to work with for flight dynamics simulations?
That’s why science should be cautious who it debates…if they’re not accredited experts, with actual experience, and real accomplishments under their belt (Eric Dubay has none of these things), then science probably should not be so quick to give them an audience. Do you understand a bit better now? Conmen are constantly trying to bait science into these debates…because it’s free advertising for them. So the scientific community has learned to be cautious.
3
-
@drackxman He did the level test as a gag, a quick jab at FE for entertainment value...because it’s actually a test many of them truly believe is conclusive evidence, but it’s easily debunked with just an entry level understanding of how gravity works. I’ll attempt to break it down a little better.
A bubble level is basically just a simple 2 part density column, a liquid and air, so the bubble of air is separated and moves around due to buoyancy, that part you probably already know, pretty simple so far right. Ok, but what some don’t quite understand, is that buoyancy force is directly caused due to gravity, it does not occur without it. Without a downward accelerating force giving all matter a direction to begin falling, no displacement can then occur, so no ordering by density will occur. Buoyancy is just less dense matter being forced up (displaced up), by matter that is more dense, because more dense matter must occupy lowest potential energy first, or lowest position point closest to centre of gravity if you prefer. That’s all buoyancy is, that’s why clouds float and helium balloons rise...the key ingredient, being gravity, gravity is what starts the displacement. The misunderstanding, is in their thinking that gravity only causes a downward motion, and it’s not that simple really, gravity is responsible for more things than they realize.
So the problem flat Earth has here with this experiment, is that it’s inconclusive, it does not prove their conclusion and here’s why. Because on the Globe model, gravity pulls to centre, doesn’t matter where you are, all mass is pulled toward centre of gravity, the centre of Earth. So the bubble is levelling to centre of gravity at all times, keeping itself perpendicular to that centre, which means on the globe, the bubble will shift with gravity vectors as you travel. Think of it like a stick you have tied in the middle with a rope, the other end of that rope is tied to a pole, now pull the rope taut, the rope now represents a gravity vector for this thought experiment. Now hold the stick perpendicular to that pole and rope at all times and now go around the pole, tracing a perfect circle. The gravity vector (the rope) fallows you and it keeps the stick shifting to maintain perpendicular to centre, the same thing is occurring in a bubble level, due to gravity. If the bubble stays perfectly in the centre of the current gravity vector, then it won’t shift, so that’s really what a bubble level is levelling to, centre of gravity.
So the experiment is flawed, in that it ignores the details of the model it’s attempting to debunk...which is the very opposite of objective science. Not entirely their fault really, not everyone is very well read in physics, and gravity vectors can be a little tricky to understand, so it’s easy to see how someone might think this is evidence. Either way, it is an inconclusive experiment, it does not prove a flat Earth, anyone claiming that it does is being bias and not looking at the science objectively...or they don’t quite understand the science, which is really the larger problem with FE, over confidence in their abilities, cognitive dissonance.
This is why they like to deny the existence of gravity...because they have to, because it’s very inconvenient for their main argument. But, gravity is very well established science, it’s not something they can just ignore. The fact that they do ignore things so easily, shows their true nature, a movement of confirmation bias...not objective reasoning.
Anyway, hope that helps a bit. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
3
-
3
-
Your eyes are designed to interpret incoming light, that's how you see, from light that is coming to you, that your eye takes in and then interprets in the brain. If an object is big enough and bright enough...then there is no limit to how far away you can see it, cause as far as we know, there is no limit to how far light can travel. You can't compare a narrow hallway to the limits of your vision...because you do realize you often see much further then any hallway in existence, right? The horizon at 6 foot viewing height is about 5 miles away at any given time...how many hallways do you know of that are 5 miles long? Clouds often reside even further then that, and planes do as well. And the higher you go up the further you can see...people in planes can see for hundreds of miles in all directions...so where is the true limit of your vision? From what we understand, there is none, the truth is your eye interprets incoming light and light can travel infinitely far...so if light has no limit on the distance it can travel, and if your eye interprets incoming light in order for you to see, then logic would conclude that we can see objects from any distance away...even 93 million miles away, provided the object being viewed is large enough and bright enough.
Well, the Sun certainly ticks both of those boxes...especially the brightness....it's quite literally the brightest thing in our sky.
I feel your argument here is nothing but personal incredulity. You can't fathom the distance, so it seems impossible to you. Well, I'm sorry, but incredulity is not an argument...it is however a logical fallacy.
3
-
Refraction isn’t brought up as a proof of the globe, it falsifies the common claim by Flat Earthers that we see too far in some cases. It’s a falsification…not a proof. That is the proper way to conduct science and remain the most objective, through falsification…the theory/model that stands up to all attempts to be falsified, is the most likely conclusion. Flat Earthers claim we see too far, refraction is a valid explanation for how and why, in the cases where we do see further than what’s geometrically possible. This is verified further by the fact that refraction fluctuates, this is observable on pretty much any day if you observe long enough, and seeing further is only possible when refractive index increases…so it correlates.
As much as Flat Earth doesn’t enjoy the process of falsification, or being questioned, tough titty…science doesn’t just stop once a bias is confirmed, that’s how pseudoscience operates. Nobody is above the process of peer review. Refraction is a fact, easily verified, so it can not be ignored simply because some want so badly to be right.
What’s worse is that they’re more than happy to accept atmospheric refraction when it suits them…you should see the plethora of nut jobs who actually try using atmospheric refraction as an explanation for the South celestial rotation of stars. It’s akin to watching someone ram a square peg into a round hole. 😄
3
-
3
-
@TheOricine 8 inches per mile squared is a good quick reference calculation for land elevation and surveying, but not very useful for line of sight observation. It is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it is not a spherical calculation, it is a basic parabolic arc equation, only good for up to about 100 miles, then it’s basically useless. Secondly, Flat Earthers use it for line of sight observations...and that equation simply has no variable for line of sight.
It’s lacking many variables required to make an accurate observation actually. It has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, line of sight, arc length, refraction, surface hump, drop angles, etc. It is simply NOT the correct math to use, for long distance line of sight observations.
It will not give you a figure, anywhere close to what you require, to make an accurate calculation...so no wonder your numbers aren’t matching...you’re using the wrong math. Pretty simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion...it’s pretty simple.
Now, here’s where you can find the information required to derive the correct equations, you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
If you click that link, you’ll notice a handy diagram in the first post. I can use that to further illustrate why 8 inches per mile squared is inaccurate. Do you see the dotted tangent line marked “Surface Level”, and the solid black line perpendicular too it labelled “Drop”? That’s all 8 inches per mile calculates, is that drop (and not even accurately). It claims that everything under that surface level line should not be visible...but that’s not how line of sight works. Notice now the solid green line coming out from the Eye...that’s line of sight. Do you happen to notice how much it sees, well under that surface level line? That’s why 8 inches per mile squared is not useful here...it’s completely wrong.
This is how FE has suckered and conned a LOT of people. They cherry picked an equation that is used by land surveyors SOMETIMES, and then completely misrepresented what it was used for. It’s basically akin to a slight of hand trick...they knew most people are not mathematically literate, so they knew you’d never question them, cause they knew you wouldn’t even know where to start.
That math is not the correct math for what you’re using it for, it’s as simple as that. Time to stop letting huxters online poison your mind.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Some Molecules of gas are more efficient at trapping heat for longer, labeled as greenhouse gases, those gases are increasing in atmosphere, trapping more heat for longer, causing a warming effect. How exactly does that break thermodynamics laws? 🤷♂️ I mean I assume that’s where you’re going with this, so feel free to explain your point.
Energy is still being shed, so thermodynamics and entropy are still occurring, so no laws broken. But more greenhouse gases in atmosphere means the process takes longer, while the same amount of energy is entering…hence an increase in temperature over time. Some seem to forget that entropy can be slowed…your thermos that keeps your coffee or soup hot is proof of that, just requires an insulating layer, which slows energy transfer. You don’t think our atmosphere can do the same if gases are increased? 🧐
Also, I don’t think anyone ever said Venus’s water left, as water in liquid state, but it can be broken down into its lighter gases, hydrogen and oxygen (due to heat and pressure and natural chemical processes, that would be pretty normal in a runaway greenhouse environment), and certain light gases certainly can be shed over time. Hydrogen escapes our atmosphere pretty often, it’s the lightest gas, so buoyancy force pushes it out to the furthest regions of atmosphere, where it requires much less velocity for an escape velocity.
3
-
@squidly2112 “NO gas can act as an insulator”
So by extension atmosphere according to you is also not an insulator? So you disagree with pretty much all of science that a planets surface temperature is determined by how dense the atmosphere is and what molecules it’s mostly comprised of? So why exactly is Venus scorching hot, while Mars is freezing cold? You don’t think it’s because of the difference in atmospheric density…atmosphere acting as an insulator? 🧐 First I’ve ever heard that atmosphere isn’t an insulator…you’d definitely be a minority in that conclusion.
Ever hear of convection? (Rhetorical question, of course you have) It requires air pressure…atmosphere in large quantity, trapping and transferring thermal energy. I don’t mean trapping it indefinitely, that breaks thermodynamics; what atmosphere does is transfers some thermal energy back to surface, where it would have just been deflected immediately back into space without an atmosphere to absorb it, trap it for a little while longer, and act as an insulator…allowing for convection to occur. Increase gases in atmosphere, and you get a warming effect…it’s pretty simple. It’s why our planet is warm…instead of a frozen wasteland, like Mars…because atmosphere is an insulator.
I think you’re quite confused on the laws of thermodynamics, or at least in how they pertain to atmospheric processes. Gases (like all matter) interact with thermal energy, correct? Meaning even gases can act as an insulator if theres enough of them…that’s what atmosphere does, it insulates our planet. It’s not insulating it indefinitely, heat is still shed constantly…but we do receive a constant source of new energy back into the system every day…from the Sun.
Sorry dude, but I think you’re really overthinking this, muddling thermodynamics a bit, to ram a square peg into a round hole. And you’re burying me in jargon without citations. It’s pretty simple, atmospheric gases do insulate the Earth (that’s pretty much a fact at this point, not an opinion)…an increase of certain molecules to the atmosphere will trap thermal energy for longer, increasing temperature. No laws of thermodynamics are being broken, the energy is still being transferred, it’s just transferring back into the system, causing it to linger for a longer period…that’s how insulation works, it slows the process of entropy, by basically recycling the energy for a bit. If it stopped entropy, then it would break thermodynamics laws…but that’s not what happens. You’re thinking in absolutes for some reason, and confusing what’s actually being said.
3
-
@squidly2112 I’m reading an article on the World Meteorological Organization public website, titled “The Suns Impact on the Earth”, that states; roughly 70 percent of solar radiation from the Sun is absorbed by atmosphere, and 30% is reflected back into space. So according to this article, the atmosphere is not completely transparent to short wave radiation. So if it’s capable of reflecting 30%…why wouldn’t it also be able to reflect it back to surface, causing it to remain for longer, and effect overall temperature?
So who do I believe, a stranger online making empty claims, or the meteorological organization that contradicts what you’re saying, and provides sources for their information?
Sorry man, but your argument is falling short.
3
-
@squidly2112 Okay, so why can’t latency increase temperature? I understand that by itself it can’t, of course, but if a source of energy is present, wouldn’t an increase in an insulating layer have an effect? It only makes sense to me that the longer energy remains in a system, the more it’s being absorbed by atmosphere rather than escaping, increasing temperature. I get your coffee example from earlier, but that is a false equivalence, because the coffee doesn’t have a constant source of new energy, like what the Sun is providing. Place a thermos over a heat source, doesn’t the temperature increase? Now pull it further away, eventually it’s going to reach an equilibrium, where old energy is shed just as quickly as new energy is coming in (like our goldilocks zone). But what happens if I add just a little more to the insulating layer, slowing down the rate at which old energy can be shed, while new energy is still coming in at the same rate…wouldn’t the temperature of the coffee then increase slightly, until a new equilibrium is reached?
3
-
@dr.reubenbuthello2866 To add to what Scott said, the air above any body of water is always slightly denser, because of the humidity and the cooling that occurs just above the water. So refraction happens most commonly over bodies of water, and typically in the downward direction, refracting objects upwards. But it happens everywhere on the surface actually, just very common over water. If you don’t believe so, there’s a great observation I’d urge you to check out, called the Rainy Lake experiment. There’s a full blog post you can find outlining the experiment, and there’s a full section on refraction, containing a short sped up time lapse over several hours, clearly demonstrating refraction causing the horizon to rise up significantly over time, as refraction index increases throughout the day.
Refraction is very much a variable that matters here, it cannot be ignored. Rowbotham ignored it, so his observation is inconclusive, it’s a sloppy experiment. He’s actually famous today as one of the main reasons why peer review is so crucial to the process of science. The Bedford Level experiment is used an example today, to help teach young aspiring scientists the importance of peer review, by illustrating how false conclusions are often drawn in experimentation, peer review is how we catch human error.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@zquest42 Jeez you people are ignorant...navigation has been using lines of latitude and longitude designed for TWO equal hemispheres, for hundreds of years, designed for a globe. They also are required to use geodetic conversions or they will get lost on long navigations, that wouldn’t be necessary if the Earth was flat. Pilots fly what are known as great circle routes, which is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere, and GLOBAL positioning systems (GPS) use satellites that are in orbit...which requires gravity to function. Gravity is very much an applied science, everything from parabolic trajectory targeting, to flight aeronautics, to orbital mechanics and rocket science, all of these (and more) require both our understanding of gravity and our measurements of this fundamental force.
You have NO IDEA what you’re talking about...and that’s what’s most frustrating, because flat Earth just pretends like they’re experts anyway. And why exactly? Are you doing it out of spite or something?
There are hundreds of different ways science has falsified electromagnetic attraction as the force that keeps us to the ground. If you actually had any working knowledge or experience in science, you’d know this. If you were an actual pilot or sailor for a living, you’d actually know how navigation really works. Nobody in science, communication, navigation, or engineering, is using a flat Earth model to help them do their jobs, they all use the heliocentric model...that is a fact, not an opinion and it’s for a very good reason.
You’re also forgetting one key part to building a scientific model...does it match with reality? That’s what matters most at the end of the day...they’re not just shooting in the dark and making up numbers, they are comparing the model to reality, they are taking data collected out in the real world, the model is built around observations and experiments done in reality. Sure, you can make just about any model function on paper mathematically...but if it can’t be used to accurately make predictions of phenomenon and observations in the real world, then it becomes pretty obvious that it’s just bullshit. That’s what separates the heliocentric model from all other models...it fits with reality.
It’s just frustrating is all...real people are out there busting there ass to build the modern world...and you somehow think they’re lying to you, or that they don’t know what they’re doing? You must have a very low opinion of science, if you honestly think they can build everything that’s around you today...but they can’t figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet. :/
It’s fine to ask questions, but don’t be ignorant about it please...you know damn well the heliocentric model is used in everything today.
3
-
Takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree on Earth…you think you’d be able to notice a dip occurring that gradually? Pilots follow the horizon indicator and the altimeter, constantly making small adjustments every second to stay in line with those instruments, the shift would be so gradual, you would never notice, like driving around a perfect circle track that’s thousands of miles in circumference, it’s not much different. Also, it’s impossible for a plane to “fly out into space”, because space is a vacuum and planes require the air to help generate lift…that’s how they fly. The air gets thinner the higher you go, so planes can only fly so high, before they reach a point where the air is too thin to generate enough lift to counter their weight/gravity. So that’s why we don’t use planes to get into space, we use rockets, which do not require the air to generate lift, they instead use the thrust created by action reaction, the 3rd law of motion.
You could benefit from learning a bit more physics. These aren’t bad inquiries, but you are forming some pretty false conclusions from a lack of information. So I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
2
-
@flyonthewall7026 1) A spirit level uses buoyancy in a simple 2 part density column, which is an effect directly caused by gravity, so the bubble is always leveling to centre of gravity, which always points to centre of mass. So it’s not going to prove shit, because the bubble will shift as you move, to remain perpendicular to centre of gravity. We can use these “leveling” tools to flatten off small areas, because a few hundred/thousand square feet isn’t going to have much degrees of change from end to end. Takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on Earth...how much you think there will be in a building site that covers nowhere near that distance?
2) What about em? You know they put them up on cliffs for a reason right? So they’ll be seen from much further out. You know they have crows nests on ships for a reason right? So they can see much further and spot things from further away. You realize that focused light rays propagates through the air and is super visible at night right? Meaning you don’t have to see the source of light, just the beam, which they’ll see for miles and miles before the light house itself.
3) Water bends pretty easily actually, especially when held at equipotential within a field of force...like gravity. Here’s a geodetic measurement taken of a long causeway bridge https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=317. These are physical surveyors measurements, of that causeway. It’s clearly curving...which means the water is “bending” with the curvature.
4) No it does not, you just never bothered to actually measure it. Here are two examples of people who did think to measure it, using two different methods.
https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI - measuring horizon drop from various altitudes using a simple leveling rig.
https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc - measuring horizon drop from 45,000 feet using a surveyors theodolite.
Horizon does not rise to eye level, you people just never bothered to test that claim, just believed it blindly.
5) You mean ring laser gyros used in planes to spot pitch, yaw and roll, that have been measuring Earth rotation for over 60 years now? https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=50 Mechanical gyros used in horizon indicators and other plane navigation devices, use what are known as pendulous vanes, which are hinge mechanisms designed to use gravity to help apply a torque to the gyros which helps correct them during flight and keep them at level with surface. Here’s a simple explanation of how these work https://youtu.be/_MoS5Yw9ZgE. These can correct for extreme maneuvers, the gyros natural precession AND Earth curvature. So no, gyros don’t prove a flat Earth, in fact they’ve done the opposite, maybe do some research on the gyro compass sometime, a clever gyro device that actually uses Earth rotation and the gyros natural precession, to act as a perfectly set compass.
We don’t have to blindly believe anything, we can test the Earth for ourselves at any time and we can learn and recreate the science and technology achieved today, for ourselves, at any time. But it sure seems YOU listened blindly to online scam artists without much question. Maybe turn that questioning around on the Flat Earth sometime and do some research outside of what they tell you...you might learn who the real huxters are.
2
-
@opxchaos5757 Ok, you mentioned the rotation of stars around the pole, then forgot about the second rotation that occurs in the South. Why? If you’re going to claim to be objective, then why ignore that observation? I’m sure being in this mess as long as you have, you’re aware of the South celestial rotation, so why does every Flat Earther ignore it so easily? The South celestial rotation is real and it’s a problem for the FE model, meanwhile it’s exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a globe. This shouldn’t be ignored so easily.
You also appear very bitter towards science, almost like you have a need or an agenda to prove them wrong, which reveals a bias you have. It could explain why you’d ignore some information so easily, which makes an honest discussion very difficult...cause if you’re just picking and choosing what information to accept, then you’re not really being objective, you’re just looking to confirm bias. I agree the mocking is childish, but you seem to have a very low opinion of science in general, almost believing yourself superior in a way, which just invites mockery, because it’s perceived as arrogance. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions though, but I mean, everyone has an ego, so if you’re going poke people, they’re going to respond negatively...it should be expected.
Anyway, if you’d like a more level headed civil discussion, where information and ideas are simply shared and considered without ridicule or assumptions, I don’t mind. You seem quite well researched on the topic and willing to share information, so I wouldn’t mind picking your brain a bit and perhaps I can also shed some light on some topics, perhaps we can both learn something.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Welcome to reality, if you possess a knowledge or skill nobody else has and if it’s extremely beneficial to government and their interests, then you have more value. Way of the world. Is it moral, ethical, or just? Not really, no, but governments don’t think and operate the same way you or I do, they do what they have to do, to get any edge they can.
That said, Germany was at war, if your country was at war, you wouldn’t exactly see other nations as friends, they would just be the enemy. Are you American? How much do you really care about the many countries of the middle East that you’ve been bombing and murdering for decades now? Do you see them as friends or just enemies? They sure see your country as an enemy. So is Von Braun a bad guy, or just a scientist trying to protect his country against an enemy during a war? The US currently has lots of those, building bombs and weapons thar murder thousands every year. Should they have arrested Richard Feynman for his work in the Manhattan project, that made the atom bomb, that went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians?
How’s that any different? The only difference is that the US and Britain won. I think it’s you who’s naive of how the world really works.
Fact is, Germany had some of the best minds of that time. Instead of wasting that talent, they put them to work…if they hadn’t, you can bet their enemies would have. It certainly paid off too, cause the US led the way in space exploration and rocket technology, which gave them a huge edge on other nations.
2
-
Because of light refraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t=6s Light bends and refracts as it passes through denser atmosphere, which happens a lot at distances and especially over water where the air density is higher thanks to the moisture in the air. This causes a distortion in what we see, making it possible to see objects beyond a curvature. It's a variable that Rowbotham (parallax), did not account for in his experiment...either because he wasn't aware of it, or because he ignored it intentionally, either way, it was a variable that he did not control for.
So he conducted a sloppy experiment, that was designed to only seek out the conclusion he wanted to be true, that ignored variables and didn't provide any proper controls or collect enough data sets, then once he got his observation that supported his bias, he stopped experimenting and reached his conclusion. That's not how science is done...we don't just stop looking once our bias is confirmed, that is how you conduct a poor experiment. When this experiment is repeated and improved upon, by accounting for variables and adding further data sets, it actually comes back conclusive in support of a Globe. Here's a really thorough recreation of this experiment, this time done across a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Thankfully, peer review catches things like this...that's why an experiment must be repeatable to be officially conclusive. When it's repeated, it's found to be a sloppy experiment, conducting the experiment properly brings a more conclusive result.
That is how a proper experiment is done, it is very thorough, accounting for every possible variable that it can, making calculated predictions for all of them before hand. All "Parallax" did was make one observation of a flag disappearing...and then concluded Earth was Flat, no further work required. That's a perfect example of confirmation bias...it's the perfect example of how NOT to do an experiment. That's basically the problem with every Flat Earther, they're just chasing confirmation bias, seeking only the information that supports their bias and ignoring everything else. It's quite common actually, most people tend to do this...it's actually a natural tendency of people, we're kind of lazy like that, we like quick easy to digest answers...but things are rarely that simple and science is trying to find objective truths, so it has to go beyond bias. Science figured out a long time ago that this was a problem, so scientists now train themselves to remove bias as best they can, one of the ways they do that, is by controlling for variables in an experiment...like light refraction.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. It's a great question really, this experiment is actually often taught in universities to teach students about proper experimentation and why it's so important to make sure you're removing bias from the process. If you don't, you can run the risk of falling for scams like this.
2
-
@auraveenley.8743 You deleted a response to me, but don’t worry I caught some of it. You said; “Isn’t the 23.4 deg axial tilt a little ad hoc? I see no tilt of the Earth in ANY of NASAs curved lens or CGI…”.
Ad Hoc is a form of argument that implies a quick response to counter evidence, adding information that’s untested and unverified, in the hopes that it will save a floundering claim or position. The tilt of the Earth was a conclusion reached AFTER extensive observation and data collection, it’s a conclusion formed FROM the evidence, rather than a conclusion you reached cause it kind of fit. It is a tested and verified conclusion, that explains everything from the seasons, to the solstices and equinoxes, to Sun paths and shadow angles, to the 24 hour day and night occurrences at each pole of the Earth, etc. It’s far from ad hoc…it’s no coincidence that it works mathematically with all of the data.
Also, why would you think to expect to notice this tilt in photos of Earth from space? Place a perfect steal ball bearing in front of you, now tilt it 23.4 degrees and look again…is the tilt readily apparent to you? 🧐 Little hard to notice a tilt from a spherical object…the Earth’s axis isn’t a solid mass we can observe, but rotating objects are rotating on an axis, and that axis can be determined by studying and observing that rotation. But any tilt angle needs a reference point to measure from, we measure Earth’s tilt from the ecliptic plain…which is also abstract and not a tangible mass we can just observe. So you’re not gonna notice this tilt in a photo…I assume you realized that after you made your comment.
Point is, you’re sure going to a lot of effort to ram a square peg into a round hole here…which says a lot about the flat Earth movement actually. You seem to just be arguing out of spite, just trying to put a little dirt in the eye of the scientific community, rather than arguing the most objective position. I think it’s Flat Earth that should try actually questioning their model for a change…seems to me you really don’t put the same standard of review upon the Flat model, which suggests a bias.
2
-
2
-
@flawlesscarlo You're assuming that temperature is all you require to melt something...and it's not. Pressure is the other variable required, this causes what is known as a convection heat transfer, which is what we experience here on Earth. There is a lot of molecules of air at our surface, which creates enough pressure, to maintain a convection heat...which is what helps to melt metal here on the surface. Space is a different environment entirely, so the physics doesn't exactly work the same. There is no pressure in space...it's a zero pressure environment, so the solar radiation from the Sun, which is the temperature reading they are getting, is mostly reflected off the surface of those spacecraft, there is no molecules of air around it to keep that heat around, no pressure for convection heat transfer to occur, thus no melting.
Your trouble is you think you know everything there is to know and you assume every environment operates the same as the one you're used too. This creates an overconfidence, that overconfidence is why you jump to conclusions and reach many false conclusions without realizing it, based on a lack of knowledge on the subject you're arguing. Learn some physics, I suggest you start with the difference between convection heat and solar radiation.
2
-
2
-
@flawlesscarlo Conservation of momentum is actually a lot easier outside of our atmosphere then inside, there's no air in space, so no drag force, so conservation of momentum is absolute. That's why all the planetary orbits and rotations never slow down...nothing in space to slow that momentum, so they orbit indefinitely. A spacecraft going to the Moon, is really not a problem, like you seem to think it is. Again, basic physics knowledge will help you here. What's gullible, is listening blindly to non experts...tell you the Earth is flat, when they have just as much working knowledge and experience as you do. That's gullible.
Don Petit was talking about the fact that they no longer have the old lunar modules anymore. They are stripped down, damaged, decommissioned and most of all obsolete. Why would we go back in the same tech from 60 years ago? Do we still drive model T cars around today? No...we don't, we drive new technology, that's exactly what they're going to do when they return to the Moon next, use a newer more efficient model of spacecraft. The trouble is, this is going to take a LOT of R and D. Each new system we invent/engineer, will need to be rigorously tested before being approved for launch, can't send up manned missions until it's deemed safe. The biggest trouble they were facing, was that our newer systems (the modern microchips used in modern systems), are more prone to damage in strong magnetic and radioactive fields. So this created an engineering challenge a few years ago, one that they've more recently overcome, with solid state systems...like the solid state drives that have now replaced the old magnetic strip hard drives in your computer. Similar advancements like this, have brought us closer to including this new tech, in more modern lunar module designs.
Man...if you just had more knowledge on the subjects you argue against, you wouldn't reach so many paranoid conclusions. They're going back to the Moon, new missions are scheduled for the mid to late 2020's. So they are close to having a new lunar module developed for these new missions. Be patient.
2
-
@flawlesscarlo Ok, so what is the main difference between cars, phones, gaming consoles and the lunar modules? The first 3 are mass produced for the purpose of sale....meanwhile nobody is buying a lunar module, it's not a consumer product in high demand, so they really don't make very many of them. So you're making a false comparison, they're not the same thing at all.
They no doubt still have the designs for those old lunar modules, but there has been a BIG gap between when they first used/engineered them and today. So that's a huge gap where nothing was being improved or tweaked in those designs, and since those old systems were all analog they're grossly out dated, they really had no choice but to start over when the picked up production again, which is going to come with new engineering hurtles. The lunar project was scrapped, so the old modules were decommissioned. They had no reason to go back to the Moon before, so they didn't put funds towards those missions...which meant no further R and D was done for the modules. Today, they have plans to go back, to establish a staging base for missions in deeper space, so today they have reason to go back.
But, let me tell ya, the thing I hate about this kind of conversation, is that all you or I can really do here is speculate. I'm not an engineer, I don't work for NASA and neither do you, so it doesn't matter how logical either of our conclusions may be on this, all we both can really do here is speculate...and I prefer avoiding speculations where we lean on our bias more then the facts. Which is why I prefer to focus on the science I can verify. Physics I can verify, at anytime I can test the laws of physical reality for myself. I can verify Earth science...I live here, I can put the Earth beneath my feet to the test at any time. So that's where I put my focus personally...I don't really care to speculate endlessly about NASA, nothing I can really verify for certain there, and neither can you really, so it's pointless to get so wound up in it.
Listen man, that being said, there are logical answers to your questions. I get your gripes, believe me I do, I'm not here to mock you, because it's perfectly fine to disagree and also perfectly fine to question what you're told. I'm just here to share some counter information I feel you may have overlooked, up to you really if you choose to consider any of it, can't force you to do anything. At the very least I hope you find the information I've shared interesting. Have a good one.
2
-
@flawlesscarlo I agree, people should question things more....so why aren't you doing that for Flat Earth? Why don't you spin that lens around sometime and question the many claims being made from Flat Earth, or these "faked space" pushers? I'm just sayin, these people aren't experts of any field...they hold no position or job title that has any relevance to the topic they are arguing against, so do you ever stop to think that MAYBE they're reaching a lot of false conclusions due to a lack of knowledge and experience, that MAYBE these people don't really know what they're talking about? Haven't we given you enough "reasonable doubt" to question flat Earth a little more thoroughly? Truth is, you have a bias, and that bias is a deep distrust in all systems of authority, so doesn't really matter what we show you, that bias keeps you from really listening to anything we'd have to say in counter.
You trust Flat Earth more, because they are regular people just like you, so you're more prone to just nod and agree to these people, so you're not much different...when it comes to nodding and agreeing, that really depends on your bias, and we all have them. My bias is the opposite, I tend to trust the people who BUILD everything. I trust experts who actually have experience and knowledge and know what they're talking about...because they've dedicated their lives to knowing what they're talking about. See, we're both bias, but I'm still gonna say the experts are a smarter horse to back...then non experts, who couldn't rebuild any of our current technology if their life depended on it...I think most people would agree. But, I do prefer to not lean on my bias, that's why I prefer sticking to the science that I can personally verify....then I don't require appealing to authorities or experts, I can reach my own conclusions with my own acquired knowledge.
Have you been listening though? You're so focused on ONE aspect, that you ignored a lot of what I said and then some. You seem to think NASA hasn't been doing anything else in the last 50 years...like getting to the Moon is there only purpose or something, but that's not true at all. Over the last 60 years, they've put thousands of satellites into orbit, each one of those launches required to put those up into orbit, is half a billion dollars right there...just for the launch, that's not including the pay load, which depending on the satellite, is millions of more dollars spent. They've built the ISS, sent probes out past our solar system, put rovers on Mars, more then once. Beyond that, the testing they do on the ISS and other facilities around the world, has led to innovations and inventions that YOU use every single day and don't even realize it. They are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing, helping to innovate and engineer new technology for societies benefit. They are exploring space, so we can gather information on that environment, so we can someday learn how to travel in this environment with efficiency...that is going to take time.
They are a research and development company...that is what NASA does. Whether you like it or not, It is important for any nation to fund the sciences...or it will fall behind in technology, it's that simple. In my opinion, we're not giving enough money to the sciences...had they better funded NASA, there likely would be a base on the Moon already, and missions to Mars happening...public space travel would have been much closer on the horizon.
YOU stay so focused on what you think NASA is doing, painting a paranoid picture of an evil industry....and give no thought to any other possibilities, and no thought to anything else they've actually done. They have over a thousand buildings around the world, with hundreds of thousands of employees. Think about that for a moment, 20 billion a year may seem like a lot to you and me, but for a company of that size, with so many assets to pay for, I'm surprised they can even keep the lights on with that piddly amount, especially when a single rocket launch used to cost half a billion. Just do me a favor sometime and compare their annual budget, to the US military sometime...if you wanna talk about a system that's grossly over funded, that could probably take a pay cut, it's the US military.
I know why you don't trust NASA, cause you've seen the "faked space" docs on YouTube that have convinced you they've been lying this whole time. You wanna talk about questioning things....take a moment to really break down those videos and question them sometime, don't just nod and agree with them, you might learn who the real liars are if you do. I've done that, and I've caught those docs lying so many times, I don't take them seriously anymore....they're lying to you, to sell you on this paranoid fantasy, so you'll buy t-shirts, books, docs, con tickets....these fuckers are the real liars in my opinion.
And that's exactly how they do it, they know that you don't really care to know things for certain...most people just require "reasonable doubt", so ya, all they have to do is cut those docs together, make a bunch of empty speculative claims about what's happening, and then they create enough "reasonable doubt", which gets you and others fired up enough to keep the lie going but never really analyzing it closer. I'm telling you, you're being conned by these people....they know all you need is "reasonable doubt" and it's not hard to create that, just lie and lie often, it's pretty simple.
I could go through any one of those "faked space" docs, and point out every lie they make, I used to do it a lot, so feel free to share one with me and I'd be happy to break it down for you. It's just empty claim after empty claim, lie after lie, do it enough...and you have generated enough "reasonable doubt" to get your followers convinced on your lies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@daddyissues4278 Well couple of problems with lasers, they do refract (reflect and bend) and they do diffract (disperse) in atmosphere. So I hope you took those into account. Many seem to assume lasers remain perfectly tangent at distances, and that’s simply not the case.
A clear demonstration of laser refraction https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=380.
Demonstration of laser diffraction https://youtu.be/ysSp7G5UWT0.
There is simply no way to overcome these limitations in lasers shot through atmosphere, so they’re actually not as reliable as most would assume. They do not remain tangent to starting location, so it’s actually not surprising you’d be able to see it, even over a curvature.
Also, what math were you using? It is very important to make sure you’re using the correct math, or your numbers of course won’t match observations. I see a lot of people within Flat Earth using 8 inches per mile squared (a basic parabola equation), but it’s simply not the correct math. It has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, curvature hump, refraction, etc, etc. It does not represent line of sight, so I hope that’s not the math you’ve been using.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@poormanshellcat Why does this matter? It’s pretty simple, it’s gravity that orientates you to surface. Your body is designed to handle the force of gravity, feet on the ground, head to the sky. You feel upside down, when you orientate the opposite way, because the gravity pulls the fluids of your body (blood, water, everything) to your head…where it’s not supposed to be, giving you a feeling of discomfort you experience as being upside down. It’s gravity that causes this motion of fluids when you disorientate yourself from your gravity vector…so gravity has everything to do with feeling upside down. If gravity pulls to centre, then it’s not gonna matter where you are on the surface of the globe, the force of gravity pulls you and all your fluids towards centre…towards surface, so you will be right side up, so long as your feet are on the ground, orientated to gravity.
If you’re not aware of this, then you need to go back to school.
2
-
@poormanshellcat You’re not quite getting it. At any given time you are in what’s known as a gravity vector. Its direction is always towards centre, that’s where gravity pulls you at all times, but the angle of these vectors changes as you move along the surface. So when you’re on a fair ride, going upside down, you’re upside down relative to that gravity vector you’re currently in. Key word here is relative. If you’re in the US (which I assume you are), a person in Australia is upside down relative to YOU, but relative to his gravity vector, he is rightside up, so long as his feet are on the ground, in line with the force of gravity pulling him towards centre. So upside down is a relative term…in relation to what are you upside down? Thanks to how gravity works here on Earth, you’re always right side up, if you’re orientated to your gravity vector…which isn’t hard, your body aligns with it pretty naturally, like breathing.
This is the same on every planet as well, every planet has gravity that pulls to centre…the planets are actually spherical because of gravity. When you squeeze a snowball together from all angles inward, what shape does it make? A ball, right? Because you built it by pushing in towards the centre. Gravity does the same thing, builds mass up around centre of mass…this forms a sphere around that centre, the most rigid shape in nature. Bubbles form spheres for similar reasons, raindrops as well, every star, planet, moon, all formed spherical because of a force that brought matter together, squeezing it towards a centre. Earth is no exception.
I’m just saying, you’re currently misunderstanding how gravity works, and are reaching a false conclusion because of it. I hope this information can help, but I can only do so much, the rest is up to you and your ability to understand.
2
-
@poormanshellcat To be fair though, everything I’ve said so far is just the conclusion of gravity, it’s an explanation of how it works, but you’re right in saying that it in no way proves it. So go back to the history of the theory if you want to know how that conclusion was reached. Why would scientists conclude this? Because the evidence for a spherical Earth was overwhelming, the moment geographers realized the Earth was spherical, nautical navigation all of sudden got easier, maps became a lot more accurate. Once the latitude and longitude lines were proven to be curving around a sphere, through countless successful navigations, it couldn’t be denied anymore that Earth was spherical. It also explained how a sunset occurs, how different stars are visible in each Hemisphere, how lunar eclipses occur, etc, etc. So it also fit with many other observations and data.
So the geometry couldn’t be denied, the evidence was there, but wait how exactly does it all stay on the surface? That was of course the immediate question that followed. Well, let’s observe a fact of nature, when you drop something, it’s clearly put into a motion towards surface. That’s undeniable, most things fall when they’re dropped. Every motion is caused by a force, you don’t have motion, without a force to cause it, that’s motion physics 101. So something is causing that downward motion of matter, so there is a force present. At that point it’s as easy as 2+2=4, Earth is measured spherical, and there’s clearly a downward force that draws everything to surface, whether you’re in America or Australia, North pole or South pole, you’re pulled to surface. So if both perimeters are true, then it’s only logical that this force pulls to a centre, cause if you draw motion vectors all pointing towards the surface of a sphere, they will all converge at centre.
So that’s where gravity science began, they figured out Earth’s shape first, the rest was just paying attention to a phenomenon we all experience, the motion of falling objects. Your current argument ignores the science of gravity, and completely skips over the history of how they reached the conclusion that Earth is spherical. Of course nothings going to make sense to you, if you start at the end…you have to start at the beginning, that’s where the foundation of the information is.
Once all that was realized…the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes. It all of sudden made sense why everything we observe in space is spherical, why and how they orbit each other, how they form in the first place, it’s because they all have gravity…all mass does. Next step was proving that, which came in the form of the Cavendish experiment, that proved that mass attracts mass, because all mass has gravity. Get enough of that mass together, you get a planet capable of holding people and everything too it. Get even more mass together, then force of gravity becomes so great that certain atoms (typically hydrogen) actually begin fusing together (nuclear fusion), which creates a lot of energy…you then get a star. So gravity also explains how our Sun works, it’s just a lot of mass collected together, creating so much gravity it causes nuclear fusion. We currently use this knowledge in fusion reactors to recreate the effect…and it works.
If science was just talking bullshit, then nothing would work. You know your science is good, when you can apply it and it works. That’s how you know it’s accurate. Nobody is using a flat Earth model to navigate with…they are however using a globe model, and it gets them where they’re going every time it’s used. That’s how you know it’s accurate. Are Flat Earthers building nuclear fusion reactors? No…they typically don’t have any actual credentials, with no actual experience with an applied science, of any kind. Not a group I’d be quick to follow…
Anyway, that’s a brief history of gravity physics. I can go deeper if you’d like, explain the Cavendish, go through some equations that use gravity as a variable, explain Newtons law of universal gravitation a bit more in depth, I don’t mind, if it’s helpful.
2
-
2
-
@veiko23 True, I’m certainly not disputing that. But you’re making a false equivalence. Is our planet a galaxy or solar system? No, it’s a planet, just like the others that occupy our local solar system. The other planets are spherical, so what reason do we have to assume we’re not also spherical? Earth is one cohesive structure, correct? It’s not a bunch of different land masses, or objects, like the solar system and galaxy are, it’s one structure. Gravity emanates from a centre, which explains why things in the cosmos are spherical in the first place, we have gravity, and we’re one structure, so…why wouldn’t that structure build up around that centre like everything else does?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ingeborgpostelnik4748 Sure, but it still means cars are producers of C02...which was the basic fact. Yes, plants use C02, but they can only do so much, the basic fact is that this extra C02 is ADDING to the amount of C02 already present, increasing temperatures slightly by trapping more heat. C02 is a greenhouse gas, cars increase those levels, those are the basic facts. Yes, we can plant more trees, and they do, but it still doesn’t change the fact that we’re pumping more C02 into the air than ever before...that’s the problem.
You speak of ignorance, then make an ignorant statement...thinking the trees will just take care of everything, so we have no reason to worry. That’s ignorant...meanwhile CO2 is still rising, carbon based fuels are a part of that problem. These are the basic facts...it’s not difficult to deduce or understand. Your over simplifying the problem and rationalizing it...meanwhile people in many urban centres walk and breath through a thick haze, and C02 levels rise in atmosphere, and you’re just like “it’s fine, the trees will get it”. :/
Nobody is saying to eliminate carbon based fuels entirely, we depend on it to much, that would likely never happen. The point is to make efforts to reduce it...because no matter how much some are willing to ignore it, our current emissions are not a good thing. I’d agree we should be planting more trees, heck that’s a great idea, especially in our major cities. Greenery should become a larger part of urban areas, for sure. Point is we shouldn’t ignore it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hinduism is the oldest surviving ancient religion (around 4000 years old) and they used to always say that Earth was egg shaped, until of course it was proven spherical, they’ve since adjusted (though they were half right, it’s not perfectly spherical). There’s also evidence that suggests the ancient Sumerians knew the Earth was spherical, they carved depictions of a spherical Earth in a lot of their structures. And the Greeks are well known for deducing the Earth was spherical roughly 2000 years ago, we still use the geographic coordinate system designed by Eratosthenes for navigation, and around the same time the Greek geographer Ptolemy created some of the first accurate maps, using a spherical geometry in his framework. Also, the Catholic church was at the centre of higher education in Europe for at least the last thousand years…and they’ve been teaching the spherical Earth for most of that time. Copernicus was a monk…he started the heliocentric model some 500 years ago, before that the church believed the Earth was spherical but at the centre of everything, the geocentric model. So it’s well documented that they believed the Earth was spherical and that’s what they taught their scholars for centuries.
So no…every religion in history didn’t believe the Earth was flat…you just don’t know your history very well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Super naive about what exactly? Point out a position where you feel he was being naive. Not trying to be difficult, I'm honestly curious where you feel the scientist had the weaker argument, because I feel it's the opposite. You know what I saw that was quite arrogant and naive? A kid more then half his age, who has likely never stepped foot in a science lab and has likely zero experience conducting scientific research out in the field...actually thought he needed to explain the scientific method, to an ACTUAL scientist. Did he hit his head before going in and forgot who he was fucking talking too? What dimension did I slip into where people are actually that dense? Do people honestly think scientists just sit around pretending to know shit?
If you wanna talk about naive, you should remember that jobs like "welder" are only possible today thanks to the work of people first discovering and then harnessing electricity...which was done by scientists first obtaining that knowledge and then engineers putting that knowledge to use by inventing the components required to build the current electrical grids, that made it obtainable for everybody...so a welder could then do his job. The builder is quite literally the last step in that process...doesn't make their position any less important, but you can't get from A to C, by skipping over A and B....it doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
I do agree with you here though, of course a piece of paper doesn't make anybody more or less intelligent...what's naive to me though is when any individual assumes the work of others is not important or required...simply because they personally have no idea what the other person does all day, or because they just hate them for some reason. I've worked in the trades for years as an insulator, and I get that there is a lot of disdain for engineers...but you're naive if you actually believe they're not necessary to the process, and vice versa, they both should be treating each other with a little more respect. Builders need to remember that their jobs only exist thanks to scientists and engineers making it possible for them, and scientists and engineers need to be more grateful towards the builders who actually bring their ideas to physical reality. They are in a symbiotic relationship...I think this division and elitism bullshit needs to stop.
2
-
2
-
@taciupryk I'm just saying, your argument is pretty much this "I personally have not verified gravity for myself, because I don't really know any of the science, therefore gravity isn't real to me personally. The Globe can't exist without gravity, therefore since gravity isn't real to me, the Globe isn't real by extension." There are so many logical fallacies here, I don't even know where to begin. We do not know everything about gravity, but we do not need to, in order to conclude the Earth is a sphere. We have observed the world to be a Globe, we have taken pictures of it, we have measured it, and ALL world navigation and communication and infrastructure, uses our knowledge of the planets true shape and scale, to work and function at all. Even if we knew nothing about what attracts us to the Earth, it does not mean it does not exist and it also does not mean the Earth is not a Globe. We have a lot to learn...the shape of the Earth is not one of those things. Stop listening to con me on the internet, teaching you how to be more ignorant to the world around you.
2
-
So what would you prefer they did instead? We do not know everything, and we likely never will, for that reason it makes certainty of the facts pretty much impossible. It means that old information always has the potential to change as new information is gathered. That is the stark reality I'm afraid, old information will always have the potential to change, simply because we do not know everything. So they really have no other choice but to operate the way they do, on consensus...otherwise nothing would get done, it would just be chaos. Would you prefer con artists be allowed to peddle there junk science, never to be checked or challenged, free to pass off their bullshit as if its fact, even though it's hurting a lot of people and causing a lot of problems for research and development? Doesn't sound very awesome to me. I much prefer the peer reviewed system of consensus, it works.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jasondavis8886 Sorry, I’m not new to this discussion. Been researching it for nearly 4 years now, I’m now more of a Globe Earther than ever before, because I know and understand the science and history that led mankind to that conclusion. You won’t convince me of anything with insults and empty claims I’m afraid, evidence is all I care about, and in my experience, I’ve seen exactly where flat Earth goes wrong on every claim they make....so good luck with that. I’m always willing to listen still, but I have concluded it’s just another scam on the internet, a cult of misinformation and confirmation bias, taking advantage of some people’s fears, paranoia, lack of general knowledge and their desire to feel special and superior over others. Learn to navigate, you’ll understand the true geometry first hand if you do.
2
-
Plenty of them on YouTube, give them a search sometime. It's just not very common, because there's no large airports in Antarctica, so they can't reroute a large influx of passenger planes in that area, should any problems arise, so they avoid it.
Because Antarctica has more value as a scientific research haven, and if oil companies could set up shop, they would utterly destroy the environment. Contaminating it. It also causes problems between nations...because you allow one resource to be mined, then everyone gets involved, and everybody wants mining rights for their resource, then the old squabbles come back. Then nations get involved again, the old arguments come back, it's a fucking mess. Better to stick to the original agreements, we're not hurting for any of the resources found on that continent at present, so it's best we don't tap it yet. And we acquire some of the best evidence of both climate change and ancient Earth, from taking core samples from Antarctica. They're only good though, because they are completely untouched for millions of years. Allow mining companies in, and we ruin that.
Because it's one of the most dangerous places on Earth...and that's the only places they've set up safe shelters for people...is this really that difficult to understand? On that note though, you are free to traverse the continent, anyone can apply for that kind of permit, but they're not going to let you go without a solid plan, ample resources, and without them knowing first. You're not allowed to enter any country without a VISA, what makes you think Antarctica should be any different? The only difference here, is that Antarctica is the most dangerous place on the planet, next to traveling to the ocean sea floor...so they'd really rather prefer people didn't go there and get themselves killed.
All government treaties? I know of just one international treaty concerning Antarctica and it's a peace agreement between nations stating that nobody can claim it for themselves. It's to avoid war...there are lots of peace agreements just like the Antarctica treaty, it's something the nations of the world do pretty often.
The only can of worms here, is the one being intentionally created and crafted by conmen, to get a few suckers online to THINK there's something fishy going on here. Stop being so gullible, and maybe get a better bullshit filter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MultiChaoticus Germ theory has been proven true, beyond any doubt. We see bacteria in microscopes, we isolate them, we test their harmful effects. This is not a question anymore, it’s proven medical science, you can get a microscope at anytime and see for yourself…like millions of other people have done already. Pathogens cause most diseases, that’s a fact, not an opinion. You don’t believe me, then try infecting yourself with E. Coli, or Colera, or any other harmful pathogen we’ve identified…then we’ll see just how unproven you think it is then.
Either way, you’re certainly not changing anything with empty claims that it’s not verified science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At the very least, you could provide your reasoning for why you believe it’s not proven science. Certainly can’t do much with empty claims…nothing scientific about that.
2
-
Boy…it’s comments like yours that truly solidifies why some people become flat Earthers…because you’re not all there.😅
“…could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight.”
So if I tilted Earth a full 90 degrees, so one pole now faced the Sun at all times, creating an axis of rotation that’s parallel to its light, and an equator that’s perpendicular to the Suns Zenith, and always on the terminator line of Earth’s shadow…is that still not enough tilt to create a 24 hour day for everyone past the 89th parallel? 😅 Please think about that for a moment…you’re not quite visualizing how it works, hopefully that example helps.
Look up the MANY recorded observations of the 24 hour Sun in Antarctica…happens every year, and it’s quite a popular tourist attraction for Antarctica in their Summer months. There are no countries below the 60th parallel in the South…that’s why they don’t have the midnight Sun occurrence, only Antarctica does. But the Southern tip of Argentina experiences a 17 hour day at their Solstice…care to explain how that happens on your flat Earth?
Distance is not the only determining factor for temperature fluctuation upon a surface…the angle at which energy arrives upon a surface can also have a huge effect. Direct light is more focused, thus more energy upon the same area. Angled light is less focused, meaning it’s dispersed over a wider area….see how this works yet?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Evolution doesn't imply there was no creator, and we did not evolve from apes, that's a common misunderstanding from people who would rather assume how things work then put any effort into understanding. We share a common ancestor with apes of today, that's all, and the fossil records verify that as does our genetic code which shares a LOT of the same coding. So maybe you're happy being ignorant of evidence, planting your face in a book that was most likely written by man and completely made up, but the rest of us would rather LOOK at the world around us, figure out how it works and not ignore what it's telling us.
If the Bible says the Earth is flat, then that's just another thing to add to the VERY LONG LIST of things it gets wrong about reality. Does the bible have a section for Dinosaurs, cellular life, atoms or the electromagnetic spectrum that currently brings you your wifi? No? Well fuck...I wonder why...MAYBE because the people who wrote that book didn't have a fucking clue how the world worked in their time, so they made it all up! Filling the gaps in their knowledge with superstitious bullshit. And somehow you people still follow it blindly...ya, real good logic you have. Superb logic. Let us know when you invent, innovate or discover anything.
Science doesn't have any problem with God, they'd just prefer having evidence before jumping to any conclusions. Many scientists today and throughout history are actually theists, not atheists. Science isn't working to get rid of God, that's not its goal, it's goal is just to learn how creation works at the mechanical level. Your bible might have reason to worry, but God is fine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidsandall Yes, but truth is not always simple to discern, in science least of all. The harsh reality of information gathering in science, is that we will never have all the information, there’s simply too much to learn. For this reason, science doesn’t have the luxury to operate in absolute certainty’s (like most layman tend too think in), it can only operate in percentages of certainty. Because new information always has the potential to change old information, that’s just the reality. So truth is, locking down what’s really true, proving things, is not really the goal in science. Falsifying every other possibility is the goal of science, leaving only the most likely conclusion left standing, until it too can be falsified.
I understand this a foreign concept to most layman, which is why they’ll never really understand science. Debates are useful to challenge what we think we know, leading us to further insights, but public debates are not how science concludes science. It’s how simpletons think it’s done.
2
-
2
-
TJ Callaway A better question is, where is this barrier Flat Earth claims is up there? Even Flat Earth has sent up their own weather balloons to the fringes of space, and they eventually pop due to being within vacuum conditions, so even flat Earth has measured and verified the vacuum of space without realizing it. But you know what they’ve never found? A dome barrier. It is a physical object isn’t it? It would have to be according to flat Earth, so where is the tangible evidence that verifies its existence? Do you ever stop to think that maybe you’re just misunderstanding the physics here? Are you a physicist? Do you have actual experience in the science, or did you learn these things from a YouTube video? It’s not hard to lie on the internet, so what makes you so certain your source of information actually knows what they’re talking about? Just food for thought.
To me, this sounds like an error in understanding of thermodynamics. Entropy has more to do with energy, not so much matter. For instance, when a cup of hot coffee eventually goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the energy? Shouldn’t have to tell you, it’s just the thermal energy. It’s true that matter tags along sometimes, but matter is moved by kinetic energy, energy that is eventually lessened and converted to potential energy, due to attracting forces found in nature, such as gravity. Atmosphere doesn’t escape into space, because gravity is always there, pulling it back down. Molecules that make up our atmosphere moves around by constantly colliding with each other, which creates kinetic energy in the gas, keeping it in motion. Near the fringes of atmosphere though, the air gets thinner and thinner, reducing the amount of collisions, reducing the transfer of kinetic energy. But gravity is always there, it never stops pulling on these molecules, which eventually drains them of kinetic energy. Once that energy is spent, the molecules lose momentum and fall back to Earth, starting the cycle all over again.
So how does atmosphere exist next to the vacuum of space? Simple, gravity is what makes it possible, and no laws of thermodynamics are broken here, because the entropy still does occur, it’s just greatly slowed by gravity. And thermodynamics again has more to do with energies desire to move into equilibrium, matter not so much, matter tags along but it is always subject to forces that will attract them back down once kinetic energy is dispersed and spent.
Now Flat Earth likes to deny the existence of gravity, but they can’t really deny that matter falls. That doesn’t just happen on its own, nothing is just put into motion on its own, a force is required to put anything into motion, it’s the first law of motion. They also can’t deny that atmosphere is measured to get thinner and thinner the higher you go, you can test that yourself by hiking a hill with a barometer. So flat Earth is also confusing the difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. Gas pressure is gas put under pressure by a container squeezing molecules into forced proximity, causing more collisions between molecules, pressure is consistent throughout these containers. Atmospheric pressure is caused by the weight of molecules above, squeezing down on molecules below, this creates a gradient in pressure and the downward force of gravity is what causes it to occur.
So in my opinion, there is just a whole lot of physics that Flat Earth is ignoring or isn’t aware of. You have great questions...but you’re not really seeking answers, you’re holding those questions up as your proofs, assuming they can’t be answered. I don’t say that to patronize, it’s just what I’ve noticed. Flat Earth asks a lot of questions, but if they had even a basic knowledge of physics, they’d know these questions have answers.
A good experiment commonly done in physics classes, is a simple test of observing smoke in a vacuum. It’s a good test that might help you with your quandary of gaseous matter and how it behaves in vacuum conditions. Here’s a good recreation of this experiment https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=138. Now we all know that under normal conditions in atmosphere, smoke rises, but what’s interesting is that in a vacuum, smoke actually falls and pools at the bottom. Rather than expanding out and filling the container, it will actually fall instead and form a layer, as the experiment above demonstrates. No matter on Earth is free from the effect of gravity, but buoyancy creates the illusion that some things are, such as gases. Buoyancy is what causes smoke to rise, the displacement of matter by density. Gas is the lightest (least dense) form that matter can take, so gases are pushed up by heavier gases, in much the same way air bubbles are forced up in water. Take away all other matter within a system though, and you take away the buoyancy displacement, leaving only the observation of gravity pulling the gas down.
So science doesn’t just conclude these things without testing them, you have to understand that their is probably a great deal of science and experiments the general public is not aware of. It’s my fear that Flat Earth exploits this general lack of knowledge and experience most people have in the sciences and they use these gaps to create doubt in people.
There’s nothing wrong with questioning things though, I just think people should be very careful where they’re getting their information from, and never forget to also question even the sources you’ve grown to trust. So I hope you’ve found this information at the very least interesting. If you have any questions or if there’s anything you feel I’ve overlooked, feel free to let me know.
I’m just addressing your questions one at a time for now, don’t want to bury you in pages of information if I can help it (though I realize this got long already). These are great questions though, they’re the same sort of questions all scientists ask when first learning about these things. But, let me know if you found it helpful, or feel free to rebuttal. I apologize if it’s knowledge you’re already aware of, I don’t mean to patronize, but at this point I really don’t know your level of education just yet.
2
-
TJ Callaway NASA has never said they’ve never been to space...Flat Earth and space deniers make that claim, not NASA, just bias anti NASA groups putting words in NASA’s mouth, hearing what they want to and spreading misinformation. The misunderstanding comes from a couple comments from NASA scientists, who merely reminded the interviewer that NASA hasn’t sent any manned missions past low Earth orbit since the Moon missions...which is true, so they’re just telling the truth. But, space deniers then take the words out of context and reframe them to their bias. Fact is, NASA has never once said they’ve never been to space, only space deniers say that...for obvious reasons, they need to confirm their bias. But, prove me wrong, go ahead and find me the interview where NASA states they’ve never been to space.
Another misunderstanding is the whole “atmosphere extending past the Moon” debacle. The Karmen line of our atmosphere ends at 100 miles, the gas that extends past the Moon is known as the Geo-Corona, and it’s just a few hundred molecules of Hydrogen every square mile. They always knew this existed, they just never knew how far it extended until recently. If you actually read that article past the title, you’d know that the distance to the Moon didn’t change, they just discovered hydrogen molecules that extend past the Moon...that’s how science works, it’s a never ending process of discovery, all they did was add knowledge to the current model, nothing was changed.
This is one of the big problems as I see it...Flat Earth just hears what it wants to hear, twisting information to fit bias. So it really makes it difficult to have an honest discussion...with people who just invent their own truth, rather than pay attention to the actual details.
Everything you’re stating in your new comment is off the rails a great deal with its facts. Eratosthenes is one you’re thinking of, he was the first scholar to measure Earths circumference, and he wasn’t assuming anything...the Greeks had already determined the Earth was spherical, so he was just building on prior knowledge. They built the sundial...studying the path of the Sun and understanding Earths geometry was key to that invention. Many don’t know this, but calibrating a sundial will change by latitude...because of Earths curvature, so they already figured out Earths geometry long before Eratosthenes measured its circumference. Either way, even if he did assume the shape, that is only required if you only take 2 measurements. If you take several more data sets from multiple locations around the world, then plot the shadow angle data using location data, you can actually pinpoint the Sun in 3D. Here’s a great experiment that did just that https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422.
I’d rather not continue addressing gish gallop...so I’ll leave it at that for now. You really seem to have a very skewed understanding of modern science, which is just confirming my fears of what’s really occurring with movements like flat Earth. It’s just a lot of twisted facts and misinformation fed to the general public, that’s never had any interest in science and who lacks the knowledge to counter the lies. It’s misinformation and it’s robbing people like yourself of your better reasoning.
You’ve got it backwards...it’s not the Globe that starts with a premise then works backwards to prove it, if you’ll recall, flat Earth is where mankind started, from there we gathered more knowledge and made observations that falsified that model. We’ve since proved without much doubt that Earth is in fact spherical and from there the model has expanded as we’ve acquired more knowledge. What Flat Earth is attempting to do now is start over...and it’s doing that because of a great loss of trust between the general public and the community of science.
It’s fine that people are questioning things...but you have to be careful where you get your info from, cause it’s easier then ever before to spread bullshit. Con men are feeding you bad information, and it’s just messing with your heads. Your comment just got more jumbled as it went...and it should be your first warning sign, that maybe the information you’ve been getting hasn’t been accurate in the slightest.
Anyway, if you’d like to continue, please stick to single points, I’m not going to chase you up a mountain of gish gallop.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@1FeistyKitty They explain right in the paragraph before, that extreme refraction is common in Antarctica. 300 miles is a stretch, but without an actual recorded observation to analyze, it’s just words in a book. You don’t know what observer height that 300 mile mountain was seen at…could have been made while in a plane for all you know. Either way, you cherry picked words out of context and conveniently forgot to mention the parts before, where it explains that extreme refraction causes one to see much further than usual…you’re ignoring important context, and focusing only on what you feel confirms your bias.
You need to understand though…stuff like this is not evidence, because there’s nothing to analyze, do you understand that? Without the context, without a recorded observation, there’s no way anyone can check the legitimacy of what’s being said. Yes, even government officials can be wrong, or fudge figures on the fly…so you have to understand how flimsy this is from our perspective. It’s significant to you, because you have a bias to confirm…we don’t share the same bias, and so we recognize how moot this cherry picked “evidence” of yours really is…it’s very clearly confirmation bias, very weak stuff.
Space isn’t a vacuum like a vacuum cleaner…it doesn’t suck on anything, that’s not what’s implied by vacuum. 🤦♂️ It’s an empty space void of all matter…that’s the definition of vacuum being used here. Our atmosphere is created and contained by gravity, that’s why it’s higher pressure closer to surface and gets gradually less pressurized the higher you go. Even Flat Earth has verified the vacuum of space, I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons they’ve put up into high altitudes…did you happen to watch the end of most of these videos, where the balloons eventually pop, as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions? So even Flat Earthers have verified space…you know what they’ve never found though? A container.
2
-
2
-
@1FeistyKitty I work from home, I’m a digital artist, so I’m pretty much always in front of a computer…nobody pays me to talk to idiots online, I just hate misinformation and feel it shouldn’t be allowed to fester, so call it a public service I guess…but it’s really just a sad hobby. What’s interesting to me though, is that you’re so unwilling to accept or even consider the possibility that you could be wrong, that you’re delusional mind reasons instead that we must be paid shills, instead of actually listening to what we’re saying…have you been on Earth long? Welcome to the Internet…correcting people is pretty standard here, it’s Cunningham’s law, look it up sometime. Nobody pays me to be here, I gladly do it for free…you’re helping conmen perpetuate bullshit, so I’m here to challenge that bullshit, so hopefully others don’t fall victim to those lies…that is all.
“What keeps the Moon from slowing down?”
Law of inertia, and Conservation of momentum…basic physics of motion. Motion is constant, unless there’s something present to slow it down, like air resistance, which creates friction. There’s no air in space, so no friction…so the Moon will travel indefinitely, that’s how motion works.
Water only has trillions of tons because of gravity…that’s what creates weight. You don’t always have weight, you have mass…but weight is dependent on gravity. I’m sure you understand how a scale works, you press down upon the surface to generate pressure that the scale registers as a weight value, so scale only works if you apply a downward force to create pressure. But if you place an object on the scale, and it applies pressure generating a weight value…who’s pushing down on it to apply force? Gravity…the force of gravity. It’s always there, attracting everything to surface…weight is created when gravity squeezes you to surface, that’s all weight is. That’s why you’re considered weightless in free fall, you still have mass, you alway have mass, but weight is created by gravity…this is basic physics. Water is inert, it has no means to resist gravity….you and me and all living things however, burn energy, we then put into muscles, we can then use to resist gravity for short periods of time. Does water have muscles? Should be pretty self explanatory…but what happens when you die and your body is no longer capable of producing energy? You come crashing down to Earth, unable to resist gravity any longer, you become inert…just like water. Gravity doesn’t just shut off cause you can walk around…do you feel heavy? That’s gravity…your weight is gravity. :/
What other force is present that would take water from off of Earth? Where would the “trillions of tons” of water go, if gravity wasn’t present? Seriously…use your head fir a moment, picture Earth out in space…take gravity away, what happens to the water, where’s it gonna go? What force is gravity fighting against? None…there’s just gravity. Your argument is implying that Earth’s water is actively resisting gravity…as if it has any means of doing that. It doesn’t, like us, it’s trapped in Earth’s gravity well, it’s not going anywhere.
Gravity doesn’t hold the Moon up🤦♂️, it just keeps it in orbit. An orbit is basically just a balance between forward velocity and gravity, the Moon is technically falling towards Earth, but its forward velocity keeps it falling around Earth…get it yet? This isn’t difficult, look up Newton’s cannonball analogy.
You’re not very bright…that’s how you fell for the dumbest con online.
2
-
@1FeistyKitty It’s not a mirage…it’s refraction, the bending of light, not the mirroring of light. Refraction alters what we see at distances, making it possible to see further than is geometrically possible. That’s what that paragraph is stating…not clear air, it’s talking about refraction…it even says it right in the paragraph. :/
If you require a clear example of refraction to prove it’s a real phenomenon, look up the Rainy Lake experiment. Shouldn’t be hard to find the research blog with a quick search. Click on the section labelled as “observation of refraction”, you’ll find some images taken at the experiment, images 32 and 33 being the clearest example of refraction. Then watch the time lapse video of refraction…clearly demonstrating how as refractive index increases, distant objects appear to rise up higher than they were. If they’re originally behind curvature, they then become visible over it.
Refraction is very real…and it’s why we see further than we should. Flat Earthers never factor refraction into any observation…but it’s very important. It’s why we see Chicago across Lake Michigan…sometimes. Did you know refractive conditions have to be just right to see Chicago from the shore from 50 miles? It doesn’t happen every day, only when refraction allows for it. It’s an Optical phenomenon…which is what that paragraph is describing. Please research refraction.
2
-
What math are you using to reach your figures? My calculations for Chicago, with a 6 foot viewing height at a shore, brings the calculated geometric hidden by horizon to 1473 feet…that’s a line of sight calculation. Your calculation doesn’t factor observer height…does it…so I can only assume you’re using the 8 inches per mile squared formula…typical. A lot of Flat Earths problems start with using the wrong math…and that math is the worst offender. It doesn’t represent line of sight, has no variable for height of observer…which is a very important variable in long distance observations. I’m sure even you understand that going higher allows you to see further…so it’s a pretty damn important variable. Your math doesn’t include that…so it’s wrong, it’s pretty simple. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion…it’s not rocket science.
Then there’s refraction. With even just standard refraction (the average refractive index), it brings that down to 1249 feet. But, refraction is always more than standard over large bodies of water, so more like 1000 feet. Did you know there’s about 3 buildings over 1400 feet, and roughly 7 buildings over 1000 feet tall in Chicago downtown, without the adding surface elevation of roughly 100 feet? So if refraction is high enough, ya, you’ll easily see Chicago when conditions are favourable…and that’s what happens.
You’re not doing much here to provide valid evidence, just doing bad math and ignoring important variables.
2
-
@1FeistyKitty Oh boy.🤦♂️ You love lying don’t you…to yourself. No…Samuel Robothams Bedford Level experiment was flawed and was proven flawed upon peer review. He used the wrong math, made only one observation, with no extra data sets, ignored refraction, and simply did not do enough to render a conclusive result. Upon peer review his experiment was falsified, by way of being extremely inconclusive. But Rowbotham kept peddling his conclusion anyway. Eventually, he convinced a rich benefactor of his bullshit experiment, John Hampden, and he put up a bet for anyone to try and disprove the experiment.
A surveyor named Alfred Russell Wallace then took up the challenge…and he succeeded. He proved the experiment was flawed, improved upon it and conducted a far more conclusive version of the experiment verifying that Earth was curving. The money was initially won by Wallace and awarded to him, but then Hapden sued…over and over again, until he finally found a judge that overturned the wager. His reason? Because Hampden technically dropped out of the wager before accepting Wallace’s entry…so on a technicality he had to give the money back, as the wager was considered void (according to that judge) if he dropped it before any entry could be accepted. The ruling had nothing to do with Earth’s shape, courts do not determine matters of science…they deal with law, not science. It ruled on the terms of the bet itself, not the science or the scientific conclusions.
Hampden was also imprisoned for trying to kill Wallace…did ya know that? The guy was crazy, as are everyone who falls into the bullshit pit of Flat Earth…it eventually drives them crazy. Hampden couldn’t accept that he was wrong…and it drove him mad. Which is what’s gonna happen to you eventually.
2
-
If everything requires a creator, who created God? You can say this creator always existed, but then why can’t the same be said about the universe in general? It’s circular reasoning. Either way, it’s a non falsifiable belief, really pretty pointless to debate. Big Bang says nothing about what came before Big Bang, and it doesn’t falsify God, it’s just interpreting data from the evidence of cosmic background radiation, and red shift in stars, that all correlates with our understanding of general relativity, to suggest everything started at a single point. It’s a conclusion drawn from the current evidence we have…that’s all. Science is happy to admit when it’s wrong, but then provide the evidence that proves it wrong…this isn’t difficult. Your non falsifiable belief in a creator does nothing to address the evidence of Big Bang cosmology….it’s just completely misunderstanding how science operates.
2
-
@marquism2920 Well, no, that’s an easy one. Wind is basically just a current of motion in our atmosphere, not much different from any current of motion, like a river, or the deep ocean currents (which is a more accurate comparison). It occurs for many reasons, all having to do with anything that can cause motion to occur in the molecules that make up our atmosphere. So air pressure, temperature fluctuations, Earth’s rotational motion, etc. You may not be aware of this but gas is classified as a fluid in physics, and behaves in many similar ways that liquid fluids do. Wind is just the air in motion, for various reasons. It’s just fluid mechanics, which is a whole field of physics.
You not currently understanding how winds occur, tells me your level of scientific literacy…that being not very high. Just because you don’t personally understand how something works, does not automatically mean others do not as well. Do some actual research on the wind, you’ll learn a lot about it…it’s very well understood today, with countless experiments that verify our understanding as accurate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
If I may, as far as I’m aware, the only thing that’s unknown/unverified about gravity at the current moment, is how exactly mass bends the fabric of space time, as in what mechanism is causing it. Whether it exists or not isn’t a question, things fall, it’s one of the easiest phenomenons of nature to observe. All other possible causes to the phenomenon have been falsified, while mass attracting mass through the curvature of space time has been observed and measured and tested rigorously, with all attempts to falsify it having failed. So what do you want science to conclude?
Being ignorant to the science isn’t a valid argument against it, denying the science simply because it’s not convenient for a bias position you hold isn’t very logical either. From what I’ve seen, that’s really all Flat Earth has done in its attempt to undermine gravity, deny it exists, rather than actually attempt at falsifying it.
Most are not so much angry as they are slightly frustrated, with how unreasonable a small minority are, when it comes to some physics. Though I suppose I can’t speak for everyone, but it should be pretty understandable, that scientists would get a bit annoyed by layman telling them how to do their jobs, essentially. It’s fair to have an opinion...but you’re really not falsifying gravity, by just simply denying it exists...yet these groups feel they can wipe away hundreds of years of science, without any process of falsification anyway. Science isn’t necessarily about proving things, having that sort of mindset is how you end up chasing bias. Science is more about falsification, doing everything you can to falsify a hypothesis, leaving only the likeliest conclusion. In that sense, I admire Flat Earth, because by this standard, nothing should be off the table for debate...but ignorance and denial are not how you go about it I’m afraid.
The unreasonable part comes from this mindset that thinks in absolutes, and thinks science does as well, holding this belief that if every detail of a concept is not known or understood completely yet, it must mean by default it’s not been proven yet. Science doesn’t work like that, it doesn’t really think in absolutes, it thinks in percentages of certainty, the conclusions being the highest percentage, with the most evidence supporting it.
What’s even more odd however, is these same individuals put such a standard of review on modern science, while never thinking these same standards should apply to them, conforming to a model that doesn’t work and is not representative of reality beyond “it looks flat”. An example is the dome firmament, is it safe to assume you believe this dome/container exists? If so, what evidence do you have that led you to that conclusion? Has it been observed? Measured? Interacted with in any way at all? What experiments have been done to verify its existence, beyond a shotty understanding of how atmospheric pressure physics works?
See the hypocrisy here a little bit? From what I’ve seen thus far, is a lot of layman, asking a great many questions of the heliocentric model and modern science, telling us how absurd it is to believe in a force we don’t know everything about yet (even though is has been measured and observed, and the modern understanding is currently used in applied science today), while at the same time believing in a massive dome, that’s never been tested, measured, or observed.
It’s pretty one sided, almost like confirmation bias leads your thinking, more than you probably realize.
But it’s fine really, the debate is a fun refresher on the science and a good exercise into how science has reached the conclusions it has. In all fairness as well, I am glad that SOMEBODY is still out there attempting to falsify established science like gravity. That’s what science is all about, asking questions, so who knows what they may find. I just wish they’d take it more seriously, rather than just doing it to spite science, to appease whatever resentment they have for science. That’s the vibe I get mostly, but by all means, if I’m ignorant to something yet to be explained or demonstrated to me, by all means, feel free to share.
2
-
@juantwothree11 Who’s “they”? Care to back that speculation up with any evidence? Or does every error you make just magically go away simply by saying “they”? Must be real nice to be a paranoid nut job, get to blame your incompetence on somebody else.
Also...I don’t think you know what ad hominem means, cause nothing I said was an ad hominem. Ad hominem only applies if I were to say your argument is wrong simply because of your class, race, gender, or status in life. If I were to use any of that as a counter argument, then I’d be committing ad hominem...simply pointing out how you’re wrong, is not ad hominem, criticism is not ad hominem...otherwise how would we ever be able to correct anyone’s errors? You’re an idiot yes, doesn’t make you wrong by default...your argument does. Furthermore, insulting you is also not an ad hominem, I can insult you all I want, so long as I’m not bringing up your character or status in life as my core argument. So learn your fallacies please.
You know, we wouldn’t need to correct you on definitions...if you’d just use words and fallacies properly. :/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fpvangel4495 Idiocy is believing the Earth is flat in 2022. Idiocy is falling for the dumbest con online today, simply because you’ve never travelled. Idiocy is arguing there’s no way of crossing the IDL…with someone who’s crossed the IDL several times now. 😂 Idiocy is thinking an argument from ignorance (and zero real world experience), against an established fact of reality, made on a YouTube comment section, isn’t anything but embarrassing.
If you knew how Google Earth works, you’d understand that to draw that line the way he did, you require GPS data. You upload what’s called a KML file (which is basically GPS data)…it then draws the line from that data, from a GPS device. To do that manually to draw a line like that, would take hours…hundreds to even thousands of little inputs to get all the locations data in correctly. He did it 3 times…you really think he’d go to all that trouble just to con a few numpty’s online who have never travelled? He even shows his GPS tracker data in the video, and correlates it…showing you how those paths were made. It’s GPS data…which is exactly what you asked for.
If you think it’s wrong, then by all means, get on a plane and fly it yourself…like millions of people do every year. Unless you’re afraid? 🧐
You need a better hobby dude…this is hands down thee dumbest conspiracy online today. And you can check your own argument with one flight…I’ve gone across the pacific so many times, it’s a fact for me…you can do the same, whenever you choose…then you can see for yourself how stupid Flat Earth is.
2
-
Oh good, you like science. Well here’s an in-depth study and observation of curvature http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. It’s pretty clear here that the surface is curving.
With lasers, you’re always going to have troubles, because they are subject to refraction (reflecting/bending) and diffraction (expanding) in atmosphere, which increases with distance. Both of which make it a lot more difficult to get an accurate reading, because at distances the laser will no longer be tangent with starting point...like many seem to assume it would be. But they only assume this because they don’t really know much about laser physics.
This is basic physics of light, if you don’t believe me that laser light (or any light for that matter) can bend, it’s just cause you’ve never seen it before, so here’s a quick demonstration https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=278. Pretty simple experiment to recreate, demonstrating quite clearly why lasers aren’t as reliable and tangent as you think they are. So I’m afraid it’s not that simple...also, I can only assume you’re referring to the 8 inches per mile squared equation, which I’m afraid to tell you is not actually the accurate math for these observations. That is a basic parabola equation, not a spherical equation...it’s not very accurate in most applications I’m afraid, because it’s ignoring many important variables. Some key variables it’s missing for laser experiments would be height of the laser and refraction, just to name a few.
You can find a far more accurate equation here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
As for the level on a plane experiment, it’s inconclusive, because it ignores gravity physics. Even a basic understanding of gravity would tell you that the bubble would shift with gravity vectors over a curved surface, so the experiment neither verifies or falsifies either model, meaning it’s inconclusive. So it’s a bad experiment really, not useful for determining anything conclusive.
If we actually were to look at each point scientifically, these are the problems they need to address. It’s not quite as simple as you want it to be I’m afraid. Flat Earth likes to claim it’s being scientific...while at the same time being completely ignorant to some pretty basic science.
2
-
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 “Ask God”…what a cop out 🙄, typical answer from a person with no answers, and no real interest in finding them. The whole point of science is to study physical reality to deduce how it works, to deduce cause and effect relationships…that includes answering questions like why things fall, and why that direction is always down. God doesn’t answer these questions…so we have too solve them ourselves. If everyone just resorted to “asking god” every time we got stumped on a problem or question…we’d have accomplished nothing. Thankfully, scientists don’t waist their time, they do the work, they pay attention, they figure it out for themselves through experimentation…and guess who benefits for all that effort? Everyone does…you’re certainly happy to use all the technology science has made possible, yet you use it to spit in their face…such arrogance.
If your God truly loved us, then it would probably greatly admire and respect our tenacity to discover and learn for ourselves…what loving parent doesn’t want their children to succeed and stand on their own?
“Has anyone proven gravity?”
Yes, Henry Cavendish proved and measured the universal force of gravity by mass attraction, with his Cavendish experiment, roughly 200 years ago. It’s repeatable science, here’s a very simple demonstration https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. It’s not a long video, in 7 minutes you can learn all about it. You say to test everything…so how about you take your own advise, and recreate the Cavendish experiment. Further experimentation has proven it further, everything from drop tests in vacuum, to the Eddington experiment, to the applied science of orbital mechanics, and every equation that uses the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2) in a working formula. Science is more than happy to learn of how they may be wrong about something, science is all about falsification…but you’re certainly not gonna falsify anything with ignorance…that’s a you problem.
Yes, gravity explains a great many things…it’s one of the 4 fundamental forces of reality for a reason, but so what? You’re acting like you have some form of argument here…as if it’s false simply because it accounts for so many things in our reality…but where’s the logic un that? 🤷♂️ Look up ‘argument from personal incredulity’, because that’s all your argument is. Denial and ignorance are not valid arguments I’m afraid…it’s just plain ol’ ignorance to confirm a bias.
You’re doing a fine job demonstrating that you don’t really know much about modern science…is it any wonder why you’ve reached so many erroneous conclusions? Not really…that tends to happen when you lack information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ramonortiz7462 Here’s an experiment you can do, super simple; get yourself two cameras, and find yourself a merry go round (or tape em to a yard stick and you can act as centre of rotation, doesn’t really matter). Now put one camera on the outer edge pointing straight out from centre, then the second camera put at rotational centre pointing in the exact same direction in line with the first camera. Now rotate…the outer edge will be going faster (in terms of linear velocity), while the centre camera will be going slower, yet they’ll both see the exact same degrees of rotation per span of time. Why? Because while the outer circumference is going faster, it’s also got a further distance to travel around…but they’re both on the same surface, all of it rotating at the same rate….sooooo, they’re gonna rotate at the exact same rate. Pretty darn simple. 😄
You need to seriously question the position you’re currently holding, because it is fucking stupid my dude.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@corporaterobotslave400 Their argument there is generally that we can’t assume the Earth is a planet like all the other celestial objects...cause space doesn’t exist either according to them. Which sadly...does have some logic to it, but only if you completely ignore all the evidence of space and all the evidence of Earths true geometry. They don’t seem to realize that the Globe model didn’t start with figuring out how space works, it started with the basic geometric shape and dimensions of the ground beneath their feet, and worked up from there. Once that was verified undeniably spherical, then we could move on to solving the rest...and it all makes sense together, cohesively, without contradiction, all other parts of model helping to explain the rest...while they have zero answers for anything....they’d prefer to just make up bullshit.
Which is the most absurd part about it really...they’ll go around yelling that we can’t assume the Earth is a planet...but then they have no problem turning around and assuming it’s an “endless plane” and there’s a “dome firmament” above our heads....while meanwhile having zero tangible evidence for either claim. So they don’t even stick to their own logic...which points out their hypocrisy.
Yes, if we were to ignore all other evidence of Earths geometry, and all evidence of the existence of space, then sure, we then can’t assume the Earth is similar to anything we observe in the sky. But we don’t live in 500 BC anymore...we do have evidence today, more then that we have a working model that’s used in every applied science today, so we’re not assuming anything. They’re just absolutely delusional people...though I’m sure I didn’t need to tell you that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joaopintovb Laugh all you want, but Newton penned a lot of the first laws of physics that real scientists and engineers actually use to build a lot of technologies you use today…what have you accomplished in your life so far? 🧐 One of the laws he penned was gravity, it’s where the concept started.
It’s a pretty simple observation he made; drop something, does it fall? Yup, sure does. Is falling a motion? Yup, it sure is. What is the fundamental cause for all change in state of motion? A force, nothing is put into motion without a force to cause it…that’s physics 101. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that; we observe a very clear falling motion when you drop something, that always falls in the same direction towards surface, that motion occurs free of any control you have over it, meaning it’s a phenomenon of reality, meaning there’s an attractive force present putting matter into motion downward towards surface…it’s really that simple. All he did then was give it a name, because it’s pretty important to label every force we identify in physics, so we’re all on the same page when discussing it.
Laws of science merely describe WHAT is occurring, but make no attempt at explaining WHY or HOW they occur, that’s what scientific theories are for…that’s the difference between them. Both of them are comprised of proven facts, nothing graduates past hypothesis and into a law or theory, without tangible evidence that is verifiable and repeatable. So don’t let the wording fool you, scientific theories are basically proven facts, they’re very different from regular theories. In science, hypothesis takes the role of a regular theory, that being educated guess. The word is used very differently in science.
You really need to learn some physics, these are good questions you’re asking, but they are not new questions, they’ve long been answered.
2
-
What's hilarious is that you actually think the Flat Earth does work and match with reality. Do you spend any time looking at how a Flat Earth works exactly? Start with a sunset...how the fuck does a sun set on a flat Earth exactly? You wanna talk about tweaking a model when it doesn't work...just look at the mess that is the Flat Earth attempts at a model of any kind. Fuckin full of holes that can't be patched, a lot of leaps of logic that amount to nothing more then ramming square pegs in round holes, and it's broken no matter how you look at it...which is why they prefer not looking at it, and why many even go so far to conclude models are useless. Excuses, to keep themselves ignorant to the fact that they're wrong.
When it comes to the Globe model, anytime a "hole" in the model is pointed out...it always ends up being a misunderstanding from the individual pointing out that hole, not an actual hole in the model itself. So do you EVER consider the possibility, that MAYBE things don't make sense to you, because YOU are misunderstanding it? Does that ever compute...or do you just immediately always assume that if it doesn't make sense to you, then it's not true?
You are kidding yourself, if you think the scientific community built the entire world you see around you today....without knowing the true shape of the planet this whole time. It's like you people are competing in a 'most stupid and ignorant contest' or something....wake the fuck up, we have satellites in orbit right now....taking fucking pictures of a Globe Earth, that use it's gravity to achieve and maintain those orbits. This is not a debate anymore, NOBODY in the scientific community, believes the Earth is Flat...and that's for a good reason. Just because YOU don't personally understand how everything works, does not mean the world is therefore flat. Maybe it's more likely, that you're not as smart as you think you are. That's a lot more plausible to me.
2
-
@Smhallways The teacher in your example would then explain the science of relative motion a little. Not a hard concept to test directly either, get in a car and toss a ball up in the air while driving down a highway, why didn’t the ball smash you in the face when it left your hand? Because of conservation of momentum, which is the first law of motion. Everything in motion moves relative to the system they’re in, a helicopter is rotating with the Earths surface, it will conserve that momentum and continue to rotate with it once it’s in the air.
Pretty basic physics, easily understood and easily demonstrated...like most of general physics. No big expensive equipment required.
Flat Earth thinks it knows everything...but the fact is they’re reaching a great many false conclusions, simply from a lack of basic knowledge of reality and how it works. With just a basic level of physics knowledge, anyone can debunk this internet scam.
Though I will agree that the kid asking questions shouldn’t be shamed for that, asking questions is how you learn...but if his intention was to hold the question up as some kind of evidence, as snarky kids and people often do, if he’s not asking with any interest in hearing an answer, because he’s convinced already that there is no answer...then that’s not critical thinking, that’s a closed mind who thinks it knows everything.
2
-
@Smhallways Well, I wouldn’t say that kid is a flat Earther just yet, just curious (hopefully) and interested to know things for certain. It’s human nature to scoff at the absurd, it’s generally everyone’s first reaction, so don’t be to surprised I say. Kids especially are bad for that, but a good teacher would recognize that all their students learn at different rates, and they would then take this as a good opportunity to teach those kids both the value of asking questions AND they would teach them all something new about physics, because truth is it was a very good question. I agree with you that it’s good to think for yourself rather than always agree with the group, but if you’re just asking out of resentment, to stick it to the teacher or the class, no intention to maybe learn something, that’s not critical thinking, it’s trolling, it’s asking questions for all the wrong reasons.
Also, the explanation does matter, if you didn’t know the answer. If not then I hope I was able to help you with that quandary.
2
-
2
-
Well, that’s looking at it optimistically, but history has shown that even a slight change of temperature can turn into a runaway effect pretty quickly, that can throw off the whole ecosystem and potentially cause mass extinction events. So why risk it? I’m already seeing more forest fires in my area alone, than I’ve ever experienced in my 36 years of living here…and that seems pretty standard for the rest of planet, judging by the fires sweeping the West Coast America, Greece, Australia, the Amazon, etc.
I’m just seeing the effects getting worse…not better. Very few areas seem to be benefiting from this, as you’re proposing they should be. I’m not seeing more rain…I’m seeing more drought, and more fires. I’m not seeing longer growing seasons, I’m seeing patchy fields just struggling to grow in these hotter summers. In other areas, they’re flooding…so good luck doing anything in a place that never stops raining.
So I don’t know what you’re seeing…but it’s not what I’ve been seeing the last decade or so. Exactly what scientists warned us about…that’s what I’m seeing. So I’m inclined to believe them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JasonsMove You always look down towards horizon, that’s why viewing height is important to include because the higher you are the more you see over the curvature…it’s like looking over a hill. At 6 foot viewing height, your horizon would just be beginning at 3 miles, so nothing would be obscured from your vision for the first 3 miles, at that viewing height. Horizon is the point where Earth curve begins to obstruct your line of sight of surface, so horizon would be the point where things start to drop out of your vision…it doesn’t happen immediately.
8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math my dude…you’re never gonna understand how this works if you keep using it. But I can keep showing you the many ways it’s wrong if you’d like.
Go to the metabunk curve calculator, it’s a far more accurate curvature calculation that does actually factor height of the observer as a variable. There’s a pretty handy diagram included under the calculator, can probably help you understand better why height of observer is so important to include as a variable, also has a link in the calculator to a forum thread breaking down the math in greater detail, and it’s just basic trig functions, so pretty simple math. Not as simple as your parabola equation, but at least it’s accurate and actually represents line of sight over a curvature. 😄
2
-
2
-
2
-
Refraction is one of the simplest concepts in physics to test and verify, ever observed a pencil in a glass of water? https://www.ck12.org/physics/refraction/lesson/Refraction-of-Light-PHYS/ Then you’ve verified refraction. It’s also not difficult to demonstrate how the effect can cause you to see over a curve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t So it happens and so it can not be ignored.
If you’d like to learn more about how it works on our Earth over long distances, here’s a great resource that goes into pretty good detail and has also quantified it, which he’s then mocked up into a great simulator. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/ The simulator you can find here. https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/
Here’s another great resource, this is a recreation of that Bedford Level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Scroll down to the second half of this report, where it goes into great detail on atmospheric refraction. Images 31 and 32 are what you should really pay close attention too, if you honestly believe refraction is a variable we can just ignore.
The truth is simple, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy experiment that ignored refraction (among many other variables, he also did the wrong math), which renders his experiment inconclusive. Your ego may not like to allow you to admit it, but yes, smarter people than yourself are figuring these things out. While Flat Earth is conning people and teaching them it’s ok to ignore variables so you can confirm a bias...not exactly a winning strategy in peer reviewed science.
Science doesn’t ask that you listen blindly to them and never challenge them, it’s the media that tells you that nonsense. In reality, science is all about falsification, scientists make their careers by challenging the status quo, not by going along with consensus. Just look at Einstein for example, he challenged the work of Newton...the difference he has with Flat Earth is that he was successful and he did while remaining objective. So in reality, science strongly encourages people question everything...it’s Flat Earth that asks you to never question them. If I were you, I’d start questioning them a lot more...you might learn who the real liars are if you do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CalsTube They don’t ignore that, they just understand that centrifugal force generated by an object rotating at the rate of 0.000694 RPM’s (1 rotation every 24 hours) isn’t going to produce near enough centrifugal force to overcome gravity, not even close. But it does generate some, did you know everything weighs slightly less at the Equator where centrifugal force is greatest? About 0.3% less from the poles, where’s there’s no centrifugal force. You can actually test this with some travel, a set of weights, and a simple scale.
I can help most people understand centrifugal force a bit better, with one simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a race car, travelling at a constant 200 mph, going around a perfect circle track that’s only 1000 meters circumference. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, in fact it would likely be very difficult to stay on the track, and you’d be flung to the door. Now let’s do it again, same car, same velocity, except now we’re driving on a track that’s 1000 miles in circumference. Would we expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? Nope, in fact you probably wouldn’t feel any, the course would be turning so gradually, it would be very easy to stay on track, no noticeable centrifugal force at all.
But why? You’re travelling at the same linear speed…so why is there less centrifugal force? Because rate of rotation has decreased due to the increase in circumference, which has decreased the rate of angular velocity change per second…which is the root of centrifugal force.
So why doesn’t Earth toss everything off of it due to its rotation? Because it’s not rotating fast enough, to overcome gravity. 0.000694 RPM’s is VERY slow, for comparison, a Gravitron ride at your local fair rotates at 24 RPM’s…huge difference. The tennis ball example Flat Earthers keep using, is an example of a ball rotating at hundreds to thousands of RPM’s…so lots of centrifugal force, far more than 0.000694 RPM’s will ever produce. So it’s a false comparison, comparing something with a very high rotational velocity, to a much much slower rotation.
Gotta factor every variable and consider the entirety of the physics.
2
-
1. Yes, we all know what a vanishing point is (at least anyone who has studied perspective for any reason), but here's the thing about vanishing point...it doesn't pick and choose what to make disappear first. Vanishing point converges from all angles equally and at the same rate of instance. What Flat Earth fails at here, is they assume these observations of a boat going over a horizon were made with the naked eye...and no, they weren't. That is demonstrating vanishing point, when cause then a boat just disappears from view, it has reached your eyes physical limit to render that light. But people of old who first made these observations were likely using retractable telescopes, which were very common for ship captains and fishermen of the time, so they were looking at these boats and ships at full zoom AND THEN they observed them going over curvature, disappearing bottom first. Tell me, do you think zooming in anymore will bring this boats bottom half back into view? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw&t=20s No...it won't, zoom in as much as you like, it has gone over curvature. Flat Earth doesn't look at these examples...they only pay attention to the examples that support their bias. Frankly you people are not very objective...and you rarely think to leave the camera rolling once you're at full zoom. Here's what you'll see every time if you leave the camera rolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi23xZmS03Q
2. Yes, we can verify that today very easily...this experiment has been repeated many times now. Eratosthenes was a highly educated man and was a brilliant mathematician...he likely did not fuck around, he would have made damn sure that angle was at 90 degrees in Cyene. Though it doesn't even matter now if he didn't...cause like I said, this experiment is repeatable and has been recreated and even done better. I hear a lot of Flat Earths also make the claim that this same experiment works on a Flat Earth with a local Sun...but then did any of these people think to TEST that claim? Cause we have...and when you do test the shadow angles from many different locations (I mean more then 2 locations), they do not point to a local...heck, they rarely point to a local sun even with just 2 locations tested. Here's a couple of examples of this test being recreated today, the results are pretty damning for the Flat Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=440s - Great experiment, using several different locations all over the Globe during the same time at the Equinox. If you're pressed for time, just watch the final 2 minutes of the video where he shares the results and compares the data gathered on a Flat Earth and then on a Globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg - Here is the Equinox tested again, only this time the data is plotted in 3D space...and it shows even more accurately, that the Shadow angles DO NOT line up and point toward a local Sun.
3. How'd they make sure to do this at the exact same time of year? Simple, they tested it during the Summer Solstice...which they knew occurred at the same time every single year. They knew this for several reasons...they were the fucking Greeks...these people started the calenders we now use today, they were genius mathematicians. They also had Sundials that tracked their day and told them when Noon was...but here's the big one, they knew it was the Summer Solstice on that day, because Cyene falls under the Solar Path of the Sun during this time of year. It was the only town in that area that fell directly on the Solar Path during Summer Solstice. This does something very interesting, at Noon the Sun falls directly above, making the shadow angles for that area appear to disappear...that's how directly light from the Sun is hitting this town at Noon on that day...and it happened like clock work, every single year, at the same time. Eratosthenes knew this, and he knew when the Summer Solstice would arrive again and then all he had to do was measure the shadow angle in Alexandria at Noon...and he knew that Noon would be the same time in Cyene, because they lie on close to the same Longitude, which means they share the same hours and the same Noon. Using sundials, he was able to know when Noon was, and so all he had to do then was measure the Shadow angles at Noon. Not simple for anyone else of the time to figure out...but Eratosthenes was not just anybody, he was one of the geniuses of his time. Then once he had the shadow angles, and confirmed they were different, all he needed was the accurate distance from Alexandria to Cyene. Once he knew that, it's just a simple bit of Trigonometry and he could figure out the Circumference of the Earth with accuracy...and he was crazy close.
So maybe learn these things in greater detail before you go running your mouth off about them. You claim you're not a Flat Earther...but you're using the same stupid logic and reasoning that they do...holding the gaps in your knowledge up as some sort of proof for something. You could have just searched for these answers...you do live in the information age today.
2
-
@zaidkassab I understand your convergence argument, but understand this...things do not drop due to this convergence. If the Earth were Flat, then the relative height would remain exactly where it is, in perspective, if something is at eye level, it does not drop below eye level...and the thing is, things in reality don't just get hidden by curve, they also drop beyond curve. This isn't how perspective works, but curvature yes. Convergence also can not explain why thousands of feet go missing at the base of mountains. It can maybe explain away why boats lose some of their bottoms, but not mountains, with thousands of feet missing at their base.
Here's a great video that demonstrates this pretty clearly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU If you're pressed for time, just start it at the 6 minute mark and watch from there where he compares a flat Earth with a Globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SuperMic00 So we’ve been waiting for days now, for YOU to stay on the original topic, and answer for a lunar eclipse…and somehow I’m the one that’s running in your beady little brain? 🤦♂️ Yes, you can see stars, but it really depends on the amount of sunlight your eye is receiving. Stars aren’t very bright compared to our Sun, so your eyes will adjust to filter light, so they will be very faint, unless you’re blocking the Sunlight somehow. A camera too, a camera adjusts for exposure, making it very difficult to photograph stars in space unless the suns light is being blocked. This is why stars not appear in most images of Earth, a cameras exposure must be lowered greatly to get a clear image of Earth. When exposure is lowered, the much fainter stars are filtered out in the final image…it’s basic photography knowledge.
Now, answer for the Lunar Eclipse…no running now, we’re all waiting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Globeisahoax You’re not getting it, there is geometry you can test through travelling the surface. Celestial observations and phenomena that are not possible on a flat Earth geometry…you can confirm these observations, like the 24 hour sun in both hemispheres, the different stars, the consistent drop of stars to horizon, the two separate celestial star rotations, etc, you can confirm them all with a little bit of travel. With just a basic understanding of geometry, you can deduce that these observations, and many others, are simply not possible on a flat Earth. They are however EXACTLY what you’d expect to see, from the perspective upon a spherical surface.
I’ve tested Earth’s geometry with observations I made myself. You likely just watched a few cleverly crafted YouTube videos, spin a lie for you, that you fell for easily, because of your lack of personal experiences in life. You need to travel more…stop falling for bullshit you find online.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JasonsMove Well, as an amateur astronomer most of my life, who’s travelled quite a lot and seen both celestial rotations (North and South), I’ve known the science behind Earth’s rotation for a very long time now….long before you ever got conned by the huxters online, who somehow convinced you it was flat…and for some reason you believed them without any question.
Aside from Coriolis drift, and the lesser known Eotvos effect, the Foucault pendulum and Gyroscope experiments have been detecting Earth rotation for close to 200 years now. More recently we use large area ring laser interferometers to also detect and measure Earth’s rotation, look up the ROMY lasers sometime. But my favourite technology that detects Earth rotation is probably the gyrocompass. It’s a great device, used for finding true North not magnetic North, that actually uses Earth rotation as part of its function. Look it up, they’re used aboard most modern sea vessels today…and have been for at least the past 80 or so years. They’re pretty interesting…because they use Earth’s rotation, so it’s not just a proven fact at this point, it’s an applied science. If Earth is not spherical and rotating, then the gyrocompass simply would not work as designed.
But, doesn’t take a whole lotta education or experience to understand how impossible two celestial rotations are…if Earth is flat with only ONE rotation around Polaris. Only takes a basic understanding of geometry. That observation doesn’t exactly fit a Flat Earth…not even slightly. The globe accounts for it with absolute ease though…it’s exactly what we’d expect to see. I’m grateful I got to see the South rotation long before this bullshit of Flat Earth started taking off again. You people could benefit from getting outside more…maybe you wouldn’t be so gullible if you spent more time out in the real world, rather than falling for dumb cons online.
2
-
@mrwallstreet1 That's really all I can ask anyone do, is look at the evidence, remain objective and honest while they do, and then come to their own conclusions after both sides of a topic has been properly analyzed. You are correct, that there is a lot more ad hominum and empty rhetoric in this particular discussion and I think it does more to drive people deeper down that rabbit hole, then it does to guide them out. People tend to double down on a belief, when somebody treats them like they're stupid for ever considering it...it's just basic human psychology, we do not enjoy being talked down too...it just pisses us off and makes us spiteful. There is nothing wrong with questioning what you are told, in fact it's quite logical, so in that respect, I actually admire Flat Earths stubborn tenacity, but that's about all I admire...at its core, I do find it's a movement born of paranoia and led by confirmation bias, neither of which are going to lead them to any actual truth.
Anyway, I can offer a few more points on Eric Dubay if you'd like. I do try my best to warn people about this man...because I feel he is a deeply disturbed individual, bordering on psychopath. I feel he's able to deliver his lies with such confidence, because he lacks empathy...that's what makes him so convincing, he never wavers in his delivery of information, and it creates the illusion of him being an expert. I didn't reach that conclusion lightly though, there are many sources online now that paint his true character, from his Nazi sympathizing beliefs, to his cruelty towards former love interests, to his public outbursts towards the other big names of Flat Earth, he displays a lot of the characteristics of extreme narcissism and a lack of empathy.
But, that's purely speculative, I'm no psychologist, so I really should avoid slander. That's just my personal opinion of Dubay, from what I've learned, he's not to be trusted.
But I can defeat his arguments with facts, that is easy to do actually. I'll give you one for now. I'm sure you've come across his "200 proofs of Flat Earth" video before. Pay attention to his second claim which states "horizon always rises to eye level". This is actually quite false and like all of his 200 "proofs" it is just an empty claim with no supporting evidence. His hope here is that nobody stops to question the claim...what's scary is that so many actually don't.
So lets look at the claim a little closer. Can you actually measure the horizon to see if it drops from eye level or not? Yes, you can. I know of two methods, one by using a simple leveling rig that anyone can build themselves using simple household supplies, the other is by using a surveyors tool known as a theodolite, which anyone can purchase or even download phone apps for. Here are a couple examples of people who have used both tools to help them discern if horizon drops or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUr9ymz_nVI - leveling rig.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc&t - theodolite.
Both experiments confirm, horizon does not actually rise to eye level as you go higher in elevation, it actually drops. So he lied...more then that though, he made an empty claim and provided no evidence for the claim. This is why people should be careful and not just listen to Dubay blindly...question him, or you will risk falling for those lies.
The first red flag should be that he doesn't provide actual evidence for anything he says, he only spouts out speculations. I think people need to really learn the difference between evidence and speculation...it matters. Anyone can make an empty claim like "horizon always rises to eye level", but it means nothing unless they have evidence that supports the claim. Dubay does not provide any evidence in his 200 proofs video...in reality it is just 200 empty claims, they are not proofs, they are speculations. In debating it's called a gish gallop argument, dumping many weak arguments on an individual in rapid fire, to make their main argument appear stronger then it actually is. It also makes it harder to go back and challenge each claim one by one, in debating, this style of arguing is not only frowned upon, it's generally not allowed.
Anyway, apologies for the rambling, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Feel free to share your own insights if you still disagree, I don't mind listening to an opposing viewpoint.
2
-
As someone who’s spent the last 4 years chatting with hundreds of Flat Earthers, I’m afraid you’re a bit off the mark on that one. A large majority of Flat Earthers (at least English speaking Flatties) are of Christian faith and beliefs I’m afraid, mostly born again Christian, but several devout lifers as well. Many were once Atheist (or claimed to be), but through flat Earth they found God again. I’ve heard that story now many times from them, and I’m sure many others like me have as well.
Many do believe Globe Earth was designed for the sole intention of pulling people away from God....which if you think on it, is really the only logical argument for WHY the “elites” of the world would lie about Earth’s shape. As much as I hate to admit it...there is logic there. That is, if I’m willing to ignore basic physics, geometry and geography of course...but for people who have probably never left their home town and aren’t very well versed in science or mathematics to begin with, that’s not hard to do....erhm, flatties not Christians.
I can really only speculate without hard data, but from my experience, at least 8 out every 10 I talked too...are Christian, or root their FE beliefs from Christian theology. It effects all walks of life of course, but from what I’ve noticed, it does have an even stronger effect on people of Christian faith....and I think it makes sense why, because for many, once they convince themselves the Globe was created to hide God...it’s game over, these people are not likely coming out if that delusion, because it means they get to take the Bible literally...and then everything else is just easy after that. Just think about it...It essentially turns faith into a certainty...no more questioning or doubt. For some of Christian faith, who tend to take things a lot more literal, I’m sure that would be a powerful feeling.
That’s just what I’ve noticed anyway, feel free to disagree, but in my experience it has a very religious following. To clarify though, I’m not saying Christianity is to blame or anything like that, it’s willful ignorance and paranoia that’s largely the problem, and of course the very large majority of Christians don’t believe this mess, I’m just saying it does appear to be more alluring for biblical literalists in particular.
2
-
2
-
1. No evidence of this dome, why is that exactly? If you believe it exists, then what evidence do you have in support of it? I hear a lot of butchered physics, confusing gas pressure with atmospheric pressure (which is not the same thing), but It is a physical object yes? It would have to be, to contain the atmosphere (as Flat Earthers claim), so why haven't we interacted with it yet? Why haven't we bounced or refracted lasers off of it? Why haven't we bounced radar off of it? We do both with the Moon and we also bounce radar off of Venus, it's one of the many ways we measure their distance to us...so why haven't we done the same with this dome? Basically, why believe in a dome that has never been discovered with tangible evidence supporting it?
2. Do you think it should be easy? Have YOU ever put a rocket into space? Do you know how hard it was to put even ONE rocket into space? Do you know how expensive it is? We just started space exploration not more then 60 years ago...we've had power for over the last 200 years, and it's really only been accessible to everyone around the world for the last 80-100 years or so....things take time. Infrastructure takes time to build, research takes time to establish, funding takes time to acquire. If you think space travel is easy...you're kidding yourself. In the grand scheme of things, space exploration is still in its infancy stage. Give it time.
3. All we can really do here is make empty speculations, and I'd rather focus on things that can be verified...but I will offer a counter argument anyway, just cause I know your bias leans you to believe there probably is no counter position to this one...there is. Operation Fishbowl was part of a much larger mission, to test Nuclear arms in various environments, to see what they did. This is quite typical during the testing process of any new weapon...you want to know its limits, its strengths, its weaknesses...you want to test it adequately. So they launched 6 war heads into the upper atmosphere, about 75 - 100,000 feet altitude (much to low to hit any perceived dome). What they learned was that when you detonate a Nuke in upper atmosphere, the EMP and radio black out travels MUCH further...as does the fall out. So they learned a lot from testing in upper atmosphere. They named it Operation "Fishbowl", because when you blast a nuke in upper atmosphere, it punches a large hole in the clouds.
Here's why I hate this argument from Flat Earth...you don't know shit about this operation...you just hear the words "Fishbowl" and learn that they were firing nukes in upper atmosphere...and then you go "hmmm...fishbowls are made of glass, the dome is made of glass, they were trying to punch a hole in the dome!" that's about as far as your research goes here...empty speculations, conjectures, paranoid claims that have NO evidence. It is a waste of time...and neither side can verify anything, but at LEAST the globe side digs deeper then the title and the basic information.
4. You pretty much forfeit yourself from conversation the moment you say things are "just a theory". It tells the rest of us...that you don't quite know or understand the language of science. If you don't even speak the language...what reason do we have to believe you're able to interpret much of what science says? A theory in science is very different from the usual use of the word theory. A scientific theory is the highest level, any concept that explains HOW something works, can ever achieve in science. Hypothesis in science takes on the usual definition of the word theory. Hypothesis is just an educated guess basically, that is untested and unverified, but that has scientific backing to be possible. A theory, is a tested, verified and peer reviewed concept, that does not reach that status, until it has been proven beyond much doubt, to be damn near a fact. NOTHING that explains how something works, graduates beyond a theory in science, it is the highest it can go.
They chose that word for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and because there is simply too much for us to learn, we likely NEVER will learn everything. So because we don't know everything and never will, this means that old information pretty much always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired. A fact is something that does not change, facts just are what they are...also facts don't describe how something works, that's not the position of a fact. Theory is the word they chose in science, not to be confused with a Law either, which is just describing WHAT is happening, not explaining or demonstrating HOW it works at the mechanical level. You were taught all of this in your science classes during school...it was likely the very first thing they taught you in science.
It's very frustrating to have a conversations with people...when they don't even have the basics down. It's not your fault entirely, nobody knows everything and not everyone has interest in science enough to learn its tenants to the letter...but I am getting tired of people saying "it's just a theory". No...it's not just a theory....it's verified, peer reviewed science, with mountains of research, data, observation, experimentation and evidence supporting it. NOTHING graduates to that level, until it has been verified past hypothesis.
So a theory in science holds a lot more importance then you think. If I give you any slack here, it's that you're a tiny bit right, a theory in science always has potential to change. But unlike the general public who tend to think more in black and white certainty's and absolutes, science prefers to operate in percentages and margins of error. Some theories are fare more established then others. They never conclude anything with 100% certainty, but when it comes to the shape of the Earth, this is probably the most certain science is about anything else, concluding to be probably a 99.99999% certainty. Not much margin of error there...they're pretty damn certain about this science. Evolution, a lot less certain, maybe about 99%, Big Bang maybe about 90%, Dark matter and Dark Energy, about 45%...you see how science operates yet? When something can come along that CAN successfully replace any existing theory, then it will take its place. But they're not just going to roll over and listen blindly to old theories and paranoid empty speculations. They're going to review it and challenge it...and we have, Flat Earth is not reality.
5. I'm not religious and never have been, so I don't believe in anything the bible says. It has no place in a discussion of science, so this is an irrelevant point to me, it holds zero bearing on science. Don't get me confused though, I don't believe in man made religions, God I actually do find to be a logical conclusion to reach, I just very much doubt any of us have that interpretation correct. I don't like arguing religion though, because I don't like being a dick about my beliefs in that regard. I know it means a lot to you most likely, it's not my place to tell you what to believe. I will argue against the firmament, because that is something that so far does not align with reality, it has no tangible evidence supporting it, but beyond that...nothing really here in this point to discuss for me.
I hope you find these counter positions at the very least interesting. I don't intend to mock or insult, I just prefer to be objective and I enjoy the discussion, you seemed like a civil enough person to maybe listen and discuss further. I don't mind learning new things, so feel free to continue if you'd like.
2
-
2
-
@multymind4744 So let's look closer at your "walking upside down video" quandary. So for starters, zooming in on people is stupid, they're just far too small, so that's out. Buildings are a better shot, but even buildings are tiny compared to the Earth, that much I do hope we both agree upon and understand, no need to delve further into that. So this means they'd require a camera with a very powerful telescopic lens of some kind. Do any satellites currently have such a lens equipped? I'm really not sure, but I do know it's not wise to assume. People seem to have watched a lot of spy movies...it's made it harder for some to separate some facts from fantasy. What I do know, is that Google Earth does not actually use satellites in its close up street mappings, they actually use planes to scan the surface. It says so right on their page...they do not use satellites in their close ups, probably because no satellites are currently in orbit, capable of zooming into surface...like we've all been led to believe, from spy movies. But that's just speculation, I currently do not know for certain.
There is the Hubble telescope, and other telescopes like it. But these are very large mirror telescopes, not designed for zooming into surfaces, that are only a few thousand kilometers away...they're built for viewing things TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of kilometers away and the objects they're viewing are the largest objects in existence, stars, nebulas, galaxies...they're not buildings. So it'd be like turning an extremely powerful telescope around inside your bedroom, and trying to focus in on something that's really small within your room....it's not gonna work very well, it's simply not designed for it. So the Hubble is out, it's not made for that kind of imagery.
But lets assume they could zoom in close enough to capture an image of buildings at the side, now how much atmosphere would they have to look through? To catch buildings on their side, they'd have to be on the edges relative to the camera, at a total 90 degrees perpendicular to the camera. So that means, from that angled shot, you'd be looking through a ton of atmosphere, hundreds of kilometers most likely...with clouds...clouds would be the hardest part, because they don't exactly care what picture we're trying to take...they do not just go away.
Through all that cloud cover and atmosphere, it would be likely impossible....and that's only assuming the technology does actually exist.
And even if they did go through all that trouble....you guys still wouldn't believe it anyway, you'd just call it computer generated, so what would be the point? They already take full pictures of the Earth, they have been for the last 60+ years, long before computer generated imagery was even possible. That's good enough for the rest of us.
2
-
@multymind4744 Yes, but the Moon is 1/4 the size of Earth....it's not exactly a tiny building, now is it? Each crater, is miles in diameter, some are hundreds of miles...they're not tiny in the slightest. Size kind of matters here, the bigger something is, the easier it is too see at distances...right? That's pretty common sense. Can you zoom in on the Moon lander with your P900 or cell phone? No...in fact I'm not even aware of any telescopes that are capable.
I'm not saying it's impossible to get the images you're asking for, because I truly don't know for certain if it is or isn't, my point is that people shouldn't be so quick to assume things. And also, why would they want too? If their goal is to see the curvature...then filming the Earth in its entirety would meet that goal...and so that's what they generally do. The only people who seem interested in the image you're asking for, are Flat Earthers...but those same people just say everything NASA does is CGI, how would that change even if they got you exactly what you asked for? It likely wouldn't, even if they gave you that video, it would be hand waved aside as fake. So it's a bit pointless.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He didn't need too, he knew exactly where the Sun would be during the summer solstice at noon, right above that well in Syene, like it was every year, which is why that well was so interesting to him, it fell upon the direct solar path of the Sun, putting it at 0 degrees to the Sun every summer solstice. All he needed to do was go there first during one summer solstice to confirm that the Sun angle there was indeed 0 degrees, then he just had to wait a year for the next summer solstice, and then take a shadow measurement in his home city of Alexandria at the same time. The Greeks created some of the first calendars, and time keeping devices (sun dials), the summer solstice arrived like clock work every year, it wasn't hard for him to know when it was coming again.
So he didn't need a phone or a second person to help him out...just needed to be clever. Hardly matters though, because today we do have that technology and this experiment is very easy to repeat today. If you're interested, here's a group of people who did just that, except this time they took a lot more then 2 data sets, they took several from all around the world during the same time at Equinox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t The interesting thing about taking more than 2 data sets with this experiment, with 3 or more data sets you can actually pin point the location of the Sun in 3D space, which helps confirm whether the Earth is flat or globe. If you're pressed for time, the last 2 minutes of video is where he shares the results...spoilers, it doesn't end well for Flat Earth.
2
-
MagicLink43: As selfish as humans inherently are, we also developed certain survival traits that have helped us live and interact with others. We have compassion and empathy...or at least the vast majority of us do. There is only about 1% of the human population that are psychopathic by nature, which just means they lack empathy or at least they lack it to the normal extent...but you most likely have empathy and so do most of the people around you, so we all know that we do better when we're not fucking with each other in violent or cruel ways. Doesn't stop us completely, but it does more then you think it does to hinder our more selfish urges.
Look into Ayn Rand as well. She was a writer and philosopher who believed it was morally right to be remain as selfish as possible. She argued it was the best thing about you and me and it should be cultivated not shunned. A good example she used, was her husband. Selfishness is defined as looking out for ones self interests, but she noticed that it was more in her self interest to nurture her relationship with her husband as best she could, then it was to ignore him or abuse him in anyway. If he was happy, then it would help her as well to be happy, it brought her selfish joy to see her husband happy. Most would look at that as being Selfless, but she said it was more selfish, because in the end...she was doing it more for her own self interests then for his. But it didn't matter, because it was that selfishness that helped them both live very happy lives. Now, I don't agree with everything she said myself, because unfortunately greedy capitalistic wall street types twist her words and use them to justify all kinds of shitty deeds...but she did have some interesting outside the box ways of looking at the problem of selfishness. So ya, hope that helps ya. ^_^
2
-
2
-
@natemontgomery5740 Moisture? Really? That’s your argument? Even if it were true, it doesn’t do anything to falsify Earth curvature, doesn’t do anything to explain how or why the lighthouse drops below horizon the further you get from them. Currently, you’re just choosing and slotting in whatever assumed conclusion you want, without doing anything to prove it. You have a hypothesis at best, not a conclusion…but you’ve made your conclusion anyway. Then you people wonder why nobody takes Flat Earthers seriously. 🤦♂️
By your logic, we should be able to see the light source of a lighthouse, so long as it’s high up. Problem is, there’s many instances out at sea, where the light source is well under the horizon, while the beam is all you see, swiping at an angle over the horizon. What exactly is causing the lighthouse to dip below horizon? Why does the beam arc at an angle from under that horizon line? Perspective doesn’t do that, nothing above eye level should ever go below it…it’s a basic fundamental of perspective. Any light house is always going to be well above eye level for most sea vessels. Curvature makes perfect sense of why this occurs, but moisture…that’s a pretty poor argument. There’s variables in the observation that you are intentionally ignoring. To be fair, it’s a half truth, atmospheric density does eventually block our ability to see at distances…but then if that were the only variable, we’d expect everything to just fade away into the distance, not drop by hundreds of feet into and under horizon. Doesn’t add up…and I think even you have to realize that. Your hypothesis does not explain observations such as this https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk.
As for lasers, did you know that most laser targeting by military is not point to point? Most of it is “painted” by soldiers, drones, pilots, etc, out in the field. Ever heard that term “paint the target”? It means a soldier or drone is at a much closer range, out in the field, with a laser, and that’s what is pinpointing the target. It just gives a range, that a satellite above can then pinpoint, then an artillery crew can calculate that shot, and fire over the curvature, by lobbing a shot over it in a Parabolic trajectory, using the help of gravity to drop the projectile over time, at a predictable rate. It’s called drop charting, makes it possible to fire projectiles hundreds of miles over curvature, by simply raising the barrel and lobbing the projectile. Did you think shots fired from gunner ships were in perfectly straight tangent lines? If you did, then you really don’t know anything about what you’re attempting to argue about.
You’re just being extremely ignorant and stubborn, while doing really nothing to falsify the globe, or verify the conclusion you want to be true. It’s incredible to me what lengths people will go to, just to rationalize the bullshit they’ve chosen to believe. Get a better bullshit filter.
2
-
Ya, all science starts with assumptions, that’s basically what a hypothesis is…a guess formed from prior knowledge. So what’s your point? 🤷♂️ You’re not mentioning anything we don’t already know. But those assumptions are tested, and tested, and tested again. If they hold up to all attempts at falsification, then they’re more than likely true…and they’re basically proven undeniable facts, once the models we form from the tested knowledge can be used in applied science. Like navigation…which has used the globe model for over 2000 years, since the geographic coordinate system was created, and is proven accurate every single day, by thousands of successful navigations. If you think it’s wrong, feel free to try plotting a course across the pacific without it, go right ahead. 😄
It’s pretty simple to spot junk science….it doesn’t work. It reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is. That’s kinda the nice thing about pseudoscience, it’s actually pretty easy to spot.
We navigate the Earth with the globe model, that’s a fact, not an opinion. We predict celestial events like eclipses, down to the second and square mile, decades in advance, using the heliocentric model…can’t say the same for any other model.
So what reason would we have to even entertain the notion that it’s wrong? 🤷♂️ It works and fits perfectly with everything we observe. I certainly don’t believe that’s just coincidence. I’ll stick with the model that’s proven to actually work, thanks. You can debate it all you want…or you could just learn some astronomy, and answer your questions here for yourself.
2
-
2
-
Yes, and we do. The stars along the ecliptic plane do change throughout the year as we'd expect them to on the heliocentric model, you even know the names of many of the seasonal constellations, you are born under a zodiac constellation just like the rest of us. This is basic knowledge to any astronomer, but not so common among the general public who don't spend their nights observing and recording the night sky. There are two types of stars, circumpolar stars and then there are the seasonal stars. Circumpolar stars are locked to the celestial poles, because our axis is always tilted towards that portion of the galaxy (and we're actually moving towards/away from those stars as well, in our motion around the galactic center), while the seasonal stars lie along the ecliptic plane and only appear while we're on opposite sides of the Sun.
Do a search for the seasonal stars sometime, you'll get a list of the stars and constellations you can see throughout the year. Then test it for yourself, head out on any clear night and see if you can spot those stars, then do it again in 3 months, and then again in 6 months. Using the Stellarium app on your phone, will make it a lot easier as well, it helps you find stars and constellations, much easier then interpreting star charts, really great app for any new astronomer.
2
-
Mankind is expanding at a rate that is not sustainable by our planet alone (and even if it is now, it won’t be later), so we have 2 options, either we learn our surroundings and learn how to travel and navigate them, so we can expand out, or we kill a bunch of people...those are our options. You know why they probably don’t cure cancers and feed the hungry? Cause they’re among some of the best population controllers...that’s why. That might sound cold, but it’s nature, when a species over populates an area and can no longer expand, it begins having problems...there’s no way around that, it happens with every single species in nature when they begin to overpopulate.
Getting off this rock can change that...so it matters. Best way to save people in the long run, figure out how to expand further...that requires we first know the true shape and scale of things, can’t exactly travel anywhere new, if you don’t know how your surroundings work. It’s knowledge that helps greatly in that endeavour. That’s fine if it doesn’t matter to you, but it’s going to matter for the whole of mankind in the next few decades. Some people get that, so they’re doing what they can to figure things out...some just lack a lot of trust, and so now they’re looking in the wrong places.
Make sense? It’s solving our problems rather than putting band aides on them...or having a lot of people die, which can happen if we don’t expand.
2
-
E Higgins I’ve been looking at this Flat Earth mess for a few years now, and it had a spike back in 2016 but it’s since been dying down again. You’re correct that they do feed off of attention and the less we give them the better, but it was just interesting at one point to hear that people actually believe this stuff, so it was an interesting topic for awhile there, just to see how stupid and crazy some people can get. There isn’t as many people making Flat Earth videos anymore, so the fad is dying I feel, so I wouldn’t worry about it to much.
I’m glad though, that no big names in the scientific community have taken any of their challenges or debated them publicly in large events, cause you’re right, it would just give them legitimacy...and they really don’t have any, so I’d agree, best to just ignore them on larger forums. Trouble is, they were making a lot of noise for a few years and they were conning a lot people in the process. I personally don’t like when misinformation fly’s by the radar unchecked, so I think it was good that some people were challenging and correcting their claims, just so there was some information out there that people could turn too if they needed help. I feel their counter information has done a lot to turn people away from that insanity, so I’m glad some people were making the attempt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, first of all Density is not a Law...I think you need to learn the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. A law in science is just something that describes WHAT is happening, this is different from a fact...a fact is just what is, the sky is blue, that's a fact. Objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an opposing force, that is an example of a law...it's just describing WHAT is happening. A theory goes on to explain HOW and WHY something happens and it is the highest level a concept in science can ever achieve that describes how and why things operate the way they do. Density is none of these things, density just describes a state of matter, it is just how many particles of matter occupy a given space...that is all Density is. It is not a force...it does not dictate what direction matter travels in...it does not physically put anything into motion. Gravity does.
Eric Dubay is a con man, selling snake oils to the uneducated masses, so that he can keep funding his life in Thailand. He's also quite insane, racist and a huge narcissist. I really don't know how anybody could listen to him and actually believe a word he's saying...he is clearly a nut case.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tru7hDevo No, allow me to repeat it...your error here is in assuming level means flat in every use of the word...and that's not what is meant in geometry or gravity. You do realize words in the English language take on new meaning given the context correct? The same is true in the language of math and science, several words are used differently in these contexts, level is one of those words. So until you understand what perpendicular to center means, and equipotential distance from center, you will forever misunderstand the model you are attempting to argue against. So the error is not the model, the error is really your own personal understanding of the model. The real cognitive dissonance is never considering the very real possibility, that YOU could be the one in error...not everyone else. I'm not saying you have to accept anything you disagree with, only that you should always consider other perspectives, they might actually help you understand a concept better, at the very least. Sea level is perpendicular to center...all water has equipotential distance from center, now you've learned something, now do some research on these terms and learn more...or ignore me and continue to possibly be in error. Which ever you choose, this is how we understand water to work, in the heliocentric model with gravity. The rest of us understand how this works...and it aligns with reality. You aren't winning any battle by ignoring us.
Feel free to point out any holes in gravity that you feel exist, I don't mind taking a closer look at anything you'd like to share and discussing gravity with you further. I do try my best not to mock you or insult you, but I do feel flat Earth is reaching a lot of false conclusions, from a lack of understanding.
2
-
@tru7hDevo Alright, I'll agree that science is just as stubborn if not more so, though I feel it has to be, it can't just roll over and accept every new concept that comes around opposing it, it has to challenge everything, or else it runs the risk of being muscled by potential misinformation. No matter how convincing or "sensible" something may appear on the surface, we can't just nod and agree until something has gone through the process of falsification and peer review...and Flat Earth has long been tested and found to not align with reality, in my current opinion.
There is still no working model of Flat Earth...after all this time...I believe that is for a good reason, because it is very likely not reality. Nobody is navigating the world right now with a Flat Earth geometry in mind. Pilots are traveling great circle routes, because they have too, that is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. It's not just gravity and definitions that are being misunderstood, the entire world operates upon the foundations of a Globe Earth model, and I've seen enough evidence now to verify for me why and how we reached that conclusion.
You're correct in assuming I'm not new to this debate, I've been looking at this mess for a little over 3 years now, I have yet to find any argument of Flat Earth I have not been able to falsify. I know the arguments inside and out, with evidence that I have compiled, some from second hand sources, some from my own personal observation and calculation. Though I still keep an open ear to the opposition, I feel I can't learn anything new from different perspectives if I don't challenge what I think I know. Best way to do that is to chat with people from the opposite conclusion and listen as best I can...as hard as it may be sometimes.
I will admit the discussion was interesting and Flat Earth did bring some logic arguments to the table in some avenues...and in a lot of ways, I actually do admire their tenacity, because true science is all about falsification and peer review as I said, I feel Flat Earth is just the general public finally joining the conversation of science and providing a little of their own falsification and peer review. So I am actually super glad that SOMEBODY is out there questioning the science the rest of us has moved on from, because who knows what they might actually stumble upon that we may have overlooked. That being said, confirmation bias and paranoia are real problems that plague mankind and it took science a really long time to figure out how best to overcome these flaws in our thinking processes...I personally do feel a lot of Flat Earths conclusions are reached from bias and paranoia, robbing them of their better reasoning. I don't think the general public sharing information online has quite figured out how to best remove bias...because even trained scientists have trouble with this, it's not easy at times to remove bias from the process of science...the trouble is, it can absolutely lead you to false conclusions if you allow it too.
Anyway, now I'm rambling...listen, I don't think it's wrong to question the status quo, far from it, it's quite logical in fact, but just because an old concept has a fresh coat of paint and is currently directly opposing a power structure you've grown to despise and distrust...does not by default mean it's true or factual. Scientists are not stupid...despite what some people would like to think, of course they make mistakes at times, but this would be a pretty big one.
When it comes to the level argument, it is still a fact that gravity is described as pulling all matter to center of mass. If this is true, then it creates an equipotential force upon the surface, that's not much different from any other equipotential force, such as the ones seen in simple soap bubbles or water droplets...of course these are different forces keeping these materials in their spherical shape, equal distance from center, but it works in much the same way.
So if gravity is true (and it's very likely that it is), then that means it is a bit to hasty to conclude that water being level confirms a flat Earth...all this does is ignores a fundamental understanding of gravity. Whether you like it or not, ignorance is not how science should be conducted. What you really have to do is falsify gravity, for this argument of yours to hold any water, and I have not seen any valid counter explanation for why objects fall towards Earth when you drop them. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but so far, all I've seen is a lot of ignorance and denial and I don't feel that's how we should go about reaching conclusions.
So successfully falsify gravity, then this argument of "water seeking level" might have some plausibility to it...but denial and ignorance is not how you go about falsifying science I'm afraid.
Anyway, yes, thanks for the civil discussion...it's rare to find that in these sort of debates, and that's really frustrating cause I can't learn anything if people are not willing to open up and discuss things with me. I understand this is a volatile topic, but some of us are not here to mock or discourage, we're actually interested in the discussion. So thank you for lowering the shields for a bit and sharing your thoughts, it is appreciated. I may not agree, but that's fine, I'm not asking anyone to agree, I just feel we should all consider the real possibility that we could be wrong. We can be stubborn, but I try to reserve that possibility at all times, as best I can.
2
-
@tru7hDevo Ok, so physics is actually where I'm strongest in this discussion. I'm not a trained physicist mind you, it's just always been an interest I've followed closely because I've always found this is the science I understand the easiest, because it interests me the most. Had I not become an artist, physics teacher was actually my second choice vocation. Anyway, I don't claim to know everything, but perhaps I can help with some of these questions you have of the physics of the Globe model. I hope you find the following explanations at the very least interesting. Apologies if any of this is perhaps all science you've heard and know already, I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm just not currently aware of all that you know and understand in physics. I just like to be thorough and these were some great questions I feel I have some answers for.
You had a question for why smoke appears to be left behind while rising out from the engines of a locomotive, making an argument for why our atmosphere is not similar. Well, it's pretty simple really, because of wind resistance, drag force. The air outside of the train is not moving at the same rate as the train, relative to the train, so it creates an opposing mass for which that smoke that is moving relative to the train, now has to fight against. First law of motion, everything in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass. The air outside the train is an opposing mass in this case, it creates a drag force, which slows the smoke down, causing it to fall behind the train while in motion.
Our atmosphere operates a bit differently, it actually rotates with the Earth, moving relative to it. It generally conserves the momentum of the Earths motions, gravity helps as well, as does the fluid dynamics of air and friction, but conservation of momentum and relative motion play the bigger role here. In reality, our atmosphere is more like the air that is moving with the train, inside the train. So a burning buildings smoke is actually not experiencing any of the same drag force, because the atmosphere in this case is moving relative to the building, they're moving at the same rate...so it's more like if you were to burn something while inside your train, the inside is actually more like our atmosphere.
I realize this is a bit tricky to wrap the mind around though, considering the fact that you look at "outside" as...nothing but "outside". As we all do, but how you really should look at Earth, is more like the inside of that train, more like a massive planetary vehicle moving through space, and the atmosphere is like the windshield, moving with the Earth in all its motions, keeping the air contained by gravity and moving with the Earth thanks to conservation of momentum. The reason it's not peeled off by any drag force, is because there is no matter in space. Space is an empty vacuum, a place void of most matter...which means there is no dense fluid like air, that Earth is constantly colliding with that would create a drag force upon it. No drag force in space, then Earths atmosphere will just continue to move with the Earth, conserving the momentum of the Earth in all its motions, helped along even further by gravity.
The part that's tricky to understand is conservation of momentum, but it can be easily demonstrated. Here's one of the best demonstrations I have seen so far that helps to verify this law of motion. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku If you click this link, you'll notice a man being launched by a trampoline while at the same time being towed by a tractor. What's interesting to note here, is that despite the tractor pulling that trampoline out from under him while in the air, he continues to land dead center of the trampoline on every single bounce. Why is that? Because of conservation of forward momentum. He likely started jumping once the trampoline was in motion, so he was now in motion with it, moving relative to the tractor and trampoline, that is now his inertial frame of reference. Now, there is a slight drag force upon him here, but unlike the smoke that is not denser then the surrounding air, he is much denser and so at those speeds, the drag force here won't have much of an effect, it's quite negligible here. Still is occurring mind you, but not enough to slow his forward momentum.
So what conservation of momentum basically does, is creates a system of motion that operates as though stationary...conforming to the same physics of a stationary system. So long as something is moving relative to another object, moving in the same inertial reference frame, then it is now operating under the same relative motion, the same laws of motion, which creates the illusion of a stationary system.
That's why it's so damn hard to tell if we're moving or not...because of relative motion. It's for the same reason you can get on a plane traveling at 500 mph, and walk around the cabin as though you're barely moving at all...you're moving relative to the plane, so is the air inside, it's all conserving the same forward momentum, so it now behaves like a stationary system...even though it's technically in motion. I'm sure you've taken a flight before, ever wonder why you're not sucked to the seat the entire trip? Because of conservation of momentum and relative motion, the basic physics of motion is why you don't feel that 500 mph inertia.
There are some neat experiments you can actually do while in any moving vehicle that help to confirm this further. Toss around an object while in a steady forward motion in any moving vehicle, first toss an object straight up, and watch as it goes straight up and then straight back down into your hands. But wait a second...if you're moving forward, then technically the object you just tossed didn't actually travel straight up and then straight down again, it actually made a parabolic ark. The only reason it appears to go straight up and go straight down from your perspective, is because you are also moving relative to it, you're in the same inertial reference frame of motion as that object is, so your environment will operate as though stationary, making it quite effortless to toss that object up and catch it...even though you're in a forward motion.
You can take this little experiment further and start tossing that object around in any direction you like. As you do, you'll start to notice that is operates no different then if you were tossing it around in a park, as if you were stationary. Throw it in any direction, you will have no trouble being able to accurately predict where it will end up, just as you would if tossing it around while on the ground not in motion.
So what this science teaches us is that we do not actually feel motion itself, what we actually feel is inertia that is created by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. This creates a real problem for us on Earth, because it makes discerning whether we're in motion or not VERY HARD to actually deduce. Our Earth (according to the heliocentric model) is moving in a very steady motion, in every single one of its motions. Most of those motions are arcing very slowly over a very long orbital path, meaning the rate of angular velocity changer per second is practically not even measurable...except for in our daily rotation. This is actually the only motion we can measure...and we do. It's not very well known, but you and everything actually weighs slightly less at the Equator, where Centrifugal force on Earth is the greatest. You weigh about 0.3% less at the equator, this is actually pretty well known for companies who create weighted scales...they have to design their weights to be calibrated for a certain latitude, or they will be slightly off. This is actually also a very great proof of Earths rotation and gravity...because we can accurately calculate both and then make predictions for what things will weigh at the Equator, before we even go to the Equator to measure it directly.
Here's a neat experiment that has been performed that helps to verify this. It's pretty interesting, and it does verify Earths rotation as well as gravity, adding a little more evidence to that pile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=551s
Anyway, so motion is actually quite complicated, but not impossible to understand. There is a lot of physics of motion occurring here that has to be understood. Of course, very little of this actually verify's the motions of the planet (except for the last experiment I shared), it's merely an explanation for how those motions are possible, with some simple demonstrations that help to verify the Laws of motion and relative motion. Either way, even if Earth is flat and stationary, the Laws of motion are still quite undeniable science and they're still relevant either way. The difference is, they also do explain the motions of the planet in the heliocentric model, so it's more science that can't just be ignored.
Do some further research on the Laws of motion, conservation of motion and relative motion. This is the science that explains the motions of our planet. As a bonus, it also helps to go into the science for centripetal or centrifugal forces, cause understanding that physics helps to understand why we don't feel our rotations and orbits.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williamborregard6384 I’ve travelled South too, on several occasions, New Zealand and Australia and so I know you’re lying. Each time I was there, I could not see the Big Dipper (among many other stars and constellations), but I could see a new constellation that’s prevalent down there, known as the Southern Cross. As an amateur astronomer as well, I spent some time with an astronomy group down South on one of my travels, where we confirmed another geometric impossibility on Flat Earth, the South rotation of stars around their pole star Sigma Octantis. Soooo…gonna be pretty hard to lie to me about this.
The stars are not the same in the South, it’s a completely different sky, so you are lying. The question is why? Why would you knowingly lie to yourself? I can understand why you’d lie to us, to win an argument, but yourself? That’s pretty nonsensical.
Anyway, this is basic astronomy knowledge, known and confirmed by millions of people around the world on the daily….so good luck arguing against a known fact of reality. 😅
2
-
@williamborregard6384 When a constellation flips…it still retains its form. We’re not talking about flipped constellations, we’re talking about completely different stars and constellations. Your argument is just a red herring and an extremely ignorant one at that. Sorry, but you’re not going to be able to lie and twist Information, to someone who’s actually spent a good deal of time studying the subject and making their own observations.
Sure, let’s discuss the geometry of celestial navigation. Earth does rotate, around an axis. That axis is always pointed in the same direction, with Polaris near center for the North, and Sigma Octantis for the South, the celestial poles. Two hemispheres, each with there own rotation, around their own pole star…impossible geometry on a flat Earth, but exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe. You can deny it all you want, but the rest of us can’t be that ignorant.
So closer to the polar axis each star is, the less the stars will shift in relation to Earths rotation…Polaris basically not moving at all, making it a perfect reference point for making measures to horizon. Stars drop to horizon consistently by latitude, this is what we’d expect on a spherical surface, as the surface curves consistently. At 60th latitude, it’s 60 degrees to horizon, 50th it’s 50 degrees, 40th at 40 degrees and so on…a consistent drop, that’s what we measure in reality, that’s how sailors know their latitude. If Earth were flat, we would not expect the stars to drop consistently by latitude, which are all equal distance from each other, we would instead expect their rate of drop to horizon to lessen with each latitude point and stars at polar axis would never touch horizon, at least not at our scale. Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the Equator…this is an impossible geometry on a flat surface with a domed sky, polaris at center. Doing the math confirms this. It’s basic geometry…you have to be completely ignorant to basic geometry to think perspective is adequate enough to explain why the stars drop. The geometry does not fit that explanation, it’s that simple. Perspective is a part of geometry, it has geometric rules…rules that Flat Earth completely ignores in their argument, which is why we’re here pointing out your ignorance.
Flat Earth is an online con, taking advantage of the under educated and inexperienced. Learning to navigate is actually a perfect proof of Earth’s spherical surface, so I do urge people to learn it, that’s exactly what people should do…then maybe you’d all stop being suckered by con artists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williamborregard6384 Weight is created by gravity as well dumb dumb 🤦♂️…in fact weight can be considered another word for gravity, it’s physics 101, look it up sometime. Formula for weight is even simpler; W=mg. There’s that little ‘g’ again. The equation translates like this; Mass, times the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2), equals weight. You don’t have weight without gravity, that’s a fact, not an opinion. What the ocean always has is mass, which is all affected equally by gravity. You should be embarrassed for making such an argument…it just further displays how little you actually know.
You talk a big game about science, but you sure don’t know much. Everything I’ve explained to you so far is used by actual engineers and experts, in applied sciences. You know when you can tell your science is accurate? When it’s actually used in applied science, and it works. On the flip side, you know when you’re dealing with pseudoscience, when it simply does not work. That’s kind of the nice thing about junk science…it reveals itself by being absolutely useless.
Derive me new equations then for your density and buoyancy argument. If your scientific understanding is superior, then it should be easy to derive functional equations that can actually be used fir applied sciences, like engineering. So go ahead genius.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williamborregard6384 Here’s what you said word for word: “I did travel to South America. All the way to Patagonia. Same constellations.” It’s the start of your 3rd comment. So you didn’t just claim they flipped…you claimed you saw the exact same constellations from the North Hemisphere. Later you expressed that they “flipped” due to perspective, but we’re not talking about flipped constellations, we’re talking about completely different constellations. If you flip the Southern Cross constellation…is it gonna look any different? No, it’s still gonna look like a cross. 😂 Flip any of the constellations, they’re still gonna be recognizable, as that constellation. This isn’t difficult stuff my dude. 😅
The fact is, you absolutely can not see the same circumpolar constellation in each hemisphere. You can not see the Big Dipper in the South, and you can not see the Southern Cross in the North. And each constellation is observed to rotate around their own pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South. That is a fact, not an opinion. This is impossible geometry on a flat Earth, while on a globe it’s exactly what we’d expect to see…it’s that simple.
It’s evidence that matters, whether you acknowledge it or not, it’s basic geometry. The only reason you want to deflect and ignore it, is because you know damn well we caught you in an ignorant lie, and you know damn well the southern star observations are a HUGE problem for your belief of a flat Earth. We’re not going to ignore that.
2
-
@williamborregard6384 Actually, assumptions, presupposing and guessing are a major part of science…what do you think a hypothesis is? It’s basically an educated guess, based from prior knowledge and research, that you then test. Hypothesis is key step of the scientific method. You can’t do science without some guesswork, it’s a part of the scientific method. Flat Earth is an assumed premise as well…one that you’re happy to accept, despite the mountains of scientific research and evidence and applied science that says it’s not. So why should your presupposed model of reality be free from analysis and peer review? Answer is simple…it’s not….so here we are, questioning it, whether you like it or not.
You started this conversation off in the sky, in your very first comment here, when you poked at the Eratosthenes experiment. Then you claimed to have travelled South, and seen THE SAME constellations. Which of course isn’t true, which is why we’re all calling you out. You’re just trying to deflect, because you know full well your ignorance and lying has been caught.
2
-
2
-
@patrickthomas2119 Yes, I agree, I’m in no way suggesting all religious, or even a majority (not even close), are Flat Earthers. It’s an even smaller minority than creationists. But after a good 6 years of actively conversing with members of FE (was a bit of sad curiosity bordering on hobby for a time) I couldn’t help but notice the large portion of their community that were religious. And yes, I’d agree as well, it’s because the huxters pushing it employ tactics very similar to the groups that push creationism. I don’t use that word “huxter” lightly in this case though, Earths shape is not up for debate in quite the same way biology is, and after dealing directly with many of the bigger names of FE, huxter is sadly an accurate title for many of those bigger advocates.
I do hold a lot of respect for religious communities and spirituality as a whole, so while I don’t personally subscribe or align with any particular group, it is sad that some would use a persons faith against them to promote ideas that do nothing but harm both their knowledge and our progress as a society. It does have a larger success on the deeply paranoid as well, that’s also true, and constant/heavy drug use is certainly no help to anyone’s mental health, so there are many who fall into that category as well, both secular and non-secular. But if you’re religious (or even just spiritual), then it is an easier sell, to anyone just looking for any reason to bolster their faith. That’s why it’s so incredibly difficult to reason with many, because a good portion of them really didn’t get there from any scientific means, they reasoned through other means that just made better sense for them.
But yes, while many are theists, the real root problem of course isn’t religion, most of the time it’s just plain ol’ lack of a good education. The number of them I’ve had to teach basic astronomy too, like how the Moon’s phases aren’t caused by Earth’s shadow (in this case they’re confusing Lunar eclipses with Moon phases), it’s quite alarming. So it just boils down to that most of the time really. That’s not a uniquely religious issue, that’s an education issue…which is pretty systematic. Lack of basic physics knowledge is also pretty key to whether the Flat Earth hooks sink in or not, because I admit I was curious about the whole thing myself because it really wasn’t something I gave much thought towards prior to looking deeper into the conspiracy, but many of the arguments they were making just reflected a deep misunderstanding of some pretty basic physics, the laws of motion being a big one. It’s once I learned that their curvature math was lacking key variables (namely height of the observer) that it became pretty clear to me that it was really a movement of the poorly educated, which is really what I suspected.
That’s not to say they’re stupid, far from it really, many of their insights can be quite clever actually, it’s just that they all seem to be starting from a zero (or near zero) baseline of basic scientific principles…like they’re starting from scratch, simply because that foundational knowledge wasn’t taught to them well enough (or at all) in order to properly sink in and make sense.
Anyway, I’m not as heavily involved with it as I used to be, but it’s still interesting to discuss from time to time. It has died down over the last couple years, having peeked around 2019 and resurging a little during Covid, but I’ve actually started to run into a few ex-flat Earthers who told me that once they distanced themselves from the constant arguing online for awhile, that’s when they started to finally realize how ridiculous it all was. Unfortunately it’s kind of a big part of human nature to double down first when challenged, rather than considering a different perspective. I think in large part because of how we conduct ourselves in arguments, always trying to win rather than discuss. The grifters really thrive off of that chaos. I wish social media was a bit better constructed to not help facilitate constant discourse and argument…but unfortunately it’s opposite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anyone can verify the Earth is spherical, whether it’s fully understood how, is irrelevant. Reality is under no obligation to make sense too you. Does your not understanding or agreeing to gravity physics, change the fact that millions of pilots and sailors around the world, can’t do their jobs, without accurate information of the Earth’s surface? No…it doesn’t.
Flat Earth is a discussion of Earth’s geometry…but it sure doesn’t seem to focus on the geometry very much. They seem to prefer focusing on the higher physics, and making arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance…physics that was all realized and worked out long after the shape of Earth was determined, through simple observation and measurement. Of course you’re not gonna understand gravity physics very well…if you skip the foundational science that led to that discovery.
You truly believe nobody knows? You think a rocket scientist designing and putting rockets and satellites into orbital trajectories around Earth, wouldn’t know for certain? Or an astronaut? 🧐 I get that YOU don’t currently know for certain…but don’t assume your lack of knowledge and experience is a shared experience.
Where would the water flow too, exactly? What force is present attracting it and pulling it off of Earth? Water is inert…it doesn’t move without some force attracting it, putting it in motion. So why would the water flow off of Earth? You’re reaching that conclusion, because water flows off any ball you can hold in your hand at your perspective…but where does the water flow? Towards Earth…doesn’t it? Yes, it does…everything falls to Earth in fact, as if attracted to it. So you’re making a false comparison…why would you think a ball in your hand is comparable to the Earth? The only thing they really share is geometry…but on vastly different scales.
So here’s how we reached the conclusion of gravity; it started by first realizing the Earth’s geometry was spherical. Thousands of different observations prove this as fact…and we have an entire system of global navigation, designed around that knowledge. That system simply would not work when applied, if that information was wrong…that’s how you know your science is good and accurate, when you can apply it and it works. So we then had two known variables, Earth is spherical and everything falls to Earth no matter where you are upon its surface. So it didn’t take much deduction after that, to determine a force was present, that emanates from centre of Earth, that attracts everything towards it…hence why water doesn’t flow off of it. It also explains why Earth would be spherical…because a force attracting mass around a centre, is eventually going to form that mass into a sphere…every single time. So gravity explains more than just why things fall…it quite literally explains everything about our reality. When it was realized, the mysteries of the universe started falling like dominoes…I don’t think you quite realize how impactful that discovery was for mankind, and even to your every day life.
Of course you’re not gonna agree with the conclusions of gravity physics though, if you don’t first verify the Earth’s shape for yourself, which is the foundation of gravity physics. So why does every flat Earther think skipping over the whole point of their argument (the geometric shape of Earth), is gonna help them determine it’s shape? 🤷♂️ I find that very odd.
Your argument basically boils down too “it looks flat, therefore it is”…you really think that holds up against all the evidence that says otherwise? It’s fine if you’re not personally aware of that evidence, but then you have no argument here if you’ve not yet made any attempt to research any.
My best advice for anyone seriously interested in this topic, who’s not just here to troll, but actually wants to know; you wanna know for certain what Earth’s shape is, then just learn to navigate. It’s not difficult, you can find tutorials on YouTube at anytime, would only take a few hours of your time…you learn pretty quickly in navigation how important it is to have accurate knowledge of the surface, in order to make it possible in the first place. You also learn pretty quickly which model is used…and how you can confirm it. So give that try sometime.
2
-
K-Beats Smuggler: And what if you have been wrong this whole time? It is a very real possibility you should consider. Many of us have gone through the 200 proofs of Eric Dubay and have discovered that pretty much all of his points are made from a very poor understanding of physics and the world in general. So in reality...they’re basically 200 ways to show you don’t understand basic physics, geometry, math, astronomy, science in general. Or 200 ways to reach false conclusions. They’re good questions to ask really...but pretty much all the conclusions are incorrect or grossly misunderstanding the science.
Personally, I don’t believe it’s wrong to question reality...but you should never be so confident to assume there is no possibility you might be reaching false conclusions. Science found a clever work around for human error, they called it peer review. If everyone is telling you that there is a chance you missed or overlooked something...then you owe it to yourself to look into things further.
Ironically, that’s what Flat Earth has caused us to do, to re-evaluate what we thought we knew. In that respect, I admire Flat Earth...but upon re-examination, many have found Eric Dubay’s points to be greatly flawed still.
2
-
@smugglifemusic Ya I getcha man, I actually think it's a good thing that people are taking an interest in these things and I actually somewhat admire that they are brave enough to challenge even the most firmly planted concepts of reality. But the danger is there when you misunderstand a concept...and then in the process of re-evaluating these well established theories and ideas, you either overlook a detail or ignore it completely...and then run the risk of reaching false conclusions again and again. Science isn't easy...it takes a lot of diligence and you have to make sure you're doing things correct...which isn't as easy to do as it may seem.
I'll give you a great example that I see quite often, the 8 inches per mile squared equation. This is a very popular equation Flat Earthers like to use to help them determine curvature drop...the problem, they also use it to try and determine what should be hidden by curvature...but what they fail at realizing is that this is not a complete equation to help you make that observation accurately. The only way those figures are accurate...is if your eyes are sitting at sea level...which of course is NEVER the case. In reality, we see further the higher we go in elevation. Basically what this means is, that our observable horizon extends the higher we go up. 8 inches per mile squared does not take into account height of the observer, or observers line of sight...8 inches per mile squared only calculates curve drop tangent from the surface...and so the numbers it generates are not relevant to the observation and thus does not give you the correct figures.
A much better calculator has been developed since this whole Flat Earth thing took off, one that does calculate for height of the observer and line of sight...as well as a few other variables such as refraction index. Here is a great one I've found that's quite useful. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
If you take a look at the bottom of this link I've shared above, you will even find a handy diagram you can interact with that can help you understand a little more what I mean. If you take a look at the diagram, you'll notice a black dotted line leading straight from the curved surface that is labeled "Surface Level". This is what I mean by tangent line, it's just a straight line 90 degrees from a curved surface. The solid black line that is leading straight down from the tangent and touching the surface that is labeled "Drop"...that is the distance that 8 inches per mile squared is calculating...that is all 8 inches per mile squared gives you. But pay attention to the straight line on the left that is labelled "Veiwer Height", this represents the height of the observer. Notice the solid green line leading down from the observer and touching the surface? That is a persons actual line of sight...and the X where the solid green line ends...that's the horizon. Notice how a persons line of sight sees BELOW the "Surface Level" line? This is why 8 inches per mile squared...is not an accurate calculation to help you determine what should be hidden by curvature. The numbers that 8 inches per mile squared gives you...do not represent what your eyes actually see in reality...so if you use this calculation to determine what's hidden by curvature...then you will absolutely reach a false conclusion, every single time.
So this is just one of many things Flat Earth gets wrong...but they're not aware that they're getting it wrong and it's become a problem...because everytime I try to point this out, most people either ignore me or get really upset with me. You see the problem? When you misunderstand how something works...you run the danger of reaching a false conclusion...and if you're not aware you're making a false conclusion, you run the risk of continuing to make more and more false conclusions, until you've built an entire new reality around this way of thinking. And from what I've seen...many of the people on YouTube who push this misinformation...KNOW full well that they're spreading misinformation and false conclusions...some have been caught red handed doing it...which makes them nothing short of con men...which is dangerous, because they're actively out there building a group of followers, who are angry for all the wrong reasons.
Anyway, that's just one simple observation I wanted to point out to you. I hope it helps to make my point and I hope I was able to articulate things well enough for you. It's great that people are actively taking interest in the science of our world...but science learned a long time ago...that human beings are flawed. We have bias, egos, the tendency to lie to others and ourselves for personal gain and to avoid humiliation...and each of us has our limits for what we are capable of understanding. So science found a work around for human short comings, peer review. That's kind of what we're doing right here right now, in these comments sections, so that's why I prefer just sharing information, rather then just treat you like your wrong to question reality...like most people seem to like doing. Keep learning I say, I just hope you take into consideration that there might be some errors in your current understandings, all that I ask is that people take the time to listen to what others might be telling them...and yes, that goes both ways.
2
-
@smugglifemusic If you take a look at old Astronomy data going back thousands of years though...you'll know that Polaris wasn't always the Northern Star, roughly 3000 years ago, the North Star was Thuban. This is cross referenced by several cultures who all thought it was a good idea to record the positions of stars...all of them confirm, Polaris was not the North Star many thousands of years ago.
So the stars do change and we can even track those movements over the course of a decade...at least for some stars, the closer ones. If you record the positions of stars in the night sky every year and then compare them to each other over roughly a decade of tracking them, you will spot a few shifts in stars positions. The shifts will be VERY small, but they are there, which suggest that the stars are moving, they just take a very long time to make any noticeable difference.
Astronomers know the stars are moving...they've been following them a long time, they've even mapped many of the movements and can now predict where many of them will be over a few thousands years change. It's just not common knowledge...but whoever told you the stars don't move...is not an astronomer and clearly didn't know what they were talking about.
So why don't the Stars change very quickly? Well, one good theory is because of the distances and the speeds they travel relative to these distances. Our Sun moves at roughly 450,000 mph (as does our entire solar system, since it's towing us along with it). I know this speed sounds impressive...but on a galactic scale, the Sun is barely moving at all. A mile is only impressive to you and me...the micro life living on the surface of these massive giants...even a few thousand miles means almost nothing to the Sun and the Earth.
In 1 hours time, the Sun barely moves half of it's entire diameter, to put that into perspective, move roughly 1 foot in front of you, in the course of 1 hour. Relativity is what explains the movement of the Stars quite well...it's all relative. The closest star to us is roughly 24 TRILLION miles away so then it's safe to assume the other stars are all equally as far away from each other yes? So what looks like a few centimeters distance (between each star) from our perspective, is actually a few Trillion miles and these things are barely crawling along relative to the galaxy. To put it into better perspective again...imagine you're still only moving about 1 foot per hour, now imagine the closest star to you...is in China (assuming you live in America).
Does this make sense? This of course is not evidence for the distances of the Stars, for that you have to go into how they found the Astronomical Unit and then you have to do even more research on how they determined a stars luminosity at great distances. It's all quite clever really, but there is a great deal of evidence that supports the theory of the distances of Stars...and it all matches quite well with the heliocentric model, it also explains why stars don't shift (move closer or further from other stars) as you travel anywhere on Earth.
Figuring out the Astronomical Unit was very important. Once we knew the distance of the Sun from us...we could figure out how fast we were moving, and then we could unravel a great many things about the galaxy we couldn't before. The Astronomical Unit is quite interesting to learn about, so you should give it a look sometime. It is the meter stick we use to measure the cosmos with, most notably our own Solar system.
2
-
2
-
Our eyes work by resolving light that enters into the eye. There’s no known limit to how far light can travel, so by extension there’s no known limit to how far we can see. It all depends on the size and luminosity of the object being observed, if it’s large enough and bright enough, then we will see it for a very long distance, even trillions of miles, like in the case of stars and galaxies.
We can only see Chicago from that distance, when refractive index allows for it. Atmospheric refraction is very real, it’s the cause of mirages, and it does also extend how far we can see over a curvature. Light bends, this is verified science, you can prove refraction at any lake or swimming pool…heck you can put a pencil in a clear glass cup and prove refraction.
Learn some basic physics please…stop being so gullible.
2
-
What photos are you referring to in particular? They’re pretty transparent with their imagery, they let people know when something is generated and when it isn’t, but perhaps you’ve seen something I’m not aware of. So what photos did you see that have you convinced they’re faking imagery?
Light can also refract, it’s pretty common, you see it occur all the time in water, when an object appears to be in one place, but it’s actually in another. Light isn’t bending really, it’s just being bounced around as it passes through denser mediums, it’s still moving in straight paths, it’s just being deflected. This same effect can occur in atmosphere, so it’s a variable that must be considered in any long distance observation. Here’s a quick demonstration of the effect https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
T Brown You sure are doing your best to ram a square peg into a round hole. There are many ways to get a radius value for the Earth...just stating over and over again that it’s not possible, is not an argument, it’s just ignorance and denial. Here’s that experiment again that you keep ignoring. https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=420 This is one such experiment anyone can reproduce, that absolutely can be used to measure the radius of our Earth. Give it a look sometime...maybe even try it out. Denying it doesn’t work, is not an argument against it, it’s just plane ol’ denial. Here’s another way we can measure the radius, with seismology. https://youtu.be/cLDHOU-aSDo?t=453
Here’s another point I’d like to make, even if we did assume a radius, if that number we assume fits with all observation...down to curvature, refraction, Sun angles, eclipse data, gps, geodetic surveying, etc, if that number fits with every observation and every calculation and it works every time it’s used and gives us accurate predictions for every one of these observations, then it’s very likely correct. So here’s the thing, the radius value we have, WORKS! If we were wrong about the shape of the planet, then plugging that radius value into many of these equations WOULD NOT WORK! Getting it yet? The fact that we can use that radius value, to pinpoint a solar eclipse down to the second and square mile, tells us the number is accurate. The fact that we can use that radius value within GPS coordinates and pilots and sailors can then find their destinations with absolute accuracy, tells us the number is accurate. If we can use that radius value to accurately calculate and predict how much an object will lower into horizon by distance, then that number is accurate. See how this works yet? If we don’t need that number...then WHY does it work every single time we use it in calculations for Earths geometry? Got an answer for that bud?
You’re just making an erroneous claim over and over again, as if repeating your delusion makes it truer somehow. You keep repeating that we can’t assume anything and we have no method for measuring the radius even if we wanted too. Both are wrong...we have more than demonstrated that to you now, but you’re just not listening. What you’re doing is the equivalent of a toddler ramming his fingers in his ears and shutting his eyes when he wants to annoy his parents. But again, it doesn’t matter really. Whine all you like, the Earth is still not flat...and you’re not changing anything here.
I watched that video you shared and that guy is just as delusional as you are...it’s incredible to me how someone can grasp so much, and appear to be quite intelligent, but yet they can’t see how bias and ignorant they’re being. First of all, GPS over the ocean is handled by satellites. You can’t have satellites orbiting the Earth...if the Earth is flat, so there’s your first ignorant problem here. Second, his explanation completely ignores the surface distances. Shouldn’t be hard to work out, but the Earth has TWO EQUAL HEMISPHERES, so one or the other is going to be shorter or longer on a Flat Earth...but they’re not in reality, they are the same...this is only possible on a 3 dimensional surface like a sphere. People flying in the South over open ocean to another point in the South, aren’t taking several more hours to reach their destinations than they should. The flight times that are well documented, work perfectly on the Globe...but sure don’t work very well on a flat Earth. They make no sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4
Now, here’s an actual pilot plotting and explaining a flight path, that would be impossible on a flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FJG65nbUO8&t really soak this lesson in, this is a REAL pilot, explaining navigation to you and demonstrating something that is impossible on a flat Earth.
2
-
T Brown It doesn’t cause sunlight...it causes a shadow, which measures the sunlights angles relative to the surface...and no, an experiment doesn’t need just one independent. Your brain has been absolutely scrambled by flat Earth bud...you people are just an Internet joke. What you’re doing is straw manning, the hypothesis isn’t to test what creates sunlight...are you drunk or something? It’s to measure the sunlight angles, to see which model that data fits with, round or flat. The hypothesis is simple, if Earth is a sphere, then the Sunlight shadow angle data when plotted on the Globe model to scale, will produce parallel angles and the stick angles will all point to centre of Earth. The null hypothesis is for Flat Earth, if the Earth is Flat, then the data won’t work on the Globe model, but it should pinpoint the exact location of a smaller localized Sun. If the data fits for neither then it’s inconclusive.
See it only becomes a reification fallacy, if we’re not using data from the real world to produce our models, if we’re not testing our models against actual reality and real world observations...then it’s a reification fallacy. But the data is taken from real world observation and measurements, then it’s tested upon models that use REAL world data to pinpoint locations relative to each other. The distances to each location is known, there latitude locations are known...otherwise we wouldn’t be able to find them while travelling. The data is plotted on those coordinates, REAL WORLD COORDINATES, testing both hypothesized models...the Globe data fits every time, while no flat Earth model ever tested has ever matched with the data. YOU should absolutely be wondering why that data fits the Globe model so perfectly...that doesn’t just happen for no reason. It’s not just a coincidence, that those Sun shadow angles produce a near perfect spherical surface...that shouldn’t happen at all if Earth is really flat.
Ignore it all you want with whatever bullshit excuse flat Earth has prepared for you...deep down you know you’re just being ignorant.
All you’re doing, is the same deflection bullshit you learned from master trolls like Nathan Oakley and Quantum Eraser...repeating their bullshit pretty much verbatim...but not really thinking about it. Good boy...want a cookie? But again, you guys can whine all you want, it doesn’t really matter.
2
-
T Brown So these flat maps are accurate for navigating our Earth? I thought you said you didn’t conform to any model...but you feel there is a flat map that’s accurate? You’re the expert here, so how exactly are these coordinates triangulated? What formulas do they use? Can you mock up an example using this method you claim is used? So you don’t conform to a model...but you agree flat maps of the Earth are accurate? Which maps exactly? Seems like you’re reaching a great many conclusions from pure assumption alone. So can you demonstrate anyone navigating using these maps and your triangulation method?
If you know anything about triangulation, you’d know you require at least some of the details to be accurate in order to complete the triangulation. So if you don’t think Earth is mapped...then how do they triangulate anything...if they don’t know accurate distances to anything? If they don’t have any accurate data required for triangulation, how do they do it? You can’t triangulate a location, unless you have some information that’s already accurate...so distances, latitudes and longitude angles and positions...a map of some kind has to be accurate. So which one exactly? You’re the expert on navigation, so which map are they using to triangulate with?
“Absolutely nobody uses a spherical map for navigation”
There, that’s a claim...you said earlier you’ve made no claims, but you’ve actually made several, and this is another. This is a claim suggesting you know something for certain about navigation, and that claim is contrary to modern consensus. So what qualifies you to make this claim? Are you a pilot or a sailor? Have you ever used latitude and longitudes to navigate with? Ever flown or sailed across the ocean? Ever navigated with your triangulation method using Cartesian coordinates designed for a flat Earth? I’d very much like to know how you reached this expert conclusion. I hope you didn’t just listen to one guy ramble on about triangulation and then make an empty claim about curvature conversion, without actually demonstrating it, and then called it a day. XD
If they’re triangulating positions...then they have an accurate map of some kind. So present this map, then we’ll test it. Pretty simple.
2
-
2
-
T Brown Well your straw manning again. The surface isn’t an independent variable it is another dependent...and before you say “you can’t have two dependents”, yes you can, cause there is actually two things being tested and verified here. The Earths surface is one, and the Suns position/distance is another. You don’t manipulate the surface in this experiment, you manipulate the stick, by placing it plum to the surface. This then creates a shadow, that can give you a measured angle, which gives you data you can then use to figure out where the Sun is, and what shape the surface is.
Of course you can’t get exact distance or size of the Sun from this data, but you can absolutely confirm if it’s small and local, or big and far away. That much you can answer.
It’s great that people are questioning and attempting to falsify these things, that’s what science is all about...but Flat Earthers are just being very bias. I hope after going through it a bit more, you’ll realize you really should pay better attention and not just ignore these things. There are valid reasons why people are arguing with you. Arguments from ignorance are not valid arguments, they are just trolling methods. They annoy people...but they don’t accomplish anything outside of that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They chose to call their end conclusions theories for a very good reason...because we do not know everything and likely never will. There is just too much to know and unfortunately, the true nature of information gathering of any kind, is that old information has the potential to change as you acquire new information. From the rumor you heard about your friend, to the science of gravity, as we learn more and acquire more knowledge on a subject, old information has the potential to change or even be discarded completely.
So you were taught theories for a very good reason, they were very wise with their wording, because scientists do not claim to know everything, they accepted a long time ago that there will always be something new to learn and discover but we do not need to know everything to make our current knowledge work for us. Science does not think in absolutes, it thinks in percentages and margins of error...and it works. The proof is in the pudding, in the very technologies you enjoy every day (and likely take for granted), that are made possible thanks to the very theories you seem to think are useless. Electromagnetism and the electromagnetic spectrum are also theories and they're currently sending you your wifi. Do you know how they work? If not, then I'd be a little more grateful towards the people who discovered and mastered these "theories" and then made that knowledge readily available to you at any time.
Learn the language of science, you just forfeit yourself from any conversation of science the moment you say "it's just a theory".
2
-
Well, if it's an arrogant dick waving competition you want...that's likely all you'll attract with a call out like that. Why not share ideas in a civil manner and just ask questions and share information nicely? Are you just in this debate to stroke your ego, are you feelings hurt that badly that you have to flex on people to feel superior, or would you rather keep that mind open (as Flat Earth likes to claim it does) and maybe learn something and in turn maybe actually get your ideas through to someone you're engaging with? You're not achieving anything by closing your mind off and assuming you know everything...I get that you've done your research into this topic and you know some shit now, but there is always a chance that you either overlooked something or misunderstood something, or that the sources you were pulling from were lying to you, so you have to consider that at all times. That goes for anybody.
But anyway, I'll ask you a question if it'll be responded back with some civility, otherwise I don't really see the point.
Here's a good question though, how is there two celestial rotations, one for the Northern hemisphere and one for the Southern hemisphere? By extension, why do we see different stars from hemisphere to hemisphere? Both of these observations are verified as fact and I have verified it for myself on several occasions now. There are two rotations and different stars depending on the hemisphere. This does not really seem to make much sense on any Flat Earth map or model I've seen so far, but they make perfect sense on a Globe, with 2 equal hemispheres...it's exactly what we'd expect to see. So that's my question for you, feel free to answer anytime.
2
-
@Bongofury361 Well, at least it's short...these Eric Dubay vids are usually pretty long, and nobody has the time for that. So thanks for finding a short one.
He makes several claims here, but I'll focus on his first lie he makes...cause Eric Dubay lies a lot and I think it's important to point these out, cause some people hold him like some sort of god almost. At about 3 minutes he claims that you can't see the Southern Cross simultaneously, from all other points in the South at the same time, so from South America, Africa and Australia simultaneously. He's correct that we can't see the Southern Cross from all 3 positions at once, but he fails to mention that we wouldn't expect to be able too on a Globe either...but what we do see is that TWO of these locations can see the same Southern Cross at the same time. That matches with a Globe, but does not work on a Flat Earth very well. You shouldn't be able to see ANY simultaneous Southern Cross spottings from two points on a Flat Earth, they are just too far apart, but it does work on a Globe. The only reason you can't see it from all 3 locations on Earth however, is because it's daylight on at least one of those points at any given time...and you can't see the stars through the daylight. But it is there...if you could see the stars through the daylight sun, you would be able to spot the southern cross from all 3 locations, and star constellation trackers confirm this. Even though you can't see it, it is there. So all 3 locations could see it...but the thing is, the fact that even TWO points in reality can see it, is evidence enough that we are not Flat.
To test this, just join an astronomy forum sometime, make sure it's a global forum, not just a local forum. They will likely post photos of their night sky with time stamps, so that you can correlate the hours and see if Two locations in the South could in fact see the Southern Cross at the same time. You can even find people in both locations to help you test this, so give it a try sometime.
The last part of that video...is a HUGE stretch of logic. His explanation for why there is a southern rotation that is just like the the Northern location, I quote "So it looks like a second pole, but it's just a massive perspective warp due to scale of the actual sky"...what a complete bit of bullshit. I'm sorry, but HOW can anyone agree with that explanation and then tell the rest of US that we're crazy for believing in a Globe? This makes zero sense and is just word salad...not much more. So he claims that perspective warps the southern sky...into a perfect circle...wow. That is some crazy shit. No, in reality this is what the sky would do on a Flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=53s
His explanation gives no experiments to help prove his conclusion...just talks a bunch of bullshit with a bunch of ad hoc explanations and it's incredible to me that anyone would believe that. If you apply Occam's Razor here, the round Earth makes far more sense and doesn't require a HUGE leap of logic to explain what's happening, it is exactly what we'd expect to see if the Earth were a Globe.
So nope, this does not answer for the Southern pole observations. His warping perspective explanation...is absolute crazy talk and people gotta own up to that...cause it's true and I think they know it too. Eric Dubay is a lying nut job...not much more.
The only thing he brings up that is a valid question, is the movement of the stars with all the different movements. So I'll address that next in another comment.
2
-
@ridemywheelie Kinda like the time when we thought the Earth was flat, but then the evidence grew and made it abundantly clear that it wasn’t? 🧐
All jabs aside, yes, that’s the nature of information gathering of any kind; we don’t know everything and we likely never will, so old information always has the potential to change as new information is acquired. That’s why the scientific community decided to use the word ‘theory’ for their conclusions, because it allows for those conclusions to be changed, updated, or even discarded, as new information is acquired.
So I’d agree, it’s good to be open minded, that’s even how science has structured itself, to allow for the introduction of new information so it can be reviewed, considered, and discussed. The trouble with Flat Earth is, none of this is new information. It may be new to some layman, who are not well learned in science and mathematics, who don’t have any real experience with either. But in reality they’re a good 2000 years behind and really need to catch up. None of the arguments from Flat Earth are new, they’re just ignorant of all the evidence that led to the current conclusions, so they’re just arguments from ignorance at their core. And for a group claiming to be more open minded, they sure shut those minds tight pretty quick, the moment you turn the lens around and try to question them.
It’s good to be open minded, sure, but open minded is a loose term thrown around a lot these days, that some use as a way to spread misinformation, to wedge bullshit into peoples minds. It’s good to ask questions and be open to new ideas, but it doesn’t mean we should just ignore everything we currently know…but sadly, that’s what a lot of people seem to think keeping an open mind is implying. I also agree with Aristotle, that the mark of true intelligence is the ability to entertain an idea, without agreeing with it outright, but the problem is, most people really aren’t as intelligent as they think they are, and so they’re not really capable of that last part. So for many people, keeping an open mind is actually pretty dangerous…because they’re unable to keep an open mind without it falling out completely. So it’s kind of a double edged sword, cause conmen do exist and they use that phrase a lot as a trap to snare the under educated.
I think some knowledge just reaches a point where it’s not really debatable anymore. Should we really keep an open mind to Flat Earth, even though our entire system of navigation is built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical, and it works every time that knowledge is applied? It’s tricky, cause of course all knowledge should be open to scrutiny and review, that’s just good science practice and methodology…but, when do people stop and ask themselves, if maybe there’s just a lot they don’t really know currently, and maybe they’re not as qualified as they think they are, to reach conclusions on some subjects?
It’s tricky to navigate. One side of me is all for people asking questions and keeping an open mind, the other side of me recognizes that huxters have weaponized the phrase “keep an open mind”, so they can poison the well of information, to the point where I don’t even like using the phrase anymore.
Anyway, should people really be open minded to a group, with no working model and no accomplishments to speak of? I don’t really think so, because they haven’t really earned that right. Maybe when they have some science that can actually be applied, then maybe we could lend an ear, but I won’t hold my breath.
2
-
There’s several geostationary weather satellites taking full photos of Earth every single day. Himawari, GOES, DSCOVR, just to name a few. And the Apollo missions alone took thousands of photos during those missions…many were of the Earth, and these photos are well documented, and not too hard to find if you try.
Soooo, no, it’s flat Earthers who are lying here. Only SOME of the photos are composites or renders, the very large majority of photos of Earth, are actually full images, taken in a single shot. Himawari 8 takes a photo every 10 minutes, and has been doing so since it was launched back in 2015…so it’s taken roughly 367,000 photos of Earth alone, since it began operating. One of probably hundreds of satellites designed for that purpose.
So while there’s only a handful of composites, there’s now millions of full single shot images of Earth. So not sure where you got your information from, but it’s not accurate.
2
-
2
-
Ok, here's a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across a frozen lake, that verifies curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Go ahead and take a look, the experiment is quite thorough.
Stop letting con men on the internet fuck with your head and exploit your distrust in authority. The Earth is a Globe and it always has been, NOBODY out in the real world is using a Flat Earth model for ANYTHING, from navigation, to communication, to infrastructure, it's all built on the foundations of our knowledge of the Globe we live on. All the internet has done, has given con men a place to spread their misinformation and perfect their craft of taking people on a ride...and it's working.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@falcor1969 What is gravity? It's many things, that's not a very specific question. It's kind of a pointless question to ask in science, cause it has many nuances, you really have to be more specific. Let me ask another question similar to that to help my point, what is magnetism? You won't argue it exists I'm sure...but what is it? We know a lot about it sure, but do we know everything? No, we don't really know why it exists, where it comes from directly, but does us not knowing everything about it, mean that it doesn't exist? No, of course not....so your question is a bit loaded. That's why you're asking it right? You're trying to make the old argument that because we don't know everything about gravity, it must mean it's not real. And I'm sorry, but that's just a bad argument. We observe a motion between matter, matter does not move without a force first putting it into motion, doesn't take much deduction after that. Not knowing a few things about it, doesn't change the fact that we observe it, measure it, and apply our current understanding in applied science today.
Let's answer my question a bit more in depth though and hopefully it'll point out the nuance I'm talking about. You could just say it's a force and just leave it at that. But that doesn't answer much, you wanna know how it works, so how is a far better question to ask in science. How it works is by the flow of electrons, flowing freely through a polar axis of conductive material, causing an attraction between highly conductive alloys. That's what we think we know, and I'm sure that answer is sufficient enough for you on that, because magnetism doesn't affect your bias quite like gravity does, now does it. But did I prove anything there? No, I just explained how it works, as best we understand it, using a few well defined words and terms.
I can do the same for gravity, it's the bending of space time due to an objects mass that puts matter into an attractive motion between two masses. Essentially, time and space bends around mass, putting it into motion towards other mass, best visualized with balls on a stretched out sheet. But again, did I prove anything there? No, I just explained what we know so far. There's also a lot we don't know, but again, does not knowing everything about something mean it doesn't exist? No, certainly not.
But WHAT is gravity? It's an observed attractive force between two masses. Or it's the force that makes all celestial bodies spherical. Or it's just simply the bending of space time. See the problem? Asking what something is in science, especially physics, is not very specific, so it's a bit of a sloppy question. "What's happening" that is a better question, "what it is" that's just...not very productive in physics, it's sloppy, leads to a lot of confusion as too what someone is referring to specifically.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@colorsfather1606 Bob makes a valid point about camera exposure. When they take photos of the Earth, the intention is to capture the Earth as clear as they can. This requires they lower the exposure rate of the camera, to allow less light in, to make a clearer image of Earth, otherwise the image will be too washed out by light and you won't see the Earths features. So they lower the exposure rate, when you do this, anything that's too dim to cut through the exposure rate you set, will not make it onto the final image. The stars are too dim to make it through the exposure rate you have to set to get a clear picture of the Earth in a photograph...so that's why you don't see stars in any photos of the Earth. It's basic photography, so learn a little more about exposure rate of cameras, if you want to understand more why stars are not seen in images of the Earth.
On top of that, if NASA was trying to really fool people...why would they create fake photos without stars in them? Don't you think they were really trying to trick people, that they'd think to include stars? Learn a little about photography, look up camera exposure rate, you can find tons of videos online about this topic that can help you out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Great, but that does nothing to explain how or why the motion occurred, all you’ve done is stated what occurred in the most basic and obvious surface level observation. Science can’t do much with just knowing WHAT occurred, you will always have more power and control over a system when you understand HOW it works…that’s pretty much the whole point of science in the first place, to dig deeper, and deduce how things work.
To do that, science first has to define some simple terms, like force and density. Forces cause motion, nothing moves without a force. Falling is a motion, that motion occurs free from your powers to control it; fall from a building, there’s nothing you can do to stop that motion, it’s gonna happen. That makes it a physical phenomenon of nature, something that physical reality itself just does. So there’s an undeniable downward acceleration of matter, that motion needs a name so we can all be on the same page when discussing it, they called it gravity. If they can name the upward motion (buoyancy), why can’t they name the downward motion? They absolutely can and they did, it’s called gravity. Since motion and forces are basically the same thing, no motion occurs without a force, it’s then the force of gravity, pretty simple.
Can’t call it density, that’s already a well defined term in science, it can’t be used twice, or equations get confusing. And it’s different all together, it’s not a force, it’s a scaler, a ratio for volume to mass.
Flat Earth science is just trying really hard to deny that falling motion…for no other reason than to cling to what they prefer. They won’t get very far, staying on the surface of things, the job of science is to probe deeper…otherwise we might as well not even bother.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Ah, good, seems you asked me directly what use equations have while I was giving another response. It’s not really all that complicated, math actually makes our jobs easier…and you’re using technology every day that’s thanks to that math. The very device we’re using to have this conversation, is using a binary code system to run the software…which requires some pretty hefty mathematical formulas, to arrange and operate all that code. So…I mean, you should be a lot more grateful really, you’re really taking things for granted. Modern computers simply are not possible, without math equations. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
So it’s just odd that anyone could actually believe today, that equations are not useful or relevant…when you’re holding a device that couldn’t exist without it. It’s pretty arrogant actually.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 I think you were maybe familiar with the conclusions of science, yes, but I don’t get the feeling you’ve ever really thought about how those conclusions were reached. Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing, you can know something, without really understanding it…but understanding something is far more important and far more useful, than just knowing. I think for those 30 years you knew what you were told to know, but you’ve still yet to understand how that knowledge was obtained and how it works. Which is why you currently disagree with it, because you still don’t really know much about these things…if you did, then I wouldn’t have to go through these points and explain what you’re misunderstanding. And you are misunderstanding a lot of things…these things you’ve presented so far as “holes” in the science, are not really holes, they are really just your own personal misunderstandings. You’re drawing false conclusions, because you don’t quite understand the science, because you have holes in your current knowledge. I hope I’m helping at least to fill those holes a little, but I can really only do so much. The rest is up to whoever’s receiving the information.
Anyway, so do you feel the current system of navigation is just wrong? Do you honestly think pilots and sailors can navigate the surface, if they don’t actually know for certain the shape and scale of that surface? If this topic truly interests you, then I would challenge you to attempt at navigating somewhere long distance by either sea or air. We can bicker all day about curvature math and physics, but nothing proves dimensions of Earth better than navigating that surface. Knowing the true shape of the Earth is pretty vital knowledge to have, if you want to successfully navigate its surface. So why aren’t more Flat Earthers learning how to navigate? Seems like a pretty obvious and simple way to test something they feel so strongly about. So why not try?
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 No actually, the horizon does not rise to eye level, that’s a claim flat Earth makes a lot, but I’ve never seen them actually verify it with evidence. I have however seen people test this claim, by actually measuring the horizon with simple tools that can help determine if the claim is true. I currently know of two separate methods for testing this claim. Here’s an example for each.
https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI?t=139 - leveling rig method, built with household supplies.
https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc - surveyors theodolite method, easy to purchase, phones today even have theodolite apps.
Our eyes are not very good measuring tools, this claim only really holds up if you never test it. When you actually put it to the test, by measuring horizon to eye level, you’ll actually see that it’s not true, horizon actually does drop from eye level, and at the rate it should given Earth’s scale. So basically a lot of people believed this claim, before actually testing it…which says a lot about the Flat Earth movement actually. Lot of empty claims they expect you to believe without question, it should send up some red flags. So I hope that evidence is helpful.
2
-
@michaelcarlson2512 Actually, it was Ptolemy who started mapping the current globe surface structure, and designed the first working system of navigation, a Greek mathematician and geographer, lived almost 2000 years ago. Before his maps and models, sailors could really only travel known routes, or stick close to the coasts…travel across big oceans like the Atlantic or the Pacific, was almost non existent, because it would get them lost, which did happen a lot when they ever made the attempt. A lot of sailors got lost at sea back then. Nobody is getting lost today…and it’s because we have accurate information about Earth’s surface.
You can learn to navigate at any time, it’s actually pretty simple to learn. Fact is, if Earth was flat, then a system designed for a globe would not work. The fact that it does work, every single day, millions of successful voyages a year, is evidence you really shouldn’t ignore.
Evidence is always paramount, we should never reach a conclusion without evidence, or we risk reaching false conclusions, happens all the time. Flat Earth makes a claim, they should then provide evidence to support it, it’s the burden of proof, and they are no exception to the rule. Horizon does not actually rise to eye level, it actually does drop. By measuring it with tools more precise than your eye, is how you test that.
I’m sorry but, saying evidence isn’t important…is a pretty poor argument. Why is the globe required to provide so much evidence for you, while Flat Earth is not required? Why don’t the same standards of evidence and review apply to flat Earth? That’s not very logical…that does however imply a bias, that you’re more lenient on the position you currently believe, and are doing everything you can currently to confirm it, by ignoring its flaws and placing almost no standards on evidence or burden of proof.
2
-
2
-
@richardrupert7046 No, those research papers were never classified, it’s pretty common to find that (or similar) math simplification in pretty much any flight aeronautics manual or research paper, you were lied too. Secondly, they are not making any literal statements or conclusions in the section you’re referring too...that is a summary section, that’s not what a summary section is for. All they’re doing is removing variables, so that the math is simplified, because there are often variables that won’t effect what they’re solving for in the current section of the report, and sometimes they even run complete hypothetical situations, to have comparison data. When they do this in any research paper or manual, they have state VERY clearly which variables are not being included, so that the reader is aware of what’s being solved for in the equations to follow, that’s all.
It’s pretty common practice in these research papers and engineering manuals, YOUR problem here is not having any real clue on how to read them, so you just cherry-pick phrases and then jump to conclusions, built from your own assumptions. All you’re doing is confirming your scientific illiteracy...which is exactly what people like Thrive and Survive don’t understand either...you are blind leading the blind essentially. In other cases, it’s con men exploiting your lack of knowledge and using it against you, but Thrive and Survive is genuine I feel, he’s just an idiot.
2
-
2
-
Conmen use debates to sell their grifts and help advertise their bullshit, so scientists actually do have a policy, to take great care and consideration on who they debate. Because it could be just a trap, by clever conmen, who excel at putting others on the spot, regardless of how true or false their position is, to help sell their bullshit. Fact is, you can win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a better talker. So science, which deals with objective truths of reality, should never engage with potential conmen or grifters, peddling misinformation for a buck or even just for attention. Trouble is, they’re not always easy to spot, but we can at least start with credentials. Eric Dubay is yoga teacher, with zero schooling or experience in any field of science. So he has not earned any right to speak with actual accredited scientists, in a debate of science.
Though Eric Dubay is asked constantly by other YouTubers to debate, and he always turns them down or simply ignores them. So why does Eric get to turn down debates against his actual peers, while Tyson is criticized for ignoring a known conman?
2
-
There’s not more evidence for a flat Earth, there’s just more layman tackling the subject currently and they’re all basically starting from scratch, without any formal training in science. Took mankind collectively thousands of years to finally reach a general consensus on Earth’s geometry...now we have people throwing the baby out with the bath water and starting over, because they’ve lost trust in the system, of course they’re going to make the same mistakes, the scientific method took a long time to refine. Though it’s even worse now, because they’re determined to prove the government is hiding something...they want it so badly, they don’t even care if it’s accurate. This mind set blinds them, it’s called bias...and it’s a real problem in researching, that they need to get under control, or they will never find real answers.
If you really think there’s more evidence for a flat Earth...then you’ve clearly forgotten your physics classes, and have likely never taken any higher science education. But the simplest way to know for certain, is the modern world around you...every applied science in the world makes use of the heliocentric model, that’s for a good reason. Nice thing about junk science is, that it reveals itself as nonsense by the simple fact that it does not work...it’s not useful, because it’s not reality. Ask a pilot or sailor sometime what model they use to navigate the planet with...that’s millions of people confirming the Earth’s geometry, every single day. Navigation alone buries FE under a mountain of evidence...just one of many examples.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@outoftime7740 So what’s the distance our vision ends, exactly? 🧐 Kit Canyon pointed out something very simple that refutes your claim there; the Southern Hemisphere is further from the Sun at many points (on your model of a Sun rotating around North pole), yet they receive the same daylight hours as the North does (during their summer months)…so if there’s a limit to our vision, and that’s what really causes sunsets, then how exactly is people in New Zealand seeing thousands of miles further than people in the North, to have the same day time hours? 🧐 Kinda contradicts your claims that sunsets are caused by perspective, and that we have a limit to our vision…don’t ya think?
You’re not thinking things through very well…meanwhile, how does the Globe describe a sunset? Earth turns away from the Sun…there, explanation over. And you think it’s the globe model that’s broken?
Reality simply does not fit what you’re claiming, sorry. If you can’t provide an answer to this simple quandary, then it’s likely because your claims really have no legs to stand on, and so you should really take a moment to reassess your current beliefs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
You need to understand, many of us here are not new to Flat Earth Theory...we’ve watched these videos you’re sharing before...many times, they’re all the same. I myself have been actively looking at this mess for nearly 3 years now...I’ve heard all of these arguments before, Flat Earth has not changed in the last 3 years since I started looking at it closer, still the same bad logic, poor science and misunderstandings...and even lies, in many cases.
It’s fine to question reality...but it’s arrogant to assume that just because we didn’t reach the same conclusion, it must mean we’re not looking hard enough...trust me, we’ve done what Flat Earth asked of us, we have done our research well.
I think you should watch this video...Flat Earth is absolutely just as crazy as it sounds. Even if you disagree, you should be objective enough to turn the lens around again and keep questioning both sides. If you are, then that’s good. Falsification is the key to science.
2
-
Ok, yes, anyone can do research and source information. But there are differences between experts in a field and an average untrained individual, pros and cons. Everybody tends to suffer from a bias, we all have our own bias ways of thinking and it tends to lead us, in many cases without us even being aware. It's a flaw of man and if you think you don't have a bias...you'd most likely be wrong, it's pretty much unanimous. So an individual (experts or otherwise) can and do have a tendency to follow their bias, which can and does lead them to often follow a lot of misinformation in favor of that bias, especially if they have no prior training into the scientific method, or the methods of proper data and information collection...this is how experts differ. At least experts are trained in these methods, methods that are proven useful and that produce objective results. Experts actively practice these methods, making them far more proficient at these tasks in most cases as well. It's not that the average individual can't also learn these things, of course they can...but do they? I've talked to many conspiracy minded people now...some of them don't even trust or follow the METHODS of science, let alone the institutions of science...which just boggles me. The number of them I've talked to that think advanced Mathematics and equations aren't useful...is very troubling to me as well. At least with an accredited expert, you can be sure that they had to at the very least go through these basic methods of proper research and that they understand how and why they're useful.
Another thing going for experts, they are also required to submit their work through systems of peer review, before anything they say or claim is published. It's not a perfect system, but at least there IS a system of checks and balances in place to HELP make sure the information and data is good. So there are pros and cons to each...I feel experts have more pros than cons.
There is no such peer review system for the conspiracy content creators on YouTube, so they're free to say whatever they want unchecked and unchallenged if they so choose. This gives them freedoms that don't hold them back sure...but it also means they can make empty claim after empty claim, with no body to check them on any of it, causing them to eventually fall into the very traps the peer review system was designed to weed out. Bias thinking, poor lazy research, ego/emotionally driven subjective reasoning, bad experimentation, errors in data collection/math and most of all straight up lies...these are flaws that man has and tends to make, so I feel scientists were very wise to put some kind of system in place to filter out these problematic tendencies of man...and it's worked so far. Sure it can be exploited even corrupted, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea by default...it just means the individual should still be cautious either way and never take any information at face value...but again, at least experts HAVE a system in place that keeps them in check! At least experts ARE trained in methods that are proven to work and they practice and apply it in everything they do.
Worst yet, from what I've seen having spent a great deal of time on conspiracy channels myself, their flock of followers generally eat up every word they say without question...most of the comments in raving support and applause, even though I spot glaring issues and holes in pretty much every conspiracy video I've taken the time to watch so far. Then anyone questioning them is shot down or blocked immediately, to keep the echo chamber of information running smoothly. So I'm not sure what the larger problem is with these 'hermits' on YouTube, the fact that there is no peer review system to check their claims, or that the majority of their followers don't question anything they say. I'm all for freedom of speech, information and expression, so it's a slippery slope when we start trying to regulate what people can do and say on these platforms (thought we already do a little with things like hate speech, so it is necessary sometimes)...but it seems that very few people who listen and subscribe to these channels, do much of anything to actually question what the content creators are saying, nor do they seem to bother putting their claims to the test in any manner. For the most part, of course that's not every case...but this is not good in my opinion. People should question everything and never take information at face value, even from the sources they trust...which also includes experts, so in that we agree.
They call the rest of us sheep...when the truth is, they're still very much sheep, they just changed shepherds is all. In fact the whole "sheeple" or "indoctrinated zombie" thing, is more just childish name calling, a coping mechanism for people who want to feel superior or special over others...but not much more. It doesn't do anything but furthers the divide between people...we're all fucking sheep, I think people should accept that. You are not a wolf, neither am I, not even a black sheep...because everyone is aware that authority can't be trusted, it's nothing new, never has been. We've never trusted authority...but it ebs and flows, and right now, it's flowing. Maybe a few people think they see the fences...but do they really?
I just fear there is now a lot of misinformation being spread around due to these 'hermits' on YouTube, misinformation that is now making larger numbers of people more paranoid then anything else...which is not a good thing, that's how mob mentality grows, when paranoia and fear rob us of our better reasoning...it turns us against each other, makes us into monsters. Isn't that usually the main power play of these "elites" by the way? Divide and conquer? Seems to be working...
2
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez No problem, as long as it was informative and helpful. Let’s see if I can help with your other questions.
What I was trying to point out, was that a spirit level uses gravity to work, that’s the force the bubble is levelling too, center of gravity. Whether Earth is flat or a globe, that is how they work. On the globe, gravity pulls to center, and vectors move with you. On a flat Earth, there’s only one vector, straight down. Either way, a spirit level can’t determine which is which, it can’t falsify either model, so that experiment is inconclusive.
So that point wasn’t to conclude that planes definitely are arcing with surface, only that a spirit level can not tell the difference. How do I personally know a plane is arcing with surface? Because I’ve verified for myself that Earth is spherical, through many other means, so that conclusion concludes the planes arcing.
So a better question is how I’ve verified that for myself, but that’s not a short answer, so I’ll save it for now. If you’re curious you can ask.
No, I didn’t say Parallax effect is caused by refraction…sorry, you must have misunderstood me. Parallax was the pen name Samual Rowbotham used for his published books, he’s the guy who first conducted the Bedford Level experiment that was mentioned in the video above. Sorry for the confusion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez If you can confirm the Earth is spherical, beyond any doubt, then it verifies other points. It’s actually very difficult to measure an arcing for a plane over distance, using tools we have available today. My point was that a spirit level sure can’t do it, yet many in Flat Earth believe it can. They are wrong to believe that, gravity affects the measuring process. I’d assume a ring laser gyroscope could probably make that measurement, but I’ve not seen anyone make that measurement yet using that particular device, so I’m really not sure. What you can easily measure from a plane however, is the dropping of horizon from eye level. Using a simple theodolite tool, you can easily measure the drop of horizon, which would not occur on a flat Earth.
Verify the geometry, beyond any doubt, and you can conclude other points from that foundation. I’m sure you’d agree, you sure seem to have concluded all photos of Earth are fake, simply because you’ve concluded NASA can’t be trusted.
2
-
2
-
@Tomsolomon111 I think you should probably look up the definition for a scientific theory sometime, because it’s not the same thing as a regular theory in the layman usage of the word. In science, hypothesis takes the place of theory in the regular use of the word, that being a guess or assumption based from available information. While a scientific theory is the conclusion, reached only after it has been verified through repeated observation and testing. Nothing graduates to the level of a theory in science, until it has been proven with substantial amounts of empirical evidence, even then it also must pass peer review first.
They chose that wording for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will, that’s the reality of our situation, we are not omniscient or infallible…though conspiracy theorists would certainly like to think they are. So this means old information always has the potential to change as new information is acquired, so we can’t use rigid wordings that implies our work is ever really finished, a theory is something that can change and expand over time as new information is acquired…hence the reason why they use that word.
Learning is a process, it takes time, we don’t just know everything right out of the gate. Scientists accept that fact and they’re fine with admitting the limitations of their current knowledge.
Real pseudoscience is anything fabricated that can’t actually be applied, because it’s made up nonsense. Electromagnetism is also a theory in science, but you’re currently using it to send and receive your internet data over Wifi…so is the electromagnetic spectrum just pseudoscience because it’s a scientific theory? 🧐 No, clearly it’s not, it’s applied science, we use the theory of electromagnetism in everything from the radio, to the x-ray, your microwave, wifi, your tv remote, etc, etc. Don’t let the word theory fool you into thinking it’s not proven science, that’s just the word they’ve chosen for their conclusions, that allows them room to expand upon the theory as more information is acquired.
I think you need to go back and relearn the basics of science…anyone who thinks scientific theory is the same as a regular theory, clearly didn’t pay much attention in school the first time around. You’re just doing more to tell us all how and why you fall for dumb conspiracies you find online, because you’re currently scientifically illiterate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JoozOwnTheMedia-xi3fl They do take video...the ISS films its orbit pretty much every single day, there is tons of video from the ISS on YouTube, any quick search will find it. The reason they don't take full video of the Earth from far out into space however, is because of how slow it's moving. Here's a video of Earth taken back in 1990 by the Galileo spacecraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT8LL5kAxXY, wow...isn't this exciting. Here's that same video over a 5 hour time frame sped up 3600x's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVKJjo2w2o. You see the problem here? The Earth is not rotating fast enough for us to film it far out into space...so they take pictures instead because you'd never notice it rotating anyway unless you sped up the video. The Himawari 8 satellite takes a high resolution picture of Earth every 10 mins. Here's what some of that footage looks like sped up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRDYvF-9n_0
But I realize your brain is now probably wrestling with the 1000 mph rotation and the 67,000 mph orbit...and you're wondering why I'm saying the Earth rotates too slow to notice. So run this thought experiment, It takes 24 hours to make a full rotation, so spin a ball in your hand so that it takes 24 hours to make 1 full rotation, film it and let me know if you notice any rotation at all. Speed is relative, relative to us 1000 mph is impressive...relative to the Earth...not so much. Most of these satellites are in a geostationary orbit, which means the satellites are moving relative to the Earth, so they're moving at the same speed the Earth is moving, plus a little extra to maintain their locked position in orbit. Because there is no friction in space to slow them down, objects will stay in motion, they will conserve momentum...conservation of momentum in a nutshell.
For just a little extra, here's 200 full photos of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE
Could these be faked, maybe, but doubtful. I've been working as an artist a long time...and to fake all these photos and videos...would be a staggeringly impossible achievement, especially back in the days before CGI. Heck even modern CGI today wouldn't be able to pull it off 100%, there would always be errors...especially in live feeds over several hours in length that would eat up processing memory. It takes a lot of memory to even render a few minutes of CGI...how big would the servers have to be to render several hours worth, without any run time errors or glitches?
Besides that, simply just stating something is faked...is not good enough. But yes, they do take video and photos of Earth...lots and lots of photos and videos. You live in the information age, there is literally no excuse anymore, it's not hard to find these photos and videos. Maybe spend some time away from these conspiracy videos for a change.
2
-
2
-
@iRecordOS Drag is caused by a body of mass, moving through a fluid, that’s not moving with it at the same relative velocity, its inertia then becomes a resistance. A hovering helicopter isn’t moving through the atmosphere, it’s moving with the atmosphere, they’re moving together, so no drag. The bug is moving through the atmosphere, the atmosphere which is moving relative to the Earth, not the bug, so it’s smashing into those molecules of air, rather than moving with it. This creates drag. So one has drag, the other does not…your error is in focusing too much on the detail of them both being outside, and then assuming they’re the same, simply because they’re outside. But one is essentially stationary in the relative frame of motion that is Earth, the other (the bug) is in motion within that relative frame of motion.
There is nuance here, the atmosphere doesn’t move perfectly with the Earth, it does slosh around a bit…what do you think causes the winds? At least a little anyway, the winds are a complex system, they’re caused by many things, but Earth rotation does have some effect.
Don’t need a phd to counter flat Earth, just a basic understanding of geometry and physics is enough. I have no post secondary education, I’ve just always had an interest in science. In the information age, anyone can learn pretty much anything, whenever they want, no schools required…the trouble is there’s also a growing problem of misinformation, currently poisoning the well of information today, so it’s also becoming easier to slip into bullshit. Flat Earth has questions, but questions are not evidence, it’s important to note the difference. The globe has more than evidence at this point, it’s applied science, the entire industry of transportation uses a globe model for navigation…that’s not just a coincidence, that system is built from real world measurements. That’s when you know your science is correct, when you can apply it, and it works…pseudoscience is the opposite, it doesn’t work and has zero real world applications, that’s how you spot junk science, it’s actually pretty easy if you think of it that way. The global system of navigation is applied hundreds of thousands of times a day…that’s more than enough successful applications, to verify the model as accurate. Flat Earth has no working model…just questions, they pass off as evidence. These questions have answers today, they’re not new questions…they’re just new to you, if you’ve never really taken an interest in science until recently.
Conmen are currently perpetuating misinformation online, exploiting the gaps in peoples general lack of knowledge and experience, to scramble their minds. They do it by “just asking questions”, which seeds doubt. Doesn’t work on everyone, but doesn’t have too, just a few…propaganda works in much the same way. You think you have good intentions…you’re just helping them do it. The real problem here is that questions are truly great, I certainly wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from asking them, it’s how we learn…but conmen tend to use it as a weapon, instead of for learning. They’re currently teaching people to never seek the answers for questions, just pile them up as evidence against whatever you dislike instead, and then deny that they have possible answers, because then that illusion crumbles. Sadly, it is an effective way to silence what you don’t like or can’t admit, and a very effective method to convince people of bullshit…but it’s not honest, it robs you of real answers I feel.
Anyway, I hope I’ve provided enough information that might help. At the very least, I hope it was interesting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jacklynwood2008 Ok, but it's often not the scientists fault that these conversations start to veer off into a religious conversation. Flat Earthers tend to be religious and think the Earth is a flat plane simply because the Bible says it is. Scientists would love to talk about the science and focus on that...but that conversation never gets to happen for very long, because the only rebuttal these people tend to have, is bible verses most of the time. Little hard to keep a discussion focused, when they just ignore any science you share and then bring up Bible verses as their evidence. So THEY tend to turn the talk into a religious discussion rather than a scientific discussion...that's exactly what happened above in this video as well.
I've been talking to Flat Earthers for over 3 years now, so I've talked to hundreds of them....very few of them, are non religious. You talk to them long enough, explain all the science to them that falsifies their points, they eventually turn to their last resort (but main reason for believing what they believe), Bible verses...and then the science grinds to a halt. Which reveals that they don't really care about the science....all they care about is confirming their bias, that being their religion. Religion is a powerful bias and a lot of people seem to have trouble marrying the two, science and religion...so they struggle with it. Doesn't help that they aren't listening...I feel your frustration, it would be GREAT if these discussions of geometry and physics didn't talk about religion...but then Flat Earthers need to stop turning it into a religious discussion.
It's fine if they want to talk religion and Flat Earth in a different debate that focuses on that topic, but if we're focusing on science...then that stuff should have NO place in that particular discussion. Would be great if they understood that....cause I agree, I don't like science talking ill of religion either. I don't like getting into any discussion where faith is being mocked and ridiculed...but they just keep bringing it to that place, and frankly, religious texts are not science...so they don't belong in that discussion. So I blame Flat Earthers for taking it to that place, not scientists. I've talked to enough of these people to know that when they have nothing left, the Bible verses start coming...and it doesn't really take long, cause they tend to not know much about science.
2
-
@jacklynwood2008 You would think it'd be that easy, if we were talking to rational people. But after talking to Flat Earthers for a few years now, and trying this very calm collected approach to point out there errors...it's clear we're not dealing with rational people. We are dealing with fear and paranoia, they believe any system of authority is their oppressor, this includes science, so this is the villain they need to defeat. So they don't really care what you have to say, they don't trust science, they just counter with "you're indoctrinated to say that". So we're not dealing with rational people here, we're dealing with a mental disorder, years of being lied to by government and corporations has caught up to us and created a great rift of lost trust in some people. You'd think facts would be able to bring them back and this would be super easy...but you can't have a conversation with a mind that's to afraid of your position to open up and listen to it.
I agree though, I too have my own spiritual beliefs, so it's really sad when religions get caught up in these conspiracy's, cause it just makes them look bad.
2
-
@alienrenders My first instinct will be to consider the possibility, not dismiss it outright and call someone stupid for thinking it could be possible, that we are having a negative effect on the planet. Why shut down the conversation? And why should anyone agree with you, especially when you have no evidence and no scientific credentials, just ad hoc explanations you slot in and THINK are the problem? Is it really any wonder why somebody would question you? 🧐 Seriously I don’t get why you’d be surprised.
Is it really that stupid to question your position? 🧐 From my perspective it seems like you’re not even bothering to consider it, but I’m not about to call you stupid for that, cause it’s possible you’re right and I’m not about to shut down alternative perspectives. But you’re certainly not going to convince me of your position when the evidence is adding up against it…certainly not with “they don’t allow brush burning, that’s why more fires are happening”. Really? EVERY country, state and province just passes the same laws at the same time? 🧐 It’s not just California that’s burning every year…Australia had the worst fire in its history just a couple years ago, Greece as well, the Amazon forest has broken fire records as well, western and central Canada is on fire every year….so what reason do I have to agree with your superficial conclusion?
Here’s the thing, if I’m wrong…then we have what, better environmental policies? Cleaner energy sources that are more renewable? 🧐 Ever been to a larger population centre, like London, Hong Hong, or Bangkok…where the smog is so bad you can’t even see, and air quality so poor it causes people to get sick? Does it really sound so bad to work towards a cleaner energy source so we can at least breath?
If you’re wrong though…then we’re fucked. So not a hard choice for me, I’d rather not ignore it. I hope I’m wrong, but it’s not looking good…when every summer is fires and constant smoke, I’m not going to pretend everything is fine…especially when scientific consensus is unanimous, Earth is warming and we’re the cause. Why should I ignore them exactly…when everything they’ve warned us of is currently happening? 🧐
2
-
@alienrenders Then feel free to share your evidence. In the meantime, here’s a physics professor going over the evidence that directly refutes what you’re saying. https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU Feel free to check over the sources he shares, it’s all in the description.
Just saying, there’s good reasons to believe this is a very real problem we face, and I’m inclined to agree with them, after roughly 15 years of constant more extreme fires and hazy smoky skies every summer. Whether you like it or not, it’s a discussion we need to have and so it’s gonna happen. Calling people stupid for being concerned about the future, and disagreeing with you, is just arrogant. I’ve researched the issue as well, and I’ve reached the opposite conclusion. Please feel free to share your research, I don’t mind taking a closer look.
2
-
@alienrenders Then it should be pretty simple to share your sources, but if you can’t, then I can really only conclude you don’t actually have any. From the data I’ve seen, average temperature has risen, so who do I believe? The data I have seen, or your claim with no sources to support it? Also, saying you refuted that video does nothing for me, what actual counter evidence do you have that refutes his sources? Evidence, do you have any? In what world do you live in where empty claims equal facts? 🧐
I’ll do a search for this claim of yours, but I shouldn’t have too…it’s your claim, so burden of proof is yours. Shouldn’t be difficult to share a source.
2
-
@alienrenders Yes, you’re right, I will try to debunk it…because that’s how science works, through falsification. If I can’t refute it, then THAT is most likely the truest conclusion. If you only set out to prove a position, then you’re far more likely to fall into confirmation bias. The best way to remain objective, is to take evidence and then do everything you can to falsify it…..that’s how peer review has worked since it was added to the scientific method. The information that can’t be falsified, is the best and most likely conclusion.
But my main point is pretty simple…you’re making claims and expecting me to agree that they’re established facts, without sharing anything that I can review, that helps support your claim. This whole “do your own research” argument is just a smoke screen…the moment I hear that, is the moment I know someone really doesn’t have an argument, just empty claims and a delusion that they’re an expert.
A real expert has no problem sharing sources……in fact it’s required of them, or they have no argument. When did that change? 🤷♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, here’s a modern recreation of the Bedford level experiment http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. There’s a whole section on refraction, just scroll down to images 31 and 32, to see a pretty clear demonstration for why refraction is a variable you can’t just ignore in these observations.
That’s the problem with FE, you think ignoring evidence you don’t like, somehow makes it go away...it doesn’t. Refraction is very common, it happens, it’s very well documented and understood in physics, so you can’t ignore it I’m afraid, it’s very real. If you do ignore this phenomenon, then you’re doing so out of ignorance to confirm bias...and that will not lead you to the truth of anything, it’ll just get you falling for scams on the internet.
Samuel Rowbotham was no genius, he was a con man. He achieved his goals by preying on the uneducated, designing experiments that confirm bias and dazzle anyone who has no clue how to spot errors in an experiment. He presents half truths, cause the Bedford Level experiment is a good experiment, but it’s an example of an experiment done only to confirm a bias, nothing more. He only made one observation, took only one data set, used only one marker, then used the wrong math and ignored variables like refraction. So quite frankly, he did not do enough to reach a conclusive conclusion, so upon peer review it was deemed inconclusive. Upon all recreation of the experiment, going further to account for more variables and running proper controls, doing the experiment properly, reveals the Earth is measured and observed to actually be curving and at the rate it should be.
Rowbotham’s version of the experiment is inconclusive, that’s the truth of things. He did a sloppy experiment to con layman, it’s basically like a slight of hand trick. This is why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors, bias and lying. But don’t take my word for it, take a look at the link above and see for yourself. It is quite extensive, but fairly easy to understand if you actually take the time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your facts are a bit off. James Van Allen and his team discovered the Earth’s radiation belt in 1958, a whole decade before the first successful Lunar mission. It’s always existed, and we’ve known about it for a long time, but you’re mistaken in just how harmful it really is, it’s not as harmful as you think. We can pass through the belt just fine, it only becomes dangerous over long exposure, over several weeks of remaining inside it…hence why the ISS remains in LEO, because those scientists remain in space for long periods of time. The Lunar missions passed through it in just a few hours, not nearly enough time to cause any serious negative effects.
It’s our technology that has to worry more, especially today’s tech, which is ran by small microchips and magnetic hardware. Back then, everything was analog, which doesn’t get nearly as damaged in radiation/magnetic fields. But analog systems are limited in what they’re capable of, so we spent a lot of time figuring out how to get our more advanced but more sensitive technologies to work, in deeper space. What do you think the ISS does primarily? It’s basically a laboratory, that tests things in the environment of space.
So now today we have upgraded that technology so it can handle the belt better. And so they are going back to the Moon now, new missions are planned for as early as 2024, just look up the Artemis program sometime.
If you had a base understanding of physics, you’d understand the globe model a bit more. It’s not as complicated as you think. Occam’s Razor is really more of a guiding philosophy, not so much an absolute principle for truth. But the heliocentric model is actually simpler than any other model, it accounts for every observation with relative ease. Take a sunset for example, the globe accounts for this simple daily occurrence with no trouble at all. Earth’s rotation causes the Sun to be blocked by the surface periodically, explanation over. But on a flat Earth, how exactly does the Sun set, if line of sight is never blocked? Geometrically it makes no sense, so a lot of further explanation is required to even get a basic explanation for the simple phenomena of a sunset. If we apply Occams Razor here, the Globe is far simpler.
But just because something is simpler, doesn’t make it necessarily true. Occams Razor is just something to keep in mind, it shouldn’t be taken as an absolute truth.
2
-
AVO If you’re attempting to verify gravity, you’re doing a good job. So ya, let’s work through this and see if something finally clicks for you. Density is part of the theory of gravity you numpty, but density is just a state of matter, it has no physical means for putting matter into motion, only a force can do that, it’s the first law of motion. Buoyancy is a force, but it doesn’t exist without gravity, without a downward acceleration first causing the density displacement. This is proven time and again with density columns put in zero G environments, and inside vacuum chambers where matter still falls even with no other matter around to cause the displacement of buoyancy.
Your conclusion is just pure denial...you’re just gonna tell me it’s density that causes things to fall and then completely ignore that density isn’t a force, and completely ignore that there is a motion occurring here that you are not accounting for. Falling is a motion, motion requires a force, the question is what force is causing that motion? Why is it always towards Earth? Why does everything drop at the same consistent rate? Your density argument, doesn’t answer any of these questions, it’s just a way you’ve convinced yourself to remain ignorant and convince yourself that you’re actually smarter than all of modern science. You need gravity to go away, cause it’s not very convenient for your main argument...so your bias demands you deny it exists. So it’s really all you have, denial.
It’s a fact man, things fall, this is a motion that Flat Earth has no real answer for. This motion occurs, it causes atmospheric pressure and it keeps our atmosphere to Earths surface...this is measured, you’re not gonna do your argument any favours by confirming your scientific illiteracy and ignorance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Earth is oblate, meaning not a perfect sphere. Here's a great video demonstrating just how oblate the Earth is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ It's not easy to see with the naked eye, but the Earth is not a perfect sphere, so it can not be classified as such. It's normal really, you know how many things in nature are a perfect sphere? Absolutely nothing. It's not a geometric shape that's easily achieved, certainly not by a planet that is rotating, which creates a slight centripetal force that resists gravity a tiny amount, which creates our slight bulge at the equator.
I very much doubt a teacher has ever said we can't see the moon during the daytime, if they did...then they were not a very good teacher, because it's obviously not true. Any science teacher would know how the Moon phases work and they would know that the Moon spends roughly half of its orbit around Earth between the Sun and the Earth...which means it's visible during the day. The only time it is not visible during this half of its orbit, is during the New Moon phase, where it is DIRECTLY between the Sun and the Earth, making it impossible for the Sun to reflect light off of the Moon and back to us here on Earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, that is one of the poorer observations from the Globe side, but this is usually an observation made from people who are new to the debate and don't quite understand the Flat Earth positions just yet, or given them much thought. It does seem logical at first, but yes, we can't make that assumption based from the other planets because who's to say we are a planet as well? So this is a counter position I actually do agree with and not a point I bring up at all anymore, because they are right on that one.
But we didn't just look at the other planets and assume we were one of them now did we...that was actually one of the last things we figured out. But this observation also does not mean we're NOT a planet like the others either, you can't assume either position really. So I think it's a good realization to have, good to stop making that argument for sure, but not a good one to dwell on, best to focus on how we figured out the geometry of our planet AND THEN learn how we figured out the rest, if stuff like this is obviously getting those gears turning.
We figured out the geometry of our planet first, through simple observations anybody can repeat, so you have to start there. Figuring out that we were a planet, that took thousands of years, over several observations and experiments, with advancements in technology helping along the way...before that, the planets were just wandering stars and WE were at the center. But there is good evidence that got us to the realization that we were a planet as well, it wasn't easy, but anybody today can learn this science and repeat it. So that's the best place to start. For me, sunsets, eclipses, star trails...none of this works on a flat Earth, but they all make perfect sense on a Globe...they're exactly what we'd expect to observe from the surface of a Globe, working within the cosmology we have deduced...and now recorded directly with photos and space exploration. Some people may be happy ignoring these simple observations...but I can't.
2
-
2
-
@kumarslvr1 Well, unfortunately, people within Flat Earth are full on conspiracy nuts. Flat Earth is just the tip of the iceberg for them...these people believe a wide range of different conspiracies, basically none of them are just flat Earthers. If it’s a conspiracy against NASA or government, they believe it pretty much by default, no evidence required. I’ve yet to meet a single one that doesn’t also believe the Moon landing was fake, so it’s becoming a pretty safe assumption that if someone believes one, there’s a good chance they believe the other as well.
But yes, I’m finding that Moon hoaxers are usually a lot more rational, can still generally be persuaded if evidence is substantial enough. Can’t say the same for Flatties...there is no reasoning with these people, doesn’t matter what you show them, they are long gone. So ya, I can see why you wouldn’t want to be lumped in with that crowd.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, it is knowledge that matters a great deal to human advancement and modern society as a whole. Sure matters a lot to the entire industries that rely heavily on our current system of global navigation to be accurate, in order to do what they do at all. So if you like many of the various foods you probably have in your fridge right now, and pretty much every little luxury or commodity you purchased from foreigner exporters like China, or India, then it matters quite a bit to your life as well...more than you realize. And that's just the industries that rely on navigation...there is then infrastructure, engineering, communication, etc, etc, etc.
So it matters....we can't do anything of value for human advancement, with inaccurate information. Your life has been made better by the effort of others who understood this and took great steps to make sure ignorance and laziness of information gathering, did not prevail. Please don't take that for granted.
2
-
@eyestoseefe7618 No, denial of gravity is the story Flat Earth conmen told YOU, so they could sell you a model that doesn’t work and has been long proven false.
For the third time, electromagnetic/static attraction effects all matter differently, so we would not expect everything to fall at the exact same rate. It’s not difficult to understand, but you’re sure trying your damndest to ram that square peg into a round hole anyway.
Drop something…it will fall, pretty clear demonstration of a consistent downward motion caused by natural phenomena, and since all motion requires a force, it means a force is causing that motion. Electromagnetism was considered from the very start, but it’s long been falsified, that hypothesis doesn’t fit at all with the properties of that motion, so it’s been discarded. This motion towards surface occurs no matter where you are on Earth’s surface, and Earth is measured and observed to be spherical…so it doesn’t take much deduction after that, to realize this force pulls to centre of Earth. If you don’t think Earth is mapped and measured, you just go ahead and try navigating anywhere long distance, by boat or plane, without using the current system of navigation designed from the knowledge that Earth is spherical.
The simplest way to verify and replicate gravity, is through the Cavendish experiment. It’s also a great experiment to falsify electromagnetism as the cause for the attraction, that is one of the variables you account for in the experiment, and yet an attraction occurs anyway. It’s easily repeatable…conducted in high school and university classes, all around the world, probably on a daily basis. Your ignorance and denial doesn’t change that.
Flat Earth is a falsified hypothesis…you have no working model, and no applied science, it’s that simple. You need to wake up and realize you’ve been conned.
2
-
@eyestoseefe7618 No, you listened blindly to some shmucks on YouTube, who used sleight of hand tricks, dramatic music, and monotone voices to put you in a more suggestive state, so they could sell you a con. It’s smoke and mirrors bud…and you fell for it.
Let’s take your new video for instance. Did you bother to test his claim at all, or did you just eat up every word he said, no questions asked? So he puts a line up on the screen and you just assume that’s an accurate representation of eye level? Good lord you are easily fooled.
You can actually measure the horizon to your eye level, using several methods. The best I’m aware of, is by using a surveying tool known as a theodolite. The other is with a levelling rig you can build yourself out of various household materials. With these tools, you can actually determine eye level and measure the drop as you go higher. Test it at the beach sometime (provided you’re close to an ocean), then get yourself higher and test it again…you’ll find horizon does not actually rise to eye level the higher you go, it does in fact drop. Many have done this simple test, verifying that horizon does not rise to eye level, and you can find their thorough observations on here if you try. Have you tested it? No…I’d be willing to bet you haven’t.
Your video isn’t scientific in the slightest…it is designed to sucker uneducated, paranoid zombies like yourself, that’s why they use many of the same tactics used by hypnotists, in those presentations. It’s brainwashing 101…and you numpty’s just eat it up, nod and agree to every bullshit claim….then you call us indoctrinated? 😅 Oh the irony.
2
-
2
-
@Meta369 No, exactly what I’m doing is thinking…and you don’t like when people think for themselves and question you. Only a real fool would blindly believe your bullshit without questioning it, so grow up, I’m not one of your blind followers. I’ve been to the South, many times, the stars are very different…they are not mirrored. You’re not saying anything that proves your position…it’s all just empty jargon. It may work on the gullible idiots of Flat Earth that you successfully con, but anyone with some sense and actual real world experience is able to spot a pseudo intellectual and his word salads when they see one. :/
Your rambling is jargon to deflect from a very simple geometry, that fits every observation and measure, from the two celestial poles, to the midnight Sun in both hemispheres, to the 1 degree drop of Polaris to horizon every 60 nautical miles travelling South (which is what determines a latitude), etc. Geometry that’s only possible on a consistently curving surface, a sphere, with two equal hemispheres.
So jog on you nitwit, you’re not fooling anyone here.
2
-
@Meta369 A meridian is basically a line of longitude, a circumference line (non physical) that runs through both geographic poles. They’re imaginary lines that form a circumference, so they could technically start and end anywhere, but they cross at the poles so most would probably start and end them at either pole. Flat Earth doesn’t have a South pole, or a circumference that can be traced through both poles…so you don’t really have meridians either, not in the traditional sense.
So again you’re making another dumb argument that does more to verify a globe than anything. Every pilot and sailor in the world uses the same geographic coordinate system, with two equal hemisphere, and meridian lines running through two poles. That’s a fact, not an opinion. If you honestly think they can successfully navigate the Earth, with pinpoint precision, without knowing for certain the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating, then you seriously need a slap upside the head.
Get a better hobby you numpty.
2
-
@Meta369 Can you understand basic trig? Do angles within a triangle ever reach 0 degrees? No…so how exactly does Polaris reach zero degrees at the Equator? Why and how does it drop a consistent 1 degree every 60 nautical miles travelled South from the North pole Zenith? I’m sure you understand that if Earth were flat, perspective would cause this angle to drop less and less each equal distance travelled…not a consistent 1 degree every 60 nautical miles. A consistent curvature however would cause that, absolutely…and Polaris would eventually reach 0 degrees on a sphere.
This is actually one of the first clues that helped us first realize Earth was spherical…oops. Just because they only use 180 degrees for each half of a meridian, does not imply the Earth is flat. 180+180 is 360 degrees…meridians intersect at each pole, lines of latitude are equal distance for TWO hemispheres, becoming shorter and shorter in circumference the closer to BOTH poles that you get.
It is a fact, that every pilot and sailor is aware of…the geographic coordinate system they all use is designed for a sphere. If it was wrong, then they’d be getting lost everyday…because you simply cannot fudge geometry. The model is verified as accurate every single day, with every successful voyage…your endless attempts at mental gymnastics don’t change that, sorry.
And again…you have to be completely brain dead to believe “a mirrored sky” makes more sense of the two celestial rotations, than just being on the surface of a globe, which accounts for this observation with absolute ease. You’re not entirely stupid…even you have to realize this.
2
-
2
-
@elfalte Well, there’s a completely different sky in the South hemisphere, with its own rotation, around its own pole star. Two poles with two rotations is exactly what we’d expect to see on a sphere, but doesn’t make any sense on a flat Earth with one sky…that’s why it’s relevant. I’m just curious why, if this topic truly interests you, if you’re going to use the stars as argument, then why ignore the Southern observation? 🤷♂️
You can verify the second rotation either by travelling there, and seeing it for yourself, like many of us have, or you can simply look up the probably millions of photos and videos online from various astronomers and photographers, who have documented this observation quite thoroughly. Here’s a great video to get you started https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU?t=285. It explains what I’m talking about, with visuals of the geometry to help you understand it better, and it shares real world examples of the observation. Just one of many.
Point is, we can answer for the North star, it doesn’t contradict the globe model. Flat Earth so far has no answer for the Southern stars however…they all just ignore it instead. Why? If you’re going to claim to be objective about this, why ignore an observation that’s very relevant to the discussion? 🤷♂️
That reveals a bias…people who ignore evidence to make their point, are displaying confirmation bias. Filtering out any information that doesn’t agree with the conclusion they’d like to be true…that’s a clear example of confirmation bias.
2
-
2
-
@ftlbs928 Buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, that’s physics 101. More than 1 force can exist and work upon an object at the same time. If I pull a piece of metal from a magnet, does that mean magnetism doesn’t exist? No, of course not, it just means the force I’m applying to pull it away is greater than the force of the magnet. Things rise due to buoyancy, because the buoyant force is stronger than gravity, doesn’t mean there’s no gravity present when things rise, buoyancy is just greater in those instances. But again, you actually don’t have buoyancy without gravity, buoyancy is the end result of a chain reaction that begins with gravity. Pressure in a medium is created by gravity, that pressure forces anything not dense enough to withstand it, to be forced upwards, directly in line with force of gravity but in the opposite direction.
Density and buoyancy are already a part of gravity physics my dude…all you’re doing is cutting out the parts you don’t like, because it’s not convenient for what you’ve chosen to believe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Bedford Level experiment isn’t really rejected, it was a good experiment, just performed poorly. Rowbotham’ version of the experiment is inconclusive, because he used the wrong math, took only one data set, with just one observation, using just one marker, ignored variables like refraction, height of the observer, eye level, etc. We can’t reach conclusions from inconclusive observations, so his experiment is rejected, because it’s an example of sloppy science designed only to confirm a bias conclusion. Do the observation properly and it will render a more conclusive result, here’s a modern example http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Just like the ships over horizon, you do this experiment properly, you get the same result.
This is why we have peer review in science, to weed out scammers like Rowbotham.
2
-
2
-
@yestervue4697 Seems there’s more to say then I guess. I apologize in advance, but I don’t pull my punches, so I’m going to be a bit more frank.
Well, how would you prefer science be conducted instead? Would you prefer no process of peer review occur? Cause I sure don’t, that would be a real mess...nobody would ever be on the same page about anything, quacks, liars, and scammers would run rampant, and we’d get nothing accomplished. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s required, peer review is essential for weeding out bias, errors and lies. Seriously...what’s the alternative? Imagine the world without a process of review...where everyone with a strong opinion is just right, no questions asked. Not a world I’d want to live in. If you have a better alternative, I’m all ears...if not, then it’s a moot argument.
I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy really, because I’m reminded of a time when religion ruled the scientific process. At least you’re allowed to voice your positions, without fear of persecution or death...perhaps you’d like a history lesson on Galileo and his many colleagues, who weren’t so fortunate. So I’m sorry, I get that you’re frustrated, but forgive me if it falls a bit flat, because it just sounds like whining.
If you don’t have any actual scientific evidence, that can’t be falsified, then it’s very likely your position is wrong. You’re doing more flexing than actually sharing evidence, and I get you have a lot of pent up frustration to voice, but most of us are really not to interested in all that, would be more productive to just share evidence.
Let’s take our exchange for example, you started with an observation of the Moon. I then shared some counter evidence, and that’s where that conversation ended pretty much. So far, you’ve not addressed any of the points or evidence I shared...you’ve just gone on and on about how unfair everything is instead. So I’m sorry, but do you really think that’s how you rebuttal evidence presented that counters your claims? I get that you feel very strongly that you’re right and we’re wrong...but really, if you can’t continue down the path of scientific examination, then it’s very likely that you’re in the wrong here...not the other way around. The trouble is...you’re doing more talking, then actually arguing your initial claim...and that’s all I really care about.
I shared some pretty simple geometric evidence, one that half answered your original question, demonstrating how a spherical geometry allows for two observers to see the Moon from opposite sides of the planet. To go further I’d have to model your observation to scale, both on the Globe and on the FE, but you didn’t provide proof of your initial claim, so we didn’t even get past step one really. So I’d have to first verify your claim is even accurate first, which is really YOUR job to do, if you were going to argue in any true arena of science, you made the claim, it’s your job to prove it. Then I shared a simple observation of my own, showing Moon and Sun angle data, plotted upon both models. The data fit the globe in both, while making no sense at all on the FE map (the AE projection).
So do you see the problem? What reason do I have to be convinced of your initial claim? It seems you gave up on it, after I started sharing counter evidence. You haven’t even attempted to rebuttal the evidence I shared, you instead moved on to an entirely different point all together. That’s not how this works...you’re whining about how the system is unfair...but then you won’t even finish a thought process!
If you were right in your conclusions, then you’d be able to demonstrate it, you’d have no trouble arguing the evidence. There would be no need for deflection. We’re not discussing the system, we weren’t talking about quantum physics, theoretical physics, cosmology, etc, we were just talking about the Moon...and then we weren’t, and nothing was resolved.
You’re not going to change any minds that way. All I’ve heard is excuses, not science...that’s been my perspective during this entire exchange so far, I’m just being honest. I’m not interested in excuses, I’m interested in geometry, astronomy, data, math, observations, SCIENCE. You’re nit getting anywhere with anyone, because you’re all over the place...instead of focusing the argument, you ramble on and on about things that ate irrelevant to the discussion.
Most likely because YOU are wrong (about the Moon observation) and you don’t want to face that possibility.
Sometimes you have to admit when you’re wrong...that’s just life. If I am wrong, then I’m more than ready for you to demonstrate that, but I’m not going to just agree simply because you demand I should, I’m going to keep going with rebuttal, until I can not...that is how science operates. It doesn’t have to be a difficult discussion, it’s mostly just basic geometry.
2
-
@yestervue4697 Sure, this would be considered an echo chamber for my position, I’m fine with admitting that, I’m fine with also admitting I have my own biases as well...we all do. Mine would be that I trust science a bit more than I probably should. So I’m more likely to agree with them at first glance, that is a bias though, I’m well aware of that. But you’re naive if you think you are in any way free from bias...you have two that I can see pretty clearly. A chip on your shoulder for systems of authority, leading you to immediately distrust and desire to defeat them, and then there’s your religious beliefs, which is what you filter your information through, paying closer attention to any information that you feel confirms that belief structure, while largely ignoring whatever refutes it. I’m similar, I desire to defeat what I feel is misinformation, and I put more trust into science, so our biases are quite similar...but at least I’ll admit I have them.
Nice thing about physical reality though...it doesn’t care about our bias. Stick to the evidence, process it all objectively, you will reach the most likely conclusion. One of us is still ready to tackle the evidence, no matter where it leads...while the other would rather not and is doing all they can not too. It’s not really hard to discern why...in most cases, that’s typical from an individual, who is not really interested in learning how they could be in error.
Quite frankly, YOU came here to poke us...not the other way around. You knew full well you’d get a response here, you could have just asked a question nicely, but you taunted us instead. Which is fine, you’re only human, we all have ego. I’m here for several reasons, to challenge what I feel is misinformation being spread, to provide what counter information I have, so people on the fence reading these have that information as well, and to challenge what I think I know...so I can learn a different perspective. It’s not very productive though usually, these chats generally devolve into...well, this.
I’d prefer it stick to the science, but that’s difficult when there’s so much emotional attachment to a position...I just end up getting an ear full. Perhaps I’m partially to blame though, you’re right, I give as much empty rhetoric as I get...wastes a lot of time.
So if you want to get back on topic, that would be great. Refute my evidence I shared above, or provide more context and proof for yours. If not, that’s fine too. I’ll only address evidence from here on out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, light bends https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=281.
You can’t see curvature side to side because Earth is huge. It takes 70 miles for Earth to arc 1 degree of difference, if your horizon is only 3-5 miles (horizon distance near sea level) in a radius all around you, then you’re not seeing very much of the surface at all, not enough degrees of change in your field of vision. It’s basic 3D geometry https://youtu.be/U8Vz9r2yWO8, notice how flat the horizon is on this surface at the start, but as it pans out it’s revealed to be a globe? That’s just how perspective and geometry work.The closer you are to a spherical surface, the less of it you’re seeing, the less degrees of change that occupy your field of vision, making the horizon appear flat.
So just cause it looks flat, doesn’t mean it is. It’s a rushed conclusion to assume it is, just from a single observation like that, that ignores perspective and basic geometry.
2
-
2
-
2
-
What exactly would you like to know about plane gyroscopes? A good source that might be able to help you out is a guy that goes by the name Wolfie6020 here on YouTube. He is a commercial pilot from Australia, who has done several videos explaining how these gyros work, in great detail, even taking them apart and demonstrating the mechanics. If you're wondering how they curve with the Earth as the plane flies, that is thanks to what are called pendulous veins, which are designed to use gravity vectors to re calibrate the gyro with the surface while in flight. They're really kind of neat how they work, and Wolfie goes into some great detail on that, so give it a look sometime.
He also has some videos explaining the newer laser gyro systems that are in many planes today, also some interesting information to be had. He covers pretty much all things flight/plane related to this argument, from gyros, to world navigation, he's the guy to check out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hightech346 An altimeter is designed to measure elevation and most of them do that by measuring air pressure...they're in reality, more like a barometer. Because it's very well known that air pressure decreases the higher you go...which is exactly what we'd expect to see occur with a Globe and gravity holding our atmosphere in place, a gradient in air pressure, becoming less and less and less the higher you go, until there is no more air to measure. So air pressure then can be used to accurately measure elevation (altitude) and that's what an altimeter does. Earth doesn't need to be flat for this to work.
I've already explained to you how a river flows on a sphere, it works the exact same way for a locomotive. Rivers flow from high elevation to low elevation, low elevation is closer to center of Earth, high elevation is further from center of Earth. If the elevation is the same from center of Earth, then it is level from center of Earth...train tracks just require that they're perpendicular and level to the center of Earth, cause then they're level to center of gravity as well and then it's not hard at all for them to travel along the surface. If you're wondering how tracks curve with the surface, just remember that tracks are not one solid piece of metal, they are many pieces of metal linked together like a chain. A straight solid piece of metal may not wrap around a curve, but a chain sure can.
I feel like I might need to draw this one for you, cause you're just not getting how gravity works...that's your error here. Learn what a gravity vector is, that will help you understand how this works.
But again, this is all just higher physics that you are misunderstanding. Go back to the geometry, to the start of the foundations of the Globe model. You can't build upon knowledge, until you have a sturdier foundation. So answer my questions for a sunset, for the two hemispheres, honestly look at the geometry and be honest with yourself...does a sunset make any sense on a Flat Earth to you? For how smart you think you are, can you honestly tell us a sunset makes sense over a flat Earth? That should be simple stuff.
2
-
@randylinn9382 But alright, enough rhetoric and mockery, I'm more then willing to discuss things more civilly with you if you'd like. So let's focus on some science. This will require you open your mind and listen to me though, so that's all I ask that you do. I shall do the same in return, so feel free to point out anything you feel I have missed once I have concluded something.
""if the globe works as science says it does, then you have to believe airplanes can fly sideways at least twice as fast as they can forward."
Alright, so this a question of the physics of motion, so let's look at the physics of motion for a moment, and see how ridiculous this really is. Apologies if you've heard much of this before, I don't include it to patronize you, it's just important that every step be followed, so as to understand the full context of the explanation.
So the first Law of motion is pretty simple, and you've heard it many times before I'm sure, everything in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass. What it's talking about is the physics of conservation of momentum, which is a very well understood concept in physics, here is a very clear demonstration of conservation of momentum in action.
https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku
Pay close attention to this quick video above and notice how this guy lands dead center of the trampoline every single time, even though it is being pulled out from under him by the tractor, while he's in the air. So what's happening here? Why doesn't he fall behind and land on the ground? How does he manage to keep pace with the tractor, continuously landing in the center, even though he has no way of propelling himself forward at that rate while in the air? It's simple, he's able to keep pace because of conservation of momentum. His body is moving relative to the tractor and the trampoline, because he likely started bouncing once the tractor was moving, so his body now conserves the forward momentum of that motion at all times. This is also the same physics, that explains why you're able to get up and move around the cabin of an airplane...while it's moving at 500 mph cruising speed. At no point are you sucked to the seat or flung to the back of the cabin...conservation of momentum is why that's possible, objects conserve the momentum of the inertial reference frame they are moving relative too.
This is important to note, because it's the same physics that explains how a sideways vector is possible, while also traveling in a slower forward vector. If the Earth is rotating, then we're all rotating with it, which means we are always maintaining the momentum of that rotational velocity. Conservation of momentum, first law of motion in action. So what that means is, since a plane is taking off from the surface of that rotating motion, then it is also always conserving that momentum, moving with the Earths rotation at all times. This holds true even as it travels in a vector or direction that is adjacent or opposite to that forward velocity.
Here's a simple experiment you can do that helps to verify this. The next time you're in a moving vehicle of any kind, a car, a bus, a train, a plane, doesn't really matter, as long as it's moving in a forward direction, at a steady pace, with no sudden dips or turns, and you are inside it with the windows shut and the air flow contained. Throw around a ball with a friend, or better yet, a paper airplane. Sit in seats that run perpendicular to the length of the vehicle, so beside each other along the width of it, and start tossing that ball or plane back and forth, from side to side. You will begin to notice that though the vehicle is moving forward, throwing that object around is behaving no differently then if you were to toss it around while not moving. Throw it from any angle, in any direction...it will travel through the air just fine. But now think about that for a moment...say you're in a plane going at 500 mph...first of all, are you throwing the ball at 500 mph? Of course not, nobody can throw a ball that fast. Ok, so the ball or paper plane is conserving the forward momentum of the vehicle. Now realize that as you throw it from side to side, it's technically then moving both sideways and forward...at the same time. If you were to look at just those motions from an outsider perspective observing from outside of the vehicle, they would see a ball or paper plane traveling forward at an angle. From your perceptive however, tossing a ball across the width of the vehicle from side to side, is just going to look like you're tossing it straight back and forth...but it's not really is it, technically, it's moving forward as well, so technically it's moving at a forward angle. A plane in flight over the Earth is no different. It's not breaking any laws of motion at all, it's adhering to the very first law perfectly, the law of conservation of momentum. This knowledge is expanded further in the physics of Relative Motion.
What Relative Motion teaches us, is that motion is relative to inertial reference frames. An inertial reference frame is just the environment that is moving, the insider of a car for example is an inertial reference frame, as is the rotating surface of the Earth. Everything moving inside of a vehicle for example, is moving relative to that inertial reference frame. A general rule of thumb that this physics of motion teaches us, anything moving within an inertial reference frame, will behave as though stationary. Meaning anything moving relative to that same inertial reference frame, will behave as though it is stationary. That's why you can throw a ball straight up while in a moving vehicle and it will go up and come straight back down into your hand, and that's why you can also toss a ball around with ease from side to side, while inside a vehicle or inertial reference frame of motion. Anything moving relative to each other, operates under the physics of motion of that inertial reference frame.
From an observer within that inertial reference frame, it will appear as though stationary and it will operate under the physics of a stationary system, rule of thumb in relative motion.
Anyway, I do hope my explanations and those thought experiments can help you understand your error here a little better. Flat Earth is ignoring a LOT of physics of motion here. It's fine to disagree with that physics...but in all my years of talking with Flat Earthers, I have yet to meet one that even understands the basics of this physics. Disagree all you want...but I would hope you're disagreeing because you understand it and understand how it's flawed...rather then disagreeing because you're ignorant. You can call me indoctrinated all you want...but this is very easy science to verify for yourself, you demonstrate conservation of momentum and relative motion, every single time you get into a moving vehicle of any kind.
There is more to this science, a lot more...so I'm sure you'll have many more things to point out to me, but I can guarantee they have answers. These are not new questions you're asking, your question above is a great question, but the trouble is...you're not really looking for an answer to that question, you hold the question up as your proof. It is a great question, it's the exact same sort of question all scientists once ask themselves, when they're first learning about the physics of motion. Where Flat Earth goes wrong here, is assuming they're the first people to ask these types of questions...nope, I'm afraid not, this is basic physics 101. Good question yes...LONG been answered. I hope you at the very least consider my explanations and look a little closer at this physics, the Laws of Motion, Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion. This is the science that answers ALL of Flat Earths questions pertaining to motion of any kind...and best yet, it's really easy stuff to verify today.
2
-
@randylinn9382 Sigh...you misunderstand me again, the atmosphere is not LITERALLY a shell like a glass, there is no solid line or membrane that separates space from atmosphere. It's a gradient air pressure going from high pressure to low pressure, which is measured. It is a fluid gas, that is kept to Earth by gravity, contained by it, that moves with the motions of Earth, via conservation of momentum. It's all well established science and quite well documented...you do yourself a disservice in life denying it all.
But anyway, actually yes, I can prove every one of the concepts I've discussed with you so far. All I have been providing so far are the explanations, these are not proofs of the wider model themselves, just a break down of how the physics operates. Though I have shared a few experiments of motion with you already that helped to verify conservation of momentum, but I digress.
What would you like me to verify for you specifically? I can share evidence and proofs for pretty much everything, from gravity, to rotation, to the atmosphere, to the measured and observed geometry, feel free to ask and I'm sure I could point you towards the experiments and observations that help to verify EVERYTHING about the Globe model, that you feel has no proof. Of course the best piece of evidence we have are the pictures from space, little hard to argue with those I would say...though you people are masters at denial aren't you.
Another great proof is that we have a working model, that explains everything we observe with tremendous accuracy. Flat Earth does not...and that's for a good reason, because Flat Earth is not reality.
I'm perfectly capable of providing evidence for everything I have discussed so far, so feel free to ask and I will share with you. In the meantime, you talk a big game about proof, but where's YOUR proof of a Flat Earth? You sure have many misunderstandings about physics, but these are not proofs, just misunderstood concepts that have stumped you. Feel free to share anything you feel verifies WHY you believed a concept that does no align with reality. Surely you have some evidence right? Only fair you provide some as well. Let's start with an easy one, what evidence do you have that helps to explain a sunset over Flat Earth? How exactly does the sun set on a Flat Earth and do you have a working model, with experiments, data, calculations and observations that can help to verify a small local Sun? Start there if you'd like...what evidence do you have that supports a small local sun? Annnnnnd go....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pepper22768 More counters to the shit they say....yup, gettin longer, but hope this stuff helps.
4. He'll more then likely claim that because our Earth spins at 1000 mph, darts around the Sun at 66,000 mph and fly's through the galaxy at 550,000 mph, that this is proof enough the Earth is Flat and not moving, because he believes we should notice these movements. It's a convincing argument actually, but this one only stands up...if you ignore a little thing in physics called Relative Motion. So if you're not well read on physics (though this is still basic highschool physics)...this one might catch some people off guard and it often does. So in this argument, it's important to understand what Relative Motion is and how it works, because it helps understand why these speeds are not only possible...but likely are reality. Relative motion states that speed and motion are relative, that our bodies are moving with Earth and so are relative to it. Our bodies do not feel or pick up on speed, what we are tuned to notice is CHANGE in motion, meaning acceleration, deceleration and any sudden change in forward velocity (sharp or sudden turns). Anyone can prove this with simple thought experiments, such as when you get on a plane and it's reached cruising altitude. At cruising altitudes on most commercial planes, they fly at an average speed of 500 mph...yet anyone is free to get up and walk around the cabin just fine. Once speed has leveled out and the plane is not rising or descending, you do not feel any motion...you are not sucked to the seat, you can move around just fine, throw balls around, jump, even flys can buzz around the cabin just fine...yet you're still moving at 500 mph. This is relative motion in a nutshell, your body is now moving relative to that planes motion. Our bodies are always moving relative to the Earth...it doesn't matter how fast the Earth is moving...so long as that speed is constant and moving in a relatively straight path...we will never feel these intense speeds.
He may counter with "but the Earth rotates, so our bodies are not traveling in a straight path", this is true...but the angular change in velocity is still very gradual, 15 degrees...over the span of an hour, 360 degrees in 24 hours. To put this into perspective, imagine you're traveling in a NASCAR going near 300 mph around a perfectly circular course. If the course is only like 1000 metres long...then yes, you'll feel Centrifugal forces clinging you to the car door as you make your circuits....your rate of angular change in this example is very great, so you will notice. But, expand that circular track to something more like lets say 100 miles, or even 10 miles to be more generous to Flat Earth...would you expect to be flung to the door then? Not likely. Why? Because the rate of angular velocity change has greatly decreased with the size of the course. Yes we rotate at 1000 mph, but the Earth has a circumference of 25,000 miles. Flat Earth either ignores or doesn't think of these things...but feel free to use these thought experiments on them, cause they need to hear them.
5. He might argue that gravity is just Density and Buoyancy and gravity as we know it does not actually exist. Remind him that Density is just a property of matter and Buoyancy is a left over effect we observe occurring thanks to gravity and density displacing matter. Density is not a force...it gives no energy to anything which is required to make things move, it is quite literally just how many atoms are packed in a given space. Buoyancy is a force, but it requires a starting force to put it in motion, it does not exist on its own. The question is WHY and HOW do things fall DOWN? Why that direction? Density and Buoyancy does not answer for this...gravity does. A good point to bring up is this, he might claim that "things fall because they are denser then the air"...but if this is true, why don't denser objects fall up then, where the air is even less dense? Air gets thinner and thinner as you go up in elevation, meaning the air above is less dense then the air below, so why when you drop something heavy doesn't it rise up into the less dense air? Lots of holes in their theories to replace gravity, feel free to poke many more into them...it's not difficult.
Woo boy...these got long. ^^; Apologies for that, nobody much cares for reading walls of text I realize, but I hope you find all this info useful anyway. Just don't let him get to you, Flat Earthers are crafty but I assure you, they just do it cause they love the attention and they love believing they're special. Their confidence is just classic narcissism, these are people who don't seem to enjoy a world where they are nothing but a spec of dust in an endless cosmos...it makes them feel small and narcissists don't like that very much. This is where their bias stems from, it's not every case mind you, but many of them very much WANT the Earth to be Flat...at any cost, even if it means lying to themselves. Always remember that these people are arguing against a very large majority of scientists and science that all unanimously agrees the Earth is a sphere. These people didn't reach that conclusion lightly...it took Centuries and these same people build the world around you and me...they couldn't do that, if they didn't know a thing or two about the world and how it works. Always remember that. I'm sure you do...but sometimes you listen to these crack pots talk long enough, and their blind confidence can start to jar you a bit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IrelandVonVicious Never said it was an either or situation...there you go arguing with yourself again, putting words in my mouth. The facts are, Flat Earth is easily falsified, while the globe fits with all available evidence, so it has not been falsified. If you have a different model of reality that fits even better with all available evidence, then by all means, present it...until then, the heliocentric model will be the leading theory for describing our physical reality, because it’s not been falsified and it does fit with all available evidence.
See how that works? Science is perfectly fine with discussing possibilities...but conclusions are reached with empirical evidence. It’s fine to present other possible models...but it’s not going to conclude them as accurate, until they can prove they fit and explain reality better than the current leading model. The current conclusions are Flat Earth falsified, Globe Earth verified. Until new evidence can come to light that falsifies the heliocentric model, until a better model is developed and verified that better explains physical reality, then the heliocentric model will remain the dominant theory...that’s how science operates, it’s not a tricky thing to understand.
2
-
@IrelandVonVicious Ah, very interesting. Ya, I typically don’t argue anything past Earth’s geometry. Earth is a sphere, I’ve travelled all around it, I’ve made observations, I understand the current systems of navigation and I’ve put them to the test. I also understand the general physics quite well (up to a point). There’s just far too much evidence in support of that conclusion today, so it’s pretty much non debatable as far as I’m concerned.
As for the expanded models, such as Heliocentrism, never been to space, so there’s much I don’t have experience with, so I don’t really care to argue it. Though I have made several astronomical observations (I do consider myself a bit of an amateur astronomer), so I do agree with the current model, but I’m far from an expert on the topic, so who knows. I’m far less confident in saying that topic is non-debatable, even if I do strongly agree with it. So I won’t argue. That said, that is an avenue of science where I trust the experts who do know what they’re talking about. I don’t feel they have any reason to lie...they’re not putting satellites up into orbit and calculating their trajectories with any other model, so I trust it’s accurate.
Interesting concept though, perhaps I’ll take a look. Have a good one.
2
-
@ismailshabazz9554 Nope, wrong again. Einsteins work was first proven accurate in the Eddington experiment of 1919. His field equations for GR accurately predicted the rate at which the Sun bends the space around it, distorting the position of stars. Eddington’s experiment is repeated by astronomers all around the world, pretty much any time there’s a solar eclipse, it’s long verified science. Then those same equations solved the mystery of Mercury’s orbit, after it was used to accurately predict and account for its extreme wobbling orbit, which previous Newton gravity equations could not solve for. That’s about the time people started to realize he was onto something. His work was confirmed AFTER experimentation…not before. Theoretical physics is the sketching phase of science, but if you’ve ever created art or built a house, you learn pretty quickly how important a sketch/blueprint is to the process. It’s no different in science.
GR has absolutely increased our predictive power over all cosmic bodies in space. That’s not something science is just going to ignore…because some numpty’s online, with zero scientific experience, claim they know better than actual scientists. Don’t forget also…that nuclear fission and fusion would never have been possible without his most famous equation, E=mc^2…so it’s applied science today.
Then predictions of red shift, time dilation, gravitational waves, have since all been detected…through further observation and experimentation. So you’re just pissing into the wind bud. Get yourself a better bullshit filter, flat Earth is a scam that feeds off your paranoia/distrust, your egos desire to be special, and it takes advantage of your lack of knowledge and experience in actual science.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lexluther919 Vibration occurs from both the wind resistance of the plane passing through the air and the friction that occurs in the engines...NOT the motion itself. There is no wind resistance in space (because space is empty, no air there to cause a drag force), nor is the Earth propelled by any engines which would produce a friction vibration. So where exactly is the vibration occurring in the motion of the Earth? The point of the airplane observation is to help you realize, that the physics of motion is a little more complex then you realize. 500 mph is an impressive speed, but at cruising altitude, you can get up and walk around the cabin just fine, at no point are you sucked to your seat.
What does this physics teach us then? That so long as motion is constant and so long as forward velocity does not change to rapidly, YOU will never notice the motion, because YOU are not actually feeling motion itself, what you feel is inertia brought about from a CHANGE in motion. A vibration is a change in motion too, wind resistance can cause that, friction can cause that...but again, where is the drag force and friction in the motion of the Earth through space?
Learn some physics, this is well understood stuff and you are not falsifying any of that science here, you're just misunderstanding it and dodging the lesson I'm trying to teach you.
2
-
2
-
@robertfish4734 Yes, I’ve heard of the Antikythera, a very cleverly designed analog computing device from the Greek and Mesopotamian era. I know that it’s been reversed engineered, and it actually tracks the orbits of planets, to predict celestial events more accurately…so it does more to suggest that the Greeks were slowly learning that Earth was part of a solar system, expanding on the knowledge they already acquired, that Earth is spherical. The two main components of the device, are the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, displaying an Earth in the centre, with the Moon orbiting around it. It’s pretty well known that the Greeks knew the Earth was spherical, I’m sure you’re aware of Eratosthenes by now and his experiment used to measure its circumference. Well, this device expanded on that knowledge.
But again, it’s largely speculation here yet again. The Antikythera device has been reverse engineered as best it can be, but who knows exactly what it was used for? All they had were a few gear components that survived, that were similar in design to the analog devices we used to build, before digital and binary systems took over. And unless you’re part of the team of experts that directly worked on reverse engineering it…I’m certainly not going to agree to any speculations you make about the device. That’s just common sense…or at least it used to be.
2
-
2
-
@robertfish4734 Still goin eh. Still haven’t caught the flaw of your argument yet I see. Well let’s keep trying then I guess. You said; “Again, a higher pressure will always fill the volume of a lower pressure”. Ok…then why doesn’t it in our atmosphere? You keep saying that over and over, and we understand it, but then you don’t really provide an answer to the immediate and obvious question it then creates. Why doesn’t the high pressure at surface, move into the low pressure above? Pretty simple question.
The best answer you’ve provided so far to our question; “The reason we have a higher pressure at sea level and a low pressure at higher levels happens exactly because we have an atmosphere and there is no infinite surrounding exceptionally low pressure that, using science here, always causes a higher pressure to fill the volume of a lower pressure”. Boy that’s one hell of a word salad to dodge the question entirely. You’ve not answered the question…you’ve basically said “it just doesn’t” and then circled back around to your vacuum argument, completely ignoring the question entirely. Your answer is basically “high pressure at surface doesn’t move into low pressure above, because atmosphere…”. 🤦♂️ Great…but that doesn’t answer the question.
You’re trying REALLY hard to ignore the obvious answer…gravity, that’s why. The pressure gradient is caused by the downward force we observe and measure from all matter on Earth, the weight of the gas above, pressing down on the gas below. Creates pressure like stacking anything does. I’m sure you’ve been in a pile up before, do you feel more pressure at the bottom of the pile, or near the top? Obviously the bottom…right? Why do you feel more pressure at the bottom? Because you’re supporting the weight of all the other bodies above you…gravity, pushing them all down upon you, creating more pressure, the more mass your supporting above you. Our atmosphere works the same way…it’s not difficult to deduce how a gradient pressure works. The downward force of gravity, creates the pressure gradient.
You have to be honest with yourself eventually…you’re just doing everything you can to not admit that a downward force is present, and that it creates a gradient of pressure. That’s the hole in your argument…we understand your point with Boyles law, we get it, but gravity more than accounts for your problem. It explains perfectly why atmosphere doesn’t fully expand out into space. You’re not doing anything so far to convince us that gravity is not a reality. And again, you’ve still provided ZERO tangible evidence for the dome you believe is up there. No physical samples, no physical measurements, no experiments that are repeatable that directly interact with it…all you have is a butchered understanding of gas laws and a few government documents you speculate on and forced your own biased interpretations upon. So personal misunderstandings, and biased conjectures…doesn’t make for a very strong argument.
So you have to at least see our perspective by now…you’re not falsifying gravity, you’re just denying it exists. Do you really think denial makes for a strong argument? 🤷♂️ You’ve done nothing to falsify gravity so far…and nothing to verify the dome. Do you see yet why we’re still questioning you?
We’re just gonna keep going in circles here, so let’s be clear. We have all concluded that gravity creates our atmosphere, because it makes sense of the gradient we measure and it fits with all the other evidence. So until you successfully falsify gravity (denial is not falsification), OR verify the firmament dome with ACTUAL evidence, until then you’re not gonna get anywhere here with this argument of yours.
So I’ll ask the question again a different way, we’ll just focus on the pressure gradient. What is causing the consistent pressure gradient we measure in our atmosphere? If not a downward force creating pressure, then what is it?
2
-
@robertfish4734 The core of the issue here is two fold. 1) You’re denying gravity exists without doing anything to falsify it. 2) You are concluding there is a dome above, without any tangible evidence supporting its existence, just a denial of gravity and the effect it has on gas to create an atmosphere.
I 100% agree that atmospheric pressure is caused by a stacking of air molecules, the weight of the gas above pressing down upon the gas below. But what is causing that downward motion? Why that downward direction? What is pulling matter in that direction to cause the pressure gradient in that specific direction? You can say it’s density of the matter, but that doesn’t really answer for that motion. Density is just a property of matter, it is not a force, it does not cause motion. Drop something, even in a vacuum, it will fall…that is a motion. First law of motion is pretty simple, nothing with mass is put into motion without a force. Falling is clearly a motion and it is always in a consistent direction, at a consistent rate here on Earth. This motion, implies an attractive force is present, we just gave that force a name, we called it gravity.
If that downward attraction exists, and we know it does, not even gas is free from this, then that explains how we have an atmosphere in a vacuum. Earth attracts molecules of gas to it, that gas builds up around the surface, that creates an atmosphere with a pressure gradient, going from 14.7 psi at surface, to eventually zero in space. The container is therefore gravity.
You’re agreeing with us…you just don’t realize it. We all agree weight causes the pressure gradient…but what is weight? It all comes back to gravity, you can’t get around it…as hard as you’re trying too. You have to be extremely stubborn, to deny something so obvious.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, scam artists online are bringing you half truths, cherry picked information, misinterpreted or misunderstood science, bad math and in some cases straight up lies, that they can spin a narrative with. What Flat is currently demonstrating is the power and dangers of confirmation bias and they're doing it all without proper peer review. It's great to ask questions and never take anything at face value, but then why do you people say that...and then blindly listen to strangers online? You are arguing against all of science when you make a claim that the Earth is Flat...the same science that makes ALL of our modern technology possible. You don't ever consider the possibility that MAYBE the error isn't with the model, but with your understanding of that model? That maybe YOU are missing something? Something Flat Earthers won't tell you, because they're deeply bias? In my experience in the 3 years I've been looking at Flat Earth, that has absolutely been the case, time and time again.
I'm not saying you're stupid, a lot of you are actually pretty intelligent...but you are being taken on a ride by con men, who have filled the gaps in your knowledge with bullshit. Confirmation bias runs rampant in this movement, you owe it to yourself not to jump to conclusions so quickly and absorb BOTH sides of the argument, instead of sitting in your echo chambers of information. This video above was not meant to share evidence, it was more directed at those of us who have looked at the science already and have concluded Flat Earth is a scam. It's a psychological discussion trying to figure out WHY or HOW people fall into this rabbit hole. So you won't find any facts, data or evidence here in this video and it's pretty clear from the title.
So what would you like help with exactly? I'm not here to mock you or insult you for asking questions, I'll just share information and leave it up to you. So feel free to ask. I enjoy the discussion, so long as its civil and ideas are shared and considered. I also like to learn, so feel free to share anything you'd like and I'll take a look.
2
-
2
-
@nicholashpitts Boy, you’re really doing all you can to deny and ignore some pretty simple evidence. A theodolite isn’t hard to understand, it’s pretty basic. You calibrate it at sea level, so eye level is set to horizon, then as you rise it remains calibrated...if horizon is seen is seen to drop below the eye level calibration, then it’s a problem for your claim of “horizon always rising to eye level”. It’s pretty simple. I understand your “apparent horizon” counter argument, but that’s why I shared two examples that made their observations during sunset. We can both agree that the Sun sets at horizon, the Sun is clearly seen below the eye level calibration in both examples...which is a problem for your “apparent horizon” counter argument, because the Sun pretty much removes all doubt of where horizon is.
But hey, at least you’re finally trying to make an effort, but you got a long ways to go.
2
-
2
-
@nicholashpitts Oh I’m well aware of Flat Earths explanation for a sunset, we can get to that next if you want, but if you want to move on then you’re now attempting to deflect from the point we’re already focusing on, which means you’re running out of explanations and falsification is running its course.
One last time, the claim is that horizon rises to eye level, but actually measuring the horizon as you rise in altitude reveals that claim is false, as I’ve demonstrated. Refraction will have an effect on what’s obscured by horizon, but it has no effect on the theodolite or the leveling rig measuring the horizon drop from eye level, so nope, you are just deflecting now. So the evidence I’ve shared stands, horizon does not rise to eye level as you go higher in altitude, it in fact drops.
As a bonus, It also drops at the rate it should given Earths scale. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth just click the first yellow tab labelled “Curve” and watch the demonstration found here, where they match geometric calculations with real world photos. So it doesn’t just drop, it also matches with the geometry and scale.
We can discuss sunsets next if you want, that’s a whole new problem for Flat Earth, so I’m game to show you where they go wrong here as well.
2
-
@nicholashpitts Well, by all means, share this evidence at “371,000 feet” then, why waste time? I can’t do anything with empty claims, you got evidence you think will shut me up, then why not share it? Your logic here is pretty odd...have you ever actually gone through a falsification process before? I have shared evidence that shows horizon drops at just a couple thousand feet and the drop at 45,000 feet is even greater. That same evidence shows the sun setting at a horizon line well under eye level, telling you exactly where horizon is, which falsifies your “apparent horizon” argument. While you’ve shared...empty claims and excuses and deflection attempts. 😂
Just sayin, you’re really not doin a very good job here so far...it was pretty clear at the start, but is becoming more and more clear who really has nothing going for their arguments.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@medmanbrand Well I’m just sayin…I know even a broken clock is still right twice a day, but the clock is still broken and the guy is still a scumbag. You certainly felt we should be concerned about project paperclip, for the same reason. So by your own logic now, we shouldn’t care that they were ex Nazi’s. So I guess that point is now moot, eh? Good job, you’ve done my work for me and defeated your own argument. 👌
That said, it was actually a pretty smart idea, can’t be denied. Germany had some of the brightest minds in science and engineering at the time, so had the US not done it, you can bet their enemies would have…in fact they probably did. It paid off, because Von Braun was a genius rocket scientist, and without him, we’d have never gotten into space as quick as we did.
Doesn’t mean I approve from a moral standpoint…he also built the first rockets used to murder people, so not a good dude either. But that’s the true nature of the world isn’t it…it’s just as ugly as it is beautiful, nothing is as black and white as we would like it to be. Archimedes built the pulley…but he also innovated the catapult. Einstein unlocked the mystery of mass to energy transfer (E=mc2), but it helped create the Nuclear bomb.
Now, what proof do you have Earth is flat? You are aware there are millions of pilots and sailors around the world, currently navigating the surface, with extreme accuracy and precision, using a system of navigation built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical, right? You really think they could do their jobs at all, if they didn’t know the true shape of the surface they’re navigating? 🤷♂️
If so…then I’d urge you to learn how to navigate, then apply that knowledge…see how far you get without using the current model. We can argue all day, but really…go and plot a navigation route without using the globe model…I dare you to try. Why bother arguing, if the topic truly interests you, why not do more to actually verify it? It’s cute entertaining these fringe online conspiracies…but join the real world again bud. Dubay is a Yoga teacher…with zero experience in any field of science, applied or experimental. Sure, like I said, even a broken clock is still right twice a day…but it’s still broken, and I’m not about to use that for keeping my time. Used to be pretty common sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@whataworld369 1) It’s not been solved yet, doesn’t mean it can’t. Science and mathematics don’t typically like to think in absolutes like that. There actually has been progress lately in solving it, so I guess just be patient. But again, it only really applies to three bodies of equal mass, that orbit each other. There’s really no examples of that in our solar system, so the 3 body problem can be ignored in our solar system, for the most part.
2) Well I’ve never seen Venus (and certainly not Mercury) in the middle of the night…wouldn’t we see Venus all night if Earth was Flat? All I’m saying is, have you bothered to try modelling this? You might be surprised to find the data and observation does fit the model. Fact is, there is a period of time in the night where you can’t see Venus or Mercury…the other planets don’t have that problem…you don’t think that’s actually more of an evidence for the heliocentric model? I get being skeptical…but you don’t seem to be as skeptical to the Flat Earth. Why can’t you see Mercury or Venus all night like we do the other planets? I’d say it’s more a problem for Flat Earth…not the other way around.
3) Gladly, there’s actually plenty of great experiments of this online. Do a quick search on Utube for “shrinking umbra”, should be the top video, with a coin on a stick. Pretty clear demonstration of the umbra shrinking, easy to repeat. There are two parts to a shadow, umbra and penumbra, the umbra can be shrunk, by distance and size of the light source. The 70 mile shadow is the umbra of the Moons shadow, but there is a penumbra and it is thousands of miles wide.
2
-
2
-
@PrivateBackroom Because it’s a simulation model, so the mathematicians running the calculations for the model need to know every variable included in the math for that particular model. Mathematical models such as these are not to be taken as literal. Like pretty much all mathematical models, they don’t simulate all of reality, only the variables necessary for the task they’re used for. In this case, it’s important for the reader to know the environment the aircraft is in for that particular model. So they state the perimeters very clearly, so the reader knows what’s in the math for the simulation.
Not sure how I can make it much clearer than that…I’m really just repeating myself now. Look…you know what a model is, right? If I make you a model of the Empire State Building, you understand that it’s not the same as the actual real building, right? It’s merely a simulated version, not a literal recreation of the real thing. Mathematical models aren’t much different. They simulate portions of reality, while omitting and simplifying others. Mathematical models are useful though, in this case an engineer can find the best shapes to use for an aircraft’s flight dynamics, that have the best air flow, least amount of drag, best lift capacity (important if your aircraft is gonna be really heavy), etc. Don’t require Earth’s shape or its motions for that particular model, so they can be omitted…but a mathematician still needs to know the environmental perimeters for the simulation, so it has to be stated clearly.
Then along comes people who are not mathematicians…heck they probably failed math in grade school, always asking the teacher “what would I ever need this for”? Apparently so you don’t fall for dumb conspiracies online…that’s what YOU needed it for, but engineers and scientists needed it so they could build every technology you enjoy (and take for granted) today. :/
Apologies for the jabs though, I do hope the information is helpful. I get that not everyone is a mathematician or engineer (I’m not either, I just paid attention in math and kept up with it as an adult), so it’s easy to see how many could misinterpret documents like this. Just sucks that instead of maybe ASKING real experts…most would rather run with conspiracy instead. I think we’ve all watched way too much TV.
2
-
No, that’s not accurate in the slightest. Many of those documents were never classified, and they’re not making literal statements about the Earth’s shape…they are math simplification models for flight simulations. When you simplify math equations, you have to state very clearly in the summary what variables are being omitted, that’s why they will say they are assuming a flat and stationary Earth…it makes the math simpler, thus making the simulation simpler. Mathematicians are constantly looking for simpler forms to derive equations, and if certain variables are not going to effect what they’re being used for, then those variables can be omitted. You’ll find that wording in a lot of flight dynamics manuals, classified and non-classified, because it’s a common simplification for flight dynamics. They are not making a statement or conclusion about Earths shape…it’s an assumed premise, a math simplification, for a simulation.
What we have here is a group of people cherry picking a few words out of context, and then twisting a narrative around them, completely misinterpreting what they’re reading…it’s just classic confirmation bias.
So get a better bullshit filter please. Flat Earth is a hoax, and YOU are currently falling for it.
2
-
It’s significant for those who believe in it, because it confirms their fears, justifies their anger and helps them feel superior. There’s also the biblical literalism that is strong with many of them...for these people, it doesn’t just confirm government lies and corruption, it also confirms their religious beliefs, which has always been a strong desire and powerful bias for some people. So they cling to the belief for a lot of reasons, some are looking to confirm and restore their faith, others are looking to feel superior to their peers, others want an excuse for why their lives suck that’s not linked to themselves.
It’s a problem, because they’re spreading misinformation and teaching people how to chase bias and become more ignorant, which could potentially be damaging for society’s future progress. That being said, I’ve been following things for the last 4 years since I first heard of it, I’ve chatted with hundreds of Flat Earthers at this point, the trend has slowly died off in the last couple years, and it’s pretty close to dead today. There will always be stragglers, but it’s lost a lot of steam.
2
-
2
-
@omares9611 But it’s also a bit of a paradox, because who created this entity that kicked off big bang? If nothing can exist on its own, if nothing creates itself, then how does this god exist on its own? How does something that powerful and complex, just come into being, without something creating it? You could just say it has always existed, outside of time and space, blah blah blah, but it’s just a cop out really...cause you don’t really know, answers like that are just slotted in as if they’re good enough, no further analysis required. If you can use that argument though, then why couldn’t atheists? Maybe the universe is in a constant cycle of death and rebirth, and perhaps it has always just existed, constantly cycling back to big bang, over and over and over again. It’s been hypothesized, it’s not outside the realm of plausible.
Truth is though, we don’t know, nobody really knows what caused big bang or what preceded it...but some of us are not about to fill the gaps of our knowledge, with God...that’s a God of the gaps argument, and a fallacious argument. We’re still learning, who knows what we’ll discover.
Think it’s time both atheists and theists just let it go. What do you care what atheists think? Why are we still having these never ending fights? I personally don’t mind that people are religious, I see their logic, it’s just not for me. Do you really care if we join your religion? I’m not interested, just like you’re not interested in being atheist, it’s fine. It’d just be great if people left each other alone when it came to this topic...but here we are.
2
-
@omares9611 You are wasting your time. I have never been religious, born in a small atheist town, didn’t even really know what religion was until I left at 18, it was 18 years of peace...and boy do I miss it. All I see now, are a thousand different religions, all claiming their religion is the one true religion...all doing the same dance you are now, so proud of yourselves for rationalizing an indoctrination, through the tunnel vision of confirmation bias.
Good for you, but you could be less annoying about it maybe? Lord of the Rings holds about as much weight for me in the end. It’s a pointless argument, I’m just happy to be here. If there is a god, I’m sure it wouldn’t care much about me or others just enjoying existence, not troubling ourselves with such a waste of time as religion.
You’ve never heard of the god of the gaps fallacy? Best you look it up.
2
-
@omares9611 I will, thanks, and you can keep pretending you’re a good person...because you read a book of rigid rules that never change or adapt with the needs of an ever evolving society. Whatever works for ya. Personally, I do find it a bit sad that you need a God to justify your existence and give you morals, when good ol’ fashion empathy covers that just fine, basic survival instincts of cooperating with a group. But it’s fine, I know it’s pointless to argue, you do you.
You came here to poke as well, so don’t pretend you didn’t. I don’t fault ya for it, I doubt you’re a bad dude, just have ego like we all do, just couldn’t resist. We’re all assholes deep down, and I’m fine with that...but we’re also generally good, it’s a mixed bag. I annoy you, you annoy me, round and round we go.
2
-
@omares9611 I’m sorry, but it’s just kinda bullshit to me. You’re over complicating things by creating delusions, you think give you objective morality, so you can pretend you have a higher ground on others...when you’re really just kidding yourself. Look at it from my perspective...too me, your morals are just as subjective in the grand scheme of things, you just don’t know it yet.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t still choose morals. I’m not about to go hurting people, my empathy alone keeps me from doing that, and I’m molded by society and the morals they have chosen. Those moral frameworks become almost objective, for as long as I’m alive. I accept them and will adhere to them...don’t need a God for that, we’re quite capable on our own.
But listen, we can go back and forth like this all day...and I’d really rather not. It’s fine what you believe, these talks just tend to get nasty and I’d really rather not waste much more time with that kind of negativity. Thank you for sharing your perspectives and insights, apologies for any disrespect I have given. It’s actually interesting to learn these things, even if I strongly disagree and do not fully understand your perspective. Religion does annoy me though, so I can’t help but prodding, but it’s quite pointless to continue with a bad attitude, so best I leave it at that.
Have yourself a good day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The first experiment he shared is not a valid experiment, so no, it’s not accurate in the slightest. You can’t use a spirit level to determine Earths shape, any more than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet…the tool used conforms to the forces acting upon them, gravity in the case of the level, magnetism in the case of the compass. So it’s a dumb experiment, that just misunderstands how the tool actually works.
The second is extremely inconclusive, because the original experiment ignored important variables, a big one being light refraction. It’s very important in all experimentation to isolate the variable you’re testing, by removing all other possible variables that could cause the same effect. Light bends in atmosphere, this is a known fact at this point, but it’s not common knowledge amongst layman. It is a variable that matters in that particular experiment, so it can’t be ignored. Robotham (Parallax) ignored it…so that renders his experiment inconclusive, yet he reached a conclusion anyway. That’s bad experimentation practice. We do not reach conclusions in science from inconclusive experiments that ignore important variables, it’s that simple.
The experiment has been repeated many times since then, accounting for atmospheric refraction, and the results are conclusive; Earth is curving. The most recent recreation that I’m currently aware of is the Rainy Lake experiment, it’s well documented online, look it up sometime.
2
-
2
-
"Why do shooting stars only traverse downwards (hense the name falling stars) when spotted?"
Jesus...have you ever really looked at a meteor shower before? What a bullshit empty claim that is. Take some time and have a look at one for awhile, here's a great video for ya https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KylmpOdvs Now just look at all the different angles those meteors come from. Parallell to the horizon, up from the horizon, you name it, they're shooting across the sky from all angles...and it's pretty clear here. There's a really clear shot of one coming up from the horizon at the 48 second mark in this video, big bright and orange, coming UP FROM THE HORIZON!
It's pretty damn clear to me, that you just form opinions from assumptions and you don't really take the time to look at anything do you. No wonder your a Evolution denier and a Flat Earther...you don't know anything, but you think you do. Dunning Krueger in action.
Here's a better question, what are meteors and how do they fall on a Flat Earth with no space and no gravity? Why do we have crater sites? Why do we sometimes have meteors that hit Earth, that we have collected many samples from? Where did they come from if not space? How did they fall into Earth if there is no gravity?
I think you've listened blindly to a con man who fed you some bullshit and then you didn't even bother to do the most obvious thing after that and actually LOOK at a meteor shower to see if that claim was accurate.
That's fine though, you keep posting ignorant shit and we'll be happy to point out how gullible you are. Just helps us prove even more how ridiculous Flat Earth is, so keep em comin.
2
-
You do not know how to read, or interpret those documents, so you have reached a false conclusions due to a lack of understanding...which is quite typical for layman to do if they're not careful. Research papers have a structure to them, and what you have done is taken words out of context in the summary section, and misinterpreted their meaning. What they're doing is simplifying the math a bit, by removing variables it didn't require for what it was going to be solving for in the sections to follow. They do this all the time in research papers, they run hypotheticals. When they do this, they have to state very clearly what variables they are removing, so that the reader knows what variables won't be included in the calculations...which is why they will use the word "assume" a lot in their wording of those sections.
A summary section is not for stating conclusions...it's simply there to let the reader know what is being discussed in the section to follow...it's never intended to be taken literally or as a conclusion. There is a reason layman shouldn't attempt to dive into these research papers without training...because without a basic understanding of how they are structured, you will risk misinterpreting the content of those papers, which will lead you to a false conclusion.
So maybe learn a little bit about what it is you are arguing against...before you allow con men to use your lack of knowledge and understanding against you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hebrew816 You mean the documentary that was later outed as having been created by a con artist group of actors and self help speakers? That Convex Earth video? The same group that before that video claimed they had made contact with an interdimensional alien...named Bilu? Hate to break it to ya, but those were not scientists...and you need to get a better bullshit filter. Don't believe everything you see or read online. If I'm to do my own further research on your claim, then do me a favor and research that documentary sometime...you might be shocked what you learn about it.
No, I've never seen the Statue of Liberty from a boat, I've never been to New York.
Point is, you're making a lot of claims, without any evidence backing them. Do you think people should just agree to claims made without evidence? In this case, share your math, your exact location, your viewing height, photos, the refraction index for that day, etc. THAT is how you convince people, with supporting evidence. You're not doing anything by making empty claims followed by "do your own research". I'm sure you don't believe me about the documentary above being a scam....why do you think that is? Cause so far, I've provided no links in support of that claim. So....guess how I feel about your statue of liberty claim? About the same. For the record I did try, but the links keep getting removed by YouTube's filter, guess they don't allow any outside links anymore, only YouTube links.
2
-
2
-
@Hebrew816 I don't remember calling you a liar. That would be me not believing things at face value, but questioning the validity of claims made before I agree or disagree to them...kinda like what you're doing, but from the opposite perspective. Nothing unreasonable about asking for the details, to review those claims closer, to make sure they're accurate and not in error. That used to be pretty common sense and it's a standard in scientific inquiry. You're currently denying science...because I'm not sure if you've heard, but the scientific consensus is that Earth is a globe. It also makes up the model we currently use in pretty much every field of applied science, from navigation, to communication, engineering and infrastructure. So you got a lot of nerve saying that I'm denying science...I'm simply challenging your conclusions...working through the process of falsification. That's how you do proper science. Flat Earth is not consensus, so I'm not denying science, I'm reviewing claims made against established science. That's all.
But it seems you're moving on from your statue of liberty point, just gonna deflect now and dump gish gallop on me, eh...alrighty then, let's go through these.
A compass aligns with the duel polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The North has a negative polarity, the South has a positive...that doesn't just flip, it remains the same whether your in the North hemisphere or the South. So your assumption that it would flip, is your error.
The axis remains in the same orientation, pointing towards Polaris. It's position around the Sun changes, but that axis is always pointed in the direction of Polaris. And because Polaris is so far away, it doesn't appear to move, due to Parallax effect. It actually does shift a few arc seconds from month to month, but you sure won't be able to measure that slight deviation with your naked eye.
A better question is, why don't you see Polaris in the Southern Hemisphere? If it occupies the same sky for everywhere on Earth...shouldn't you be able to see it from anywhere? It's not just that though, a completely new set of stars become visible in the South when you go there, and they have their own pole star, Sigma Octantis, with their own perfect circle rotation of stars around that polar axis. Why is that? That's not what we'd expect to see on a flat Earth, it is however exactly what we'd expect to see on a Globe. So why does Flat Earth ignore that simple observation? Maybe because it's not very convenient for their argument, so it's just easier to ignore it? I'd say so, yes.
He didn't, what he said (at the time), was that no experiment so far can OPTICALLY detect Earths motion. Didn't mean it couldn't be detected through experimentation, just not optically in a single experiment. This was before satellites and advanced camera technology that can now detect things directly and optically, he of course would not be able to predict we would ever have this kind of technology today. You should read the whole quote from his Kyoto address in 1922, it is as follows "While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."
Take note of the end of that quotation, where he bluntly states, the Earth is revolving around the Earth...funny how Flat Earthers leave that part out. Context is important...cherry picking quotes out of context is a form of confirmation bias, so you won't get anywhere with that tactic.
"why are there two complete different theories of gravity? Newton/Einstein"
Because science is a process and we do not know everything. So this means, as new information is acquired, it always has the potential to change old information. That's the reality...science is a never ending process of review and falsification and change. That's actually why they decided to call their conclusions "theories", because a theory allows them room to change, alter, or even completely discard a theory, whenever they need too...as we've done many times before. Germ Theory completely replaced Galen's miasma theory, for example, one of many examples. The reason we still refer to Newtons work, is because it's still useful in some aspects. Einstein didn't completely replace Newtonian gravity physics, just revised it, updated it a bit. Newtons equations still work in most applications and they are far simpler to use...but you require Einstein's more advanced theory and his field equations, when dealing with more precise calculations...like say, predicting the orbit of Mercury, calculating a fusion reaction, detecting gravitational wave, etc.
Einstein worked at a patent office in his youth...then he got his PHD in physics, at the university of Zurich in 1905, making him a fully accredited scientist, where he then went on to work in the field of Theoretical Physics. Most people don't just automatically become a scientist...it takes years. In the meantime, they work shitty part time jobs....this isn't difficult to understand I hope, every scientist has had to work a shitty job at some point in their life.
This is what I'm talking about and why I'm questioning you. Your questions are good, but your conclusions are in extreme error, due to false assumptions you have, led by an extreme bias you have. That is why we have peer review in science in the first place, to weed out errors due to bias, cognitive dissonance, and in worst cases flat out lying. It's a very important step in the process of science...but Flat Earth seems to think it is above peer review. It is not, nothing and nobody is. That's the reality.
I hope you've found this information at the very least interesting. You can do your own further research on each point, so feel free. If you have any further questions or rebuttals, also, feel free. I'm not here to mock you, these are honestly good questions, I just feel your conclusions are in error currently.
2
-
@Hebrew816 Also no, he eventually told me his location and the direction he was looking. Bringing up a map of the area, I was able to find the tower he was referring too, and the tower was only 8 miles from his location. This is why Flat Earthers are usually pretty reluctant to give exact locations. Because once they do, they can't argue from ignorance anymore, they can no longer lie about things, neither to me, or themselves.
It's why I take issue with so many of you, in my experience, you're very dishonest to us and yourselves. I don't want to be a dick, I'm not here to troll you, I try my best to be civil, but you really don't like being shown anything that might reveal how you could have been in error, and it makes you very difficult to chat with. So it becomes frustrating, then ribbing you is the only appropriate response at that point.
Just be honest, then we can work through the information, and MAYBE we could help each other. There's really no need for all the defensiveness.
2
-
@Hebrew816 Your extreme lack of caring for precise details is quite telling. You saw a few photos of the Chicago skyline, somebody told you it was from really far away, and thus impossible, and that was good enough for you? No further work required, just believe them at their word alone, no questions asked? Why believe them blindly, but when someone tries to help you reassess that information to check it for accuracy, you fight them tooth and nail?
This is why most layman should stay out of science, you are lazy, intellectually dishonest, unable to reassess potential mistakes made, and you do not care for the actual work required to reach the most objective and conclusive conclusion. The details matter, I would work through any of the math with you, but we haven’t even gotten past the gathering of the precise variables yet…so we can’t do the math, without locking down every variable first and confirming without any doubt that they’re accurate. How is this difficult to understand? :/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hebrew816 And if you do actually believe refraction to be real, that they cause superior mirages, that can and do affect what we see at distances, then great! We now both agree that the Chicago skyline being seen from the distance that photo was taken, is perfectly within the realm of possible, on a spherical surface at our scale. So you now have your explanation for how they could see the Chicago skyline, from that distance.
If you still feel refraction couldn't have been the cause, then it's up to you, under the burden of proof, to falsify that conclusion with your evidence that supports your claim. So, if that is your position, then for the third time, what is your evidence that falsifies that conclusion?
2
-
@kunallusso Words in the English language take on new meaning depending on the context...that's kind of why English is a hard language to learn and grasp. The same word can be used in many different ways and they take on a new meaning all the time, depending on what context they are used in...vacuum is one of those words that can change depending on context. In the context of space, it does actually mean...emptiness, a void, a vacuum. So I'm not yanking your chain here...whether you like it or not, Flat Earth is misunderstanding the context here and THAT is where they are going wrong when they are trying to understand this science. It's hard to properly discuss the science with people...if they're not even speaking the same language. Science uses a LOT of words in a different context, Theory for example is another word that is used differently in science...that Flat Earthers are also misinterpreting, but that's a different rant I won't get into for now.
But even in normal speech, words take on different meaning depending on the context, they are called Homonyms and you yourself are aware of many of them. Here are a few good examples I'm sure you're aware of. The word "Pen", can be used like this "do you have a PEN I can write with?", or it can also be use like this "lock him up in the PEN." The exact same word, pronounced the exact same way, spelled the exact same way...but the word takes on a completely different meaning depending on the context. Another good one is the word "Left". You can use it to say "He LEFT the building" or you can use it to say "Turn LEFT at the next intersection"...the exact same word, spelled and pronounced the exact same way, but takes on a different definition depending on the context. Are you getting it yet? The English language does this ALL THE TIME! Vacuum is one of those words.
Words in the English language change and take on new meaning....DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT! In the context of SPACE, vacuum means EMPTINESS! It does not mean a SUCKING FORCE like a vacuum cleaner...those are two different things. So I'm sorry, but this is ABSOLUTELY something Flat Earth is getting wrong and the fact that you people argue with us about something so simple...is a pretty clear indicator of who the real idiot is.
If you can't even grasp something as simple as context in language...then what makes you think you can grasp advanced physics?
That being said, if English isn't your first language, then you kind of have an excuse...but still.
2
-
@kunallusso Air in a pressurized space vessel isn't being sucked out into space, so much as it is being PUSHED out. Space isn't sucking the air out when/if a hole is cracked in a space ship...you've seen to many sci-fi movies, it's being PUSHED out from the pressure inside of the vessel trying to move from high pressure to low pressure. It's basic entropy...pressure attempting to move from high pressure to a low pressure system, so they require an airlock on space ships...so that they can keep the INSIDE of the vessel pressurized, because if they don't it will just push its way out into the low pressure system, because space is the ULTIMATE low pressure system...it's nothing but empty space...so space is not sucking out the air, it's being pushed out, is that clear yet? It's no different here on Earth, if you punch a hole in a pressurized tank of gas...is the gas inside the tank being sucked out? No...of course not, it's PUSHING out, it's high pressure trying to move into low pressure and it will continue to move from high pressure to low pressure until it is equalized.
That's how gas pressure works...BUT gas pressure is different from atmospheric pressure. In the case with our atmosphere, the molecules of air don't disperse into the void of space, because of gravity. They want too, and entropy still is occurring (and even wins on occasion, as hydrogen and helium do escape into space sometimes), but entropy is easily contained by attractive forces...like gravity. You getting all this yet? We're not "making excuses", I'm trying to explain basic physics to you...physics that is verified and universally understood and unanimously accepted by pretty close to the entire scientific community. Easily understood and easily demonstrated as well. Space does not suck on anything...that's not how space works. The rest of the world understands this...Flat Earthers do not...that's your problem, so I'm just trying to help you realize that.
2
-
@kunallusso "What do spin dryers do. They expel water. Spinning expels water. It doesn't draw it in." Spin dryers also rotate at hundreds of RPM's...while the Earth completes ONE rotation every 24 hours. How much water is flung from a ball that completes a single rotation every 24 hours? Absolutely none...our Earth is no different. Centrifugal force is generated by an objects RPM's, how many rotations it completes per minute. This is well understood in physics and is easily demonstrated and there are plenty of experiments that anyone can reproduce that confirms this.
Even simple thought experiments can help anyone realize this fact of Centrifugal force, thought experiments that include things everyone has experience with in life, making them valid experiments. Here's a good one. Put yourself in a Nascar moving at a constant rate at max speed of 200 mph. Now place this car on a track that is only 1000 meters in circumference...at 200 miles per hour, going around a track that is only 1000 meters around...that driver is going to feel a LOT of inertia, heck he'd be having a hard time staying on the course because of how many revolutions he's making per minute! But now place that same car, traveling at the same speed, on a track that is now a perfect circle at 1000 miles in circumference...how much inertia will he feel now? None, absolutely zero...still traveling at an intense speed of 200 mph, but with his track now extended, it means he completes less rotations per minute...he now completes a single rotation every 5 hours, meaning his Centrifugal force, his inertia is GREATLY reduced! Instead of his body now being flung to the door, his car barely even notices that he's turning...the turn is sooooooo gradual, he might as well be traveling in a straight line, meaning basically ZERO centrifugal force is generated upon his body, so he feels nothing. The same is true with our Earths rotation...it takes 24 hours to complete a single rotation, so that is why nothing is flung from the surface of Earth...besides the fact that gravity also plays its role as well. There are many experiments one can do to help understand inertia and Centrifugal/Centripetal forces better...so please do that sometime.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kunallusso "Ain't nothing getting far enough from earth else we would have had actual photos of the earth. We don't have a single 1. We have zero photos." Here is a video of 200 images of Earth taken from deep space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE&t=146s These were taken long before the days of CGI and composite imagery. It is a false claim again, saying that all pictures of Earth are composites...that is simply not true. Yes, many pictures of Earth are composites today, but there are quite literally THOUSANDS of images of Earth today that are full images, non composite, non CGI, un-edited, un-altered...the video above shares 200 examples. Provided in that videos description is a link to an archive where you can find many many more photos just like those.
Besides these images, there are several satellites in orbit right now that take full images of Earth, some that even snap a picture every few minutes and then upload those photos in real time. Himawari 8 is a perfect example, I'm sure you've heard of it by now, but if you haven't, give it a look sometime. Not sure how old you are but back in the early 90's there was even a Satellite that had it's own channel on cable, you guessed it...a 24 hour live feed of Earth from space, from a Satellite in orbit that filmed it and then broadcasted that footage to cable. I can't remember the name of the channel off hand, but if you do enough searching, you'll likely find it.
Here's a neat trick you can actually do as well, using these live feed satellites that are currently in orbit taking full images of Earth every couple minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q What this guy in the video has done, is he found the live feed footage taken from the Himawari 8 satellite (which is geostationary with the continent of Australia, India and most of Asia), then he went outside and compared the cloud cover of those images over his area, with his actual sky outside during that same exact time. Wouldn't ya know it, the satellite images of Earth, matched his sky. Anyone can do this for themselves, you just need to find the Satellite that is geostationary with your location. I'm not quite sure which ones are currently locked to the Americas or the UK, but here's a list of all the geostationary satellites currently in orbit.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit
Anyway, I'm sorry but...it's just another empty claim from the Flat Earth camp. There are thousands of full image, non composite, non CGI images of Earth. So to claim there is not, is just more ignorance and denial.
2
-
@kunallusso "No one knows what height curvature starts cause it never does" Here is a great website that can help answer this for you. walter.bislins.ch/Curve Because I've seen you mention this a few times in the comments above, asking "at what height exactly does the curve become visible?". What this website has done is it has created a globe Earth simulator that you can interact with (it's also the best curve calculator available online currently, so it's a pretty handy tool for this topic). So if you click that link and go to the blog, you'll see a bunch of yellow tabs above the simulator window. Click on the tab that is labelled "Curve" and then watch the demonstration. It shows you exactly how high you have to be to begin to see curvature.
What they've done in that demonstration, is they've used the simulator to generate what the Earth curve looks like at various altitudes, on a globe simulator that is TOO SCALE, and then they matched those simulations to actual photos taken in the real world from those various altitudes they simulated. You will notice that the simulated Globe matches the real world photos perfectly.
What I really want you to pay attention too, are the photos taken from around 100 thousand feet, which is the maximum altitude for most balloons. You'll notice that the curve of the Earth at 100k feet...is BARELY noticeable, and certainly not easy to see at all through the haze of our atmosphere. But if you watch as they match the simulator to the images...there is curvature, it is there, you can see it if you draw lines across the horizon that HELP you see the curve.
Then they go even higher in elevation, matching low Earth orbit photos and far Earth orbit photos...but yes, pay attention to that demonstration in particular because it helps to answer your question here. The answer is around 100k feet, that is roughly around when you can START to see curvature...but it is VERY hard to see even at these heights...you have to go even higher to REALLY make that distinction. So the Earth is MASSIVE, much more massive then I think you realize. 100k ft...this is what, 20 miles? You do realize the Earth is about 8 THOUSAND miles in diameter right? What percentage is 20 of 8000? I'll tell you, it's 0.25%...pick up a basketball and pull your finger about a millimeter off the surface...that's roughly how high a balloon gets to at 100k feet...you think that's high enough to see anything? You're reaching.
I can show you videos as well. I can show you several videos I have found of rocket footage, unedited, uncut, from ground to space...clearly showing the curvature of the Earth. I've made sure as well that the cameras used in these examples are not using a fish eye lens...of course there is always a small level of what's called "barrel distortion" in any photo lens, but the level of curvature in these videos is not possible with the slight barrel distortion caused by a photographic lens.
Here is a small sample of some videos I have found, feel free to give them a look sometime. There are hundreds of these online...you just need to know where to look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGYYqDDfRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMfQHzjNvRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlURVCK5ujo&feature=youtu.be This video does have a single cut, but it occurs after it arrives in space, clearly showing curvature before the cut.
2
-
@kunallusso "Tell me why we see 80 miles away if earth is supposed to curve after 4? " Ask yourself how high was the observer, how tall are the objects you can see beyond curve, what's the refraction for that day...these details matter. Flat Earth pays attention to ONE equation most times, the 8 inches per mile squared equation...but they never check that math to see what it is (a basic formula for a parabola, not a sphere) and they never think to account for other variables, a HUGE ONE being HEIGHT OF THE OBSERVER! Their math ignores these variables...because 1) Flat Earthers are not very good at math and wouldn't know how to check for better more accurate equations and 2) it's far more convenient for their argument of no curvature, if they use the WRONG math and pretend it is the CORRECT math anyway.
Essentially, they are using the wrong math...and I shouldn't have to tell you, that when you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion every time...that's pretty common sense. Flat Earth doesn't care though...because the wrong math gives them figures that support their claims...Flat Earth loves that, because they love chasing that bias.
The math is wrong because it ignores variables that YOU require to make an accurate distinction of how much is hidden by curve. Sure we see things 80 miles away...but you do realize as you go higher in elevation, you can see FURTHER? You are aware of that correct? Your vantage point is higher, so you can then see more...this is also common knowledge...so why does Flat Earth often ignore this variable? It's very important to include in your math. 8 inches per mile squared does not include a variable for height of the observer, it just measures a curve from a tangent line from surface....meaning those figures it generates, are only accurate if your eye rests at sea level...but even THEN it's not accurate, because it still also ignores refraction. Which again, is quite real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzLm6HVqI9o
So in most cases when Flat Earth makes these long distance observations...they are using the wrong math, either the 8 inches per mile formula, or a calculator that takes height of the observer into account but then still ignores refraction index.
Observe this structure in Denmark, the turning torso building. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gKKui_R7N9A/WeDRVA_y3nI/AAAAAAAAFLk/Pg2oH094BEIe-ttGt0zQ7BPFZChGupKqwCLcBGAs/s1600/Leaning-Torso-building-lean-horizon-hidden.png Now why is it that the further the observer goes back....the more and more that building loses it's base...more and more becoming hidden by horizon? Why is that? Why is it that when you use the correct math found here https://www.metabunk.org/curve/, it all matches with the Globe? Why is that? The correct math is also included in that image I shared, the actual formulas being used. Anyone can check those formulas for accuracy, so feel free sometime.
Flat Earth may be happy with doing the BASE level of research, stopping at the evidence that supports their bias and never digging deeper to see how accurate it is...but for the rest of us, we'd rather know the OBJECTIVE truth. Flat Earthers typically use the wrong math every time they go to make a long distance observation of things hidden by curvature...and then when we show them pictures like this one https://2img.net/h/s32.postimg.cc/fyr0mkoad/tower_all_distances.jpg, you guys often just ignore it.
Why does that building lose more and more of its base as you go farther away from it? Just like it would if the Earth were a sphere. Answer that for me, with math that supports your hypothesis and MAYBE you'll have more ground to stand on...but you'll still have all the Curvature math that I am providing here to contend with first. We already have done just that...and reality matches with our calculations for a sphere.
For more great curvature observations I highly recommend this blog. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App This blog has cataloged several observations for curvature, using not only the correct math but a REALLY great curve simulating program. Just switch through the yellow tabs to watch the demonstrations, but I highly recommend you watch the Soundly observations of Lake Pontchartrain. They are quite interesting and pretty clear observations of curvature.
For more info on curvature calculations I find this video puts it quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPNUU3yw2Y&t=18s He explains a little more in depth the math being used for several observations, breaks down WHY the math that Flat Earthers often use is wrong or missing variables and then he shares that same metabunk calculator I shared above, explaining why it is FAR MORE accurate calculator, for the simple reason that it DOES include all the variables you require to make a far more accurate calculation for what is hidden by curvature at distances, rather then ignoring them for conveniences sake.
2
-
2
-
Hell N Degenerates No, you're just doing all that you can to deflect the conversation, ducking and dodging the evidence that goes against YOUR belief of a flat Earth. You've just been dumping a lot of twisted physics on people to keep their heads spinning, and to keep yourself ignoring that evidence. I don't care about your misunderstood physics and empty rhetoric, evidence is all that matters and Earth is proven a sphere upon all observation. Here's an in depth recreation of the Bedford level experiment, that is yet another good solid piece of evidence for the curvature of Earth. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Now take a look and falsify this experiment if you think you can...just one of many I can share.
I won't even get into seismology that verifies a sphere upon pretty much every Earthquake, sunlight shadow angles that only fit on the Globe, the two different hemispheres with two different night sky's and rotations, flight paths that fit and work perfectly on the Globe at our scale, the satellites in orbit right now that are taking pictures of Earth...I can share evidence for all of these, I've been doing this probably about as long as you have, but unlike you I haven't been ignoring everything. Maybe stop focusing so much on the physics you clearly don't understand, and start paying attention to the visual evidence that verifies Earth is a sphere...evidence that shouldn't be so easily ignored.
"I've never seen mass attract mass, The Cavendish experiment was to measure the mass of earth, and it was ridiculous experiment, hanging 2 lead balls in a shed and looking through a telescope to observe a 1 in 50 million movement, all the variables could never be accounted for.
"
Jesus...you don't know fuck all about the Cavendish experiment do you...did you even watch that video I shared? I'll share it again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68&t=1s It's not a long video, 7 minutes and you can learn all about this experiment. Does it look like the mass only moves a tiny fraction? Does it look like it's a rare occurance? No, it's pretty obvious that it's moving and they move every time he places the other mass into position. Watch that video and tell me what variables he's not accounting for? They've removed tension variables, air current variables, static and electromagnetic variables...and yet those bottles of water still move and at a predicted rate that is consistent with gravity. So what would you prefer they conclude instead? Sure there could still be hidden variables, but then maybe instead of whining about this experiment you get to work HELPING to find those variables. :/
It's an easy experiment to recreate and it's done all the time, all around the world. Here's a highschool student who recreated this experiment so she could calculate the constant of gravity herself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t This is also what it was trying to do, to measure the effect of gravity...not sure if you've heard, but it succeeded.
You observe mass attracting mass every single day, you just don't pay attention. But go ahead, give me a counter explanation for why you think objects fall towards Earth. Give me some evidence that helps to support your counter explanation. Go right the fuck ahead...I'll be waiting.
Again, you're just a troll who's pissed that YOU have nothing to add to modern knowledge. You think you're better than everybody...but you've done nothing in your life to earn that, you just sit online and argue with strangers and think that actually means anything. This conversation doesn't mean fuck all and we're both wasting our time...but at least I'm aware of that.
2
-
@Livingtoblesschannel Well, she was talking about the vessel then, if that’s what you prefer, and she wasn’t wrong, that’s basically all it is. Though, still plenty of debate on that front I would agree, nobody really knows yet for certain how consciousness manifests or where it comes from, but there is plenty of research now that suggests it is just basically chemical interactions between molecules, that free will doesn’t really exist, we’re just a series of interactions between molecules, working through a domino effect.
Perfectly fine to disagree, but I wouldn’t be so quick to right that off...especially if you’ve based your conclusion on faith alone, no actual science.
You can certainly say “21 grams of energy leave a human body after it dies”, but you certainly can not just conclude it’s “the operator leaving the vehicle”, not without evidence you can’t. Further on that point, mind giving me a citation where Einstein ever said that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LowerClassClique That's sad, well I hope you do obtain some secondary education someday...university, college, tech schools, are not like high school, at all. Highschool's are really kind of hit and miss...and really depends on how good the teachers are, but I find their role lately is more like a babysitter and that's how teachers seem to treat it...and they don't really seem to treat the kids with much care or respect these days, which is sad. I'm an artist for a living currently, but teaching was my second choice vocation that I wanted to pursue, because I love science and I enjoy communicating knowledge...so it's hard for me to hear story's like that, cause it makes me think I really should have, not enough patient and good teachers out there it seems.
Trust me though, teachers treat you a lot differently in the adult world of secondary education systems, then they did when you were coming up. They'll actually treat you like an adult and respect your intelligence. It's a much better learning environment...it is harder though, cause they won't hold your hand, but they do treat students better, so not as bad at all. Tech schools are where it's at if you're looking for least school, quickest return on investment. Lot of trades schools out there, definitely worth it. I'm a second year insulator as well, over 1800 hours in the trade, only a few months of school, and most companies will actually pay your school if you work for them first as a helper under that trade...so my school was free and I made money while doing it, because I took that route, working first. Best option for quickest return, definitely tech and trade schools. Had I stuck with that, I'd have been Journeyman in less then 4 years...and you know how much Journeyman trades workers make per hour? It's damn good money.
Anyway, I hope the information I've shared so far was helpful and interesting. Good luck out there, and good chatting with ya.
2
-
@str8choc “Like Gravity, its suppose to be what keeps everything firmly pinned to the earth, like our oceans, :-( yet we’re able to walk, jump, fly, everything and gravity don’t touch us, lol. I guess we’re stronger than Oceans ha ha :-9 doh”
Wow....just wow. Last I checked, water wasn’t a living creature, that burns energy to put itself in motion. When you jump, what happens? You only jump so high...then you come back down, right? You didn’t just go flying up into space...you came back down, this happens every time you jump. Same with flying, when a bird stops flapping its wings, what happens? It comes back down, right? When you die and your body no longer creates energy to put through your muscles...what happens, are you standing anymore, can you walk, or does your body fall to the ground and remain there? I hope you’ve been living in reality long enough, that I don’t need to tell you.
How can you honestly think this is an argument? Like...it’s no wonder you fell for flat Earth, you’re stupid. There’s no other way to put it. Oceans don’t have wings dumbass...of course they can’t fly. Gravity doesn’t just shut off when you jump, all you did was produce enough energy to resist it for a short time. Oceans are not alive, so they have no fucking means of creating their own energy and no consciousness to make a decision like walking, jumping, or flying. :/
It’s just stunning....are you just joking, or what? Cause there is no way you can actually think there is anything intelligent about your argument here.
2
-
2
-
Okay, but what’s the alternative? Would you prefer a system without checks and balances, without any peer review amongst only accredited experts? It may not be a perfect system…but it’s better than doing nothing, and just allowing everyone to have a say…that gets messy and unorganized real fast.
It’s people who suck…not the system, the systems of peer review we create are to help regulate the errors, bias and outright lies of individuals attempting to poison the well of information. It’s not a perfect system, things do slip through the cracks and it can be corrupted, but how exactly would you fix that? Any solutions, rather than just pointing out the obvious?
It all gets ironed out eventually, nice thing about pseudoscience is that it reveals itself eventually, by how absolutely baseless and useless it is. It doesn’t work…and so anything that does make it through, eventually gets weeded out over time. Take the antivax movement of the 90’s and early 2000’s for example; the claims of vaccines causing autism. It all started with a bogus paper from a doctor (Andrew Wakefield) who claimed a specific vaccine called MMR (Measels, Mumps, Rubella) started in the bowels to cause autism after injection. The paper was published in a highly respected medical journal…but upon further peer review it was discovered the data was all fabricated, could not be replicated. Further investigation revealed that the doctor who published, had also put in a new patent for a vaccine just covering Measels…the argument he was fabricating was that the joined vaccine was causing autism, but HIS single vaccine that covered only one disease, wouldn’t. Essentially…he fabricated the whole lie of the MMR vaccine causing autism, so he could make millions selling HIS vaccine.
It of course got out of his control…because the general public aren’t doctors and so they generalized it into being “all vaccines cause autism” and then it became a shit storm. He then couldn’t even sell his vaccine…because he had just created the antivax movement.
It was later revealed his paper was bogus, and an investigation revealed a major conflict of interest as the source…he was trying to make millions selling his own vaccine, by essentially taking out the competition. He eventually had his license to practice medicine removed, and his paper was redacted from the medical journal it was published in.
So yes…it does happen, but it doesn’t last long BECAUSE of peer review. The scientific community eventually catches these errors and lies…that’s why peer review is there in the first place, it just takes time in some cases. Bullshit can only hold up so long…the very large majority of scientists are good people, who just want the best for society as a whole. So the huxters are grossly out numbered, they don’t dominate peer review. Even companies with agendas don’t last long against peer review…we’ve removed several harmful toxins from day to day life, thanks to peer review weeding out the bullshit science lobbied by big companies. It’s not perfect, but it’s certainly better than nothing.
The problem is the general public…they run with misinformation and take off with it, and then it becomes nearly impossible to sift through the mess they create. It’s mob mentality, taking over and pretending their experts, skipping over all peer review…that’s the real problem as I see it. The antivax movement of the 90’s started because the general public got confused and thought ALL vaccines cause autism…when the paper that the claim originated from was only claiming it was ONE vaccine in particular (MMR), and it’s never actually been proven that even that vaccine caused it.
So, yes, there are people who poison the well of information…but it’s not the scientific method that’s the problem, some people just suck, and there’s no way to really avoid that…bad people have always existed, and will always exist. So it’s a bit counter productive to point out the obvious…what’s the solution? That’s a better place to focus the conversation.
2
-
2
-
@riandcaz 2. If I could share outside links I would, but YouTubes algorithms auto delete comments with outside links attached…can’t even mention site names without the algorithm deleting them. But really, you couldn’t find any? I find that hard to believe, because I searched Apollo photos, and immediately found an archive with hundreds of them…it was the very first link. Is your search bar not working or something? 🧐
You asked for photos that weren’t CGI or composites, so I figured sharing photos that were taken long before CGI or composites existed, would fit that bill perfectly fine. If you want more recent photos, then just look up any photos from the ISS, or from geostationary weather satellites like Himawari, GOES, or EPIC.
3. Pilots won’t notice they’re compensating for any curvature, anymore than you realize when you’re curving around a big bend on a highway. You do it all by reflex, very little conscious effort…now imagine a bend that’s 25,000 miles circumference. When they say they don’t have to compensate for curvature, what they mean is that Earth’s curvature is so gradual, it has no rapidly changing or immediate effects on their ability to pilot…they’re not constantly nose diving like you seem to think.
You know a plane doesn’t have to nose down to drop in altitude though right? When a plane’s landing, is its nose down? No, it’s just allowing gravity to help it descend…that’s exactly what it does at all times while in flight, it remains in constant balance with gravity, no nosing down required, just allow gravity to help…which isn’t difficult, that’s how they fly in the first place, gravity is part of the equation for generating lift.
31.5 meters? Over what distance, where are you getting that figure? But yes, planes fluctuate in altitude constantly, but these are gradual changes, they’re not sudden or rapid by any means, any pilot can account for these fluctuations easily without much conscious effort, just keep the plane in line with horizon indicator and the altimeter, through thousands of little adjustments that add up over time…just like driving around a bend on a highway, but even far more gradual than that.
The mechanical gyroscopes in the nav equipment actually have a device for this, it’s called a pendulous vane. Feel free to look them up, they help keep the gyros pitched to surface if they fall out of alignment for any reason, including Earth curvature.
4. Yes, new does not necessarily mean better for every task, there’s pros and cons to every technology. For example; a direct phone line is far more stable than any cellular connection, so that’s one way it’s actually better than cellular. But you can’t have a direct line while in a moving vehicle, so that’s a con…see how this works! Every technology has pros and cons, new does not necessarily mean better for every task. Analog is sturdier, it’s not effected by strong electromagnetic fields, it won’t break down, that’s a pro. They are however limited in what they can do, they’re bigger, so to complete mire tasks with them, you require more of them, and that adds weight. That’s a con. Our modern computers have much tinier micro processors, they are gravely effected by electromagnetic fields, that’s a con. But they’re far lighter for the amount of tasks they can achieve…is any of this clicking yet?
It means if we want to include modern systems in a space vessel, then it has to be engineered and rigorously tested in that environment, before it can be cleared for safety. What do you think the ISS is for? It’s essentially a laboratory, in the environment of space…perfect for testing new equipment in that environment.
The reality is we wouldn’t go back to the Moon in the same old spacecraft, because they’re limited in what they can achieve…and we’d like to do a LOT more than just collect a few rock samples. But nobody was funding R&D for new lunar modules, so we weren’t developing spacecraft with modern tech, that could make the trip without failure. We have modern probes in deeper space, but It’s far easier to shield a system when you don’t have to worry about an interior cabin for a living crew, that also needs hundreds of other life support systems, that won’t break down on them mid mission. It’s easier to put unmanned probes out into deeper space, far easier than it is to send out manned missions.
Well funded? Do you know how much it costs for a single rocket launch? A few million dollars per day may seem like a lot to you and me…but to a massive company with thousands of buildings and (high end) employees, working on hundreds of different contracts at once…and operating in one of the most hostile environments that exists, they’re lucky if they can keep the lights on. You should compare their annual budget to the US military budget sometime…you’ll shit yourself. It’s pennies compared to them.
It’s also a resource management problem, in the 50’s and 60’s, the Moon mission was top priority, so every dime went into that one mission. Today NASA has hundreds of different projects on the go, so that’s going to spread their budget pretty thin.
NASA just got lucky, because private companies like SpaceX started developing reusable rockets, which has dropped the price tag for a single rocket mission from billions of dollars, to just a few million. So that’s why we’re able to go back to the Moon now, it’s now economically viable.
You can continue to believe what you’d like though, my biases are leading many of my conclusions as well, it’s unavoidable really. Which is why I prefer sticking to topics I don’t have to speculate on. We can really only speculate on the Moon missions, unless we’re an astronaut, neither side can really reach definite conclusions, we can only rationalize through speculations that appease our personal biases.
I don’t have to speculate when it comes to the Earth though…I can make my own observations, take my own measurements, and reach definite conclusions. So why focus so much on photos of Earth or the Moon? You could just learn to navigate, and then realize that every pilot and sailor in the world uses a globe for navigation, and that model works every time it’s applied. Do you honestly think it would work if it were wrong?
For me it’s not difficult to spot actual pseudoscience…it doesn’t work. Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any field of applied science…that’s for a good reason, because it’s not reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well that one is just mathematics. At a microscopic level, even a cueball has varying elevations. Hills, valleys, trenches, etc. They can measure these varying elevations to find some averages, then you just mathematically scale things up, to the size of Earth. If the hills and trenches are higher and lower on the cue ball, than the highest mountains and deepest trenches here on Earth, then you can conclude the topography of Earth is smoother.
I’m skeptical though, there’s a bit more nuance there he’s not touching on, it’s not just how high the peaks and valleys are, it’s how spaced out they are, and how grouped they are. Our surface goes from a steady 3 miles average deep oceans, to a sudden spike in elevation at every continents coast, especially at coasts with a mountain range. So I think you’d feel that sudden shift from one layer of fairly constant elevation, to another, they’d feel like layers. Though I haven’t done the math on that, so I really wouldn’t know for sure, but I’m skeptical. Neil does say some dumb shit sometimes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adewey33 Wow. 🤦♂️ It’s an optical illusion, easily demonstrated and explained…the Sun is not really in those clouds. The cloud density varies, and the intense light from the Sun washes the thinner portions out with its brightness. It’s not difficult stuff to understand. Here’s a simple proof…this guys even a flat Earther, but at least he’s honest https://youtu.be/cG6mJ8bHFxw.
Seriously, just stop and think about it for a second longer than you have. Clouds like that are generally 3-6 miles up…so you think the Sun is only 3-6 miles in the sky? 🤷♂️ Ok…then why aren’t pilots regularly hitting the Sun or at least getting close to it? You don’t think pilots wouldn’t regularly be trying to reach the Sun, if it was only that high? It would be a very regular occurrence. Heck, flying during the day would be a real hazard, pilots would be trained to avoid the Sun…but here’s the thing, they’re not…gee, I wonder why? Hmmmm…🧐
Furthermore, so the Sun heats half of the entire planet at once…the Sun from that elevation would be what, a few football fields diameter? How exactly does something that small heat half of the entire Earth? 🤷♂️ Even in FE, Earth is still REALLY big, so how does something so small heat it? It would have to be REALLY hot (and of course the Sun is, but hotter at that size), but then how does it just sit in the clouds (which is basically just water vapour), without completely evaporating the clouds? 🤷♂️
Also, so if it’s that close and that small, then how does half of the Earth see it all at once? Have you really thought about this at all? 🤷♂️
You can’t honestly think you have a sound argument with this, do you? Maybe leave the thinking to scientists…cause there’s a reason you’re not one. At the very least get yourself a better filter…stop falling for every hoax that pops up in your YouTube feed. Take a moment to THINK about these things a bit longer before you just blindly agree.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To your first question, no. Planes use atmosphere to generate thrust and lift under the the wings, this becomes increasingly more difficult to do, the thinner the atmosphere is. The atmosphere gets thinner the higher you climb in altitude and would be at equipotential on a globe (equal distance from centre). So it would be physically impossible for a plane to fly into space, it will drop as the atmosphere thins, unable to continue generating lift. There’s also gravity, which can’t be completely escaped very easily, it requires an escape velocity, which no plane on Earth achieves. They do not fly fast enough.
Now the second point, is a slight of hand trick they con people with. Most people aren’t aware of a thing known as vanishing point, which is just your eyes limit to render an object visible, due to its size and distance from you, it’s an illusion of perspective. As I’m sure you’re aware, things appear to shrink in apparent size the further away they are from you, this reaches its limit at a vanishing point, where your eye can no longer render it visible, it has shrunk so much.
So when they brought that boat back into focus, they weren’t bringing it back from horizon, they bringing it into focus, bringing it back from vanishing point. Keep observing that boat with that telescope and it would eventually do this https://youtu.be/WDdwP0Ucomk?t=52.
There is still a physical point, where things begin to dip and no matter how powerful your telescopic lens, you will never bring it back from. We call this horizon and it is a physical obstruction. These wind turbines for example, that are well beyond horizon, cut off by hundreds of feet at their base https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc?t=58. No amount if zooming will bring them back into view, because they are beyond horizon.
So the simple fact is, if you can bring a ship completely back into focus with a zoom lens, then it has not gone over horizon yet, it’s just being brought back from your eyes physical limitations. This is how they con people...showing you what they want you to see, keeping you focused on it, while then lying about what’s happening. It’s basically a slight of hand trick. So please be more careful.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, very good question, so I don’t mind answering. It’s simple orbital mechanics. A rocket needs to get itself into an orbital velocity, that’s the best way to maintain flight without requiring more fuel to resist gravity. If a rocket continues straight, then it’s just fighting gravity with no end, meaning gravity will eventually win and pull it back down to surface. So instead of doing that, a rocket instead uses Earths gravity to help it sling shot around the planet, using that acceleration to put it into an orbit around the planet. So to do this, they need to eventually turn at an angle, so the trajectory starts to curve with the Earth.
From an observers perspective on the ground, this is going to appear like it’s curving back down into the ground, but in reality, it’s just eventually going behind the horizon from your perspective. Orbital trajectory is how rockets, satellites, the ISS space station maintain flight around the planet, they’re essentially using Earths gravity well to help them maintain orbit, the force of gravity always pulling them down, but their forward velocity keeping them falling around the planet. It’s pretty clever science actually, using gravity instead of fighting against it.
I know you have your doubts and it probably stems mostly from a growing resentment you have for science, but your questions do have answers if you’re willing to hear them out. Here’s a great video that can help explain the basics of orbital mechanics a little bit better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaJf71pcUak
It’s fine to question what you’re told, but it’s easier than ever before to spread misinformation these days, so you have to be very careful where you’re getting your information from. Should always never forget to question even the sources you trust...con men do exist, and the modern internet is a con mans paradise, so be careful out there. I’m not asking you blindly agree to what I’m saying, but does my explanation help and does it make sense? If I’ve provided an answer that does fit and make sense for an opposing position, then you should at the very least take it as a stepping stone to learn more about the side you’re now challenging. You might be surprised what you can learn.
2
-
2
-
@ekulenwaiku4654 Boy...you say I’m ignoring things, then you completely ignore the experiments I shared, that physically measure the angles of the suns rays and verify that they’re parallel. The parallel lines simulation is just to demonstrate how parallel lines, when viewed from varying angles, can and will produce the illusion that the lines are converging at a point. I made it very clear that this was not a proof on its own, just a logical explanation demonstrating how the optical illusion works, but the 4 videos I shared afterwards, do verify that the suns light is arriving parallel. Which means it’s real world evidence, that supports the explanation and vice versa, no contradictions, which is a helluva a lot more than what you have. I suggest you watch them, absorb what they are demonstrating, then you can reply on that point.
The video you shared is not a proper rebuttal, nor is it evidence...you just completely ignored everything I shared and stated the same narrow conclusion, without evidence backing it. In what world do you think that’s good enough?
Are you just trolling me? There’s no way you’re that dense...just arguing a nonsensical position for the challenge and the lol’s are we?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Few things to point out if you don’t mind. Level does not only mean flat, the word itself has many different definitions depending on the context. For example, the surface of a bowling ball can be defined as level, in that all points along its surface are equal distance from centre of the mass, the surface is all at the same LEVEL from centre. In physics, a similar thing occurs when a mass is placed in a field of force that acts upon it equally from all sides, creating an equipotential surface. A water droplet, or a bubble, that both form a sphere due to surface tension/molecular bonding, are examples of an equipotential surface, a sphere with a level surface, all points at equal distance from centre, level from centre. Spheres are actually the most rigid shape in nature, and they’re more common than you think…it’s no coincidence every planet, moon and star are all spherical.
This is important to understand here, because the globe model isn’t just a sphere, it also generates a field of force emanating from a centre, that we call gravity. This force would absolutely put water at equipotential distance from centre of force, centre of gravity. Which would form it into a sphere around that centre…just like a bubble or a water droplet.
Even if you disagree gravity is not real, your comment does nothing to falsify gravity, it just ignores it completely. It also stubbornly refuses to recognize the nuance of a word such as level. Your comment I’m afraid only keeps you looking at the surface of the problem, keeping you from seeing or entertaining the other possibility’s. Just because the surface appears flat to us at our perspective, doesn’t mean it necessarily is, because geometrically speaking, the closer you are to a spherical surface, the flatter it will appear to you, as demonstrated here https://youtu.be/U8Vz9r2yWO8.
And here’s another example of what the surface of water can and will do, when put within a field of force, this time a centrifugal force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. Notice the very pronounced curvature? What this demonstrates clearly, is that water (and all matter with mass really) will conform to whatever force is acting upon it.
So you really can’t reach a definite conclusion here, with your comment. It ignores physics, geometry and the nuance of the English language…as well as the evidence that more than proves today that Earth is spherical. So it’s basically an argument from ignorance at its core, which doesn’t make for a very sound argument.
I mean no disrespect though, I just see this argument made a lot and I do feel it’s a bit ignorant and flawed, for the reasons I’ve pointed out. If you’d like to see some evidence for the globe, I don’t mind sharing a bit more and discussing. Despite my strong disagreements with Flat Earth, I’m not here to scoff at people for asking questions and being skeptical, on the contrary, I think it’s great that people are out there still questioning the science and conclusions the majority have largely moved on from and don’t explore anymore. So don’t feel discouraged, and if you have some rebuttals to my comment, feel free to let me know. Cheers.
2
-
2
-
Well...that's the problem, this literally is NOT the biggest debate on the planet right now. It's a big debate to you...and people like you, but for the majority of the world, this is actually not up for debate. NASA knows if they address this more directly...then they're acknowledging its existence, which only gives attention to something that doesn't deserve any attention and they have better things to do with their time. NASA already put the final nail in the coffin of Flat Earth, when it photographed the Earth. Here is 200 pictures of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE&t=3s
They continue to verify the shape of our planet every single day, with live feeds from the ISS and various satellites in orbit right now. What more do you guys want from them? Cause I can guarantee that they are well aware that nothing short of launching you into space will convince you...something they are just not going to do anytime soon, for many reasons. Seriously though, what exactly would you want NASA to provide for you? They have hundreds of hours of footage already and probably MILLIONS of photos...but Flat Earth just scoffs at all of it, calling it all faked before they've even taken the time to analyze any of it. So be honest with yourself, WHAT do you want from them?
2
-
Nope, you can't...somebody lied to you and told you the wrong math...and you ate it up without checking it. I can only assume you were using the 8 inches per mile squared equation to make your observations, but is that a good guess? If not, then I apologize, but I'll share this anyway, here's a far better curve calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ even has a handy diagram at the bottom showing you how it works. Height of the observer matters, line of sight is what you're trying to discern and 8 inches per mile squared does not account for that...it is the wrong math for the observation you are trying to make, it's as simple as that.
Also, I'll share this blog, it has some really good observations of curvature, give it a look sometime. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App
2
-
2
-
@Nehner Several things to point out. 1) Denial of gravity and a misunderstanding of how it works are not valid arguments, they’re just arguments from ignorance, so you’re wasting your time. Water is kept at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, within that field of force…do me a favour and look up the definition of equipotential, learn what that means. But again, whether you agree gravity is real or not, it’s irrelevant, because reality could care less about the things YOU choose to believe and ignore. 2) I’m not sure what formula in particular you’re referring too (searching for it in Wikipedia brings up several), but it’s pretty irrelevant as well, considering you don’t understand how gravity keeps the surface of water curving around its centre. But Flat Earthers tend to use the 8 inches per mile squared equation…which is a formula for a parabola, which means not a geodesic formula for a spherical curvature…it’s only accurate for maybe 100 miles give or take, then it drops off substantially and stops being accurate. So if that’s the formula you’re using…then dear god. 🤦♂️ 3) The Suez Canal is a sea level canal, meaning it does not require locks like the Panama canal, which is climbing over a mountain range and is not at sea level, it climbs up several thousand feet above sea level…hence the reason for the locks in the Panama Canal. 4) Level does not mean flat in every context…I’m sure you know how the English language works, single words can have multiple definitions depending on the context. In the context of ‘sea level’, it means a surface that’s at equipotential distance from a centre…at the same LEVEL from centre.
So your argument is pretty ignorant, it assumes gravity doesn’t exist and makes several false assumptions about how it works. So your first argument is a strawman, and so it can be discarded. Such a waste of time.
Onto your second argument. Elevation on a globe is technically measured from centre of mass, centre of Earth. Because the surface of the sea is all at roughly the same distance from centre, making it the perfect baseline for measuring land elevation. So since sea level is determined from centre, all land elevation uses sea level as the baseline, so all land elevation technically measures from centre. Higher elevation is away from centre, lower elevation is toward centre. It works like this; if you were to place randomly a bunch of 2 inch pins, exactly 1 inch deep, into a styrofoam ball, what’s the elevation of each pin from the surface of the ball? 1 inch…every pin is 1 inch elevation from surface….that’s how elevation is measured on a sphere, from the surface baseline, in our case the sea, which is all at the same LEVEL from centre…just like the surface of any sphere.
So your second argument is just stupid, because it completely misunderstands how elevation works on a sphere.
Your arguments assume too much, ignore variables for no other reason than denial, and grossly misunderstand the model you’re attempting to argue against. In what world do you live in, where you think YOUR own personal misunderstandings should count as an argument? 🤷♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
It ignores important variables, like refraction, which can and does effect what we see at distances, especially over bodies of water where air density is greater. Eventually the boat will dip into horizon and be obscured, that wouldn’t happen at all if Earth was flat, you’d be able to see it far beyond just 6 miles. Rowbotham was also using the wrong math, 8 inches per mile squared is not a spherical curvature equation, it’s for a parabola curve, it also does not represent line of sight, it represents a tangent line at your feet. It has no variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, arc length and hump, perspective, tilt angles, etc. And he only made ONE observation, using ONE marker, just looking long enough to confirm his bias, then he stopped looking.
It’s the perfect example of a sloppy experiment conducted just to confirm a bias. Upon peer review, his version of the experiment is found to be extremely flawed and lacking controls for important variables. This is why we have peer review in the scientific method, to weed out errors due to bias, cognitive dissonance and lying. Upon peer review, conducting the experiment with far more controls accounting for all known variables, it’s found to actually verify Earth curvature.
It’s important to be diligent in science, covering every variable, or you risk reaching false conclusions due to poor experimentation. The original Bedford level experiment is a perfect example of this, which is why it’s taught in science history, to remind scientists why it’s important to be patient, careful and diligent during data collection and experimentation.
Hope that helps, or is at the very least interesting.
2
-
If all those things were true, then you'd be able to prove them with evidence. We're just here peer reviewing claims made, to challenge their validity, to check their evidence, because nobody and nothing is above the process of peer review. From what I've seen, the evidence is overwhelmingly against each counter position you've posited, so that is why they are not taken very seriously in science anymore. If these positions had the evidence, then these things would be fairing better in debates, discussions and peer reviews...but they do not.
The scientific community takes the time to tackle these issues, because it's part of their job to educate others in what they've learned, and it's important that potential misinformation never goes unckecked or unchallenged. Just as people are free to make claims online, others are just as free to review them. It's really that simple.
2
-
Ah, playing the classic wolf in sheep’s clothing bit eh. In my experience Flat Earth doesn’t really have evidence (nothing that can stand up to scrutiny anyway), mostly misunderstandings, half truths, and in the worst instances straight up lies.
Your points for example:
Claims of flight manuals describing a flat earth - these are really simulation models, pretty much all mathematical simulation models have simplified variables that are not to be taken as literal. Simulations are not reality, they merely simulate portions of reality and simplify the rest…they are using assumed variables. Many of these models also assume a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass. Both are impossible in reality, every vehicle has moving parts (so not perfectly rigid) and fuel that depletes over time (so does not maintain constant mass). Why don’t Flat Earthers focus on these variables? Because they don’t confirm their bias. This argument they blindly repeat is an example of cherry picking, classic confirmation bias at work. If they had any advanced mathematical training, they’d recognize a mathematical simulation model when they saw one.
Claiming that water doesn’t curve - an argument from ignorance, a clever misdirection by asserting something as a fact, without evidence to support that assertion. Water is inert, it conforms to whatever forces are acting upon it, it really has no problem curving within a field of force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. This argument ignores the force of gravity, while doing nothing to falsify gravity. So it’s just an argument from ignorance, nothing more.
Claiming all photos of Earth are CGI - this is false, the very large majority of photos of Earth are taken by geostationary weather satellites, by regular cameras, in single shots. And some of the first photos of Earth were taken during the Apollo missions, hundreds of photos were taken during these missions, all on regular film, long before CGI was even a thing. The claim that all photos of Earth are CGI, comes from another bit of cherry picking, twisting words out of context, from a guy who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite image of Earth. He was merely trying to explain how a composite image is made, how THAT one image was made…but Flat Earthers took his words out of context, spinning them into a lie, claiming that he was implying all photos from NASA are composite and therefore photoshopped and CGI. So this argument from Flat Earthers is an empty speculation, born from a lie.
Flat Earthers don’t really have much when you really get down too it…there is a reason this model was abandoned. Today, it’s just a con that’s perpetuated online by huxters…huxters like yourself, who make sock puppet accounts, to play devils advocate, spreading bullshit under the guise of a neutral party. If they had any credibility, they wouldn’t require such deceitful tactics.
2
-
@SuperMoshady We agree that clouds do not climb any higher, oxygen does not either, sulphur hexafluoride barely gets off the ground, so what exactly is stopping them, if gas expands indefinitely? You keep saying gas should fill space, stating that it’s free to move about, even claiming that gravity doesn’t effect it...and yet there’s a gradient in pressure. Air getting thinner and thinner the higher you go, to a point of vacuum and no container detected at any stage, so what is keeping the gas from going higher? What exactly is stopping oxygen from expanding into the area where hydrogen resides? Not sure how you can claim gravity doesn’t effect gas, when a pressure gradient exists, or when clouds are observed to sit at a specific altitude, never climbing higher.
You mentioned smoke before. Of course we all know that smoke rises, but have you ever seen what smoke does in a vacuum chamber? Here’s a quick demonstration you might be interested in https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=139. Notice how instead of rising indefinitely, it actually loses the kinetic energy putting it upwards quite quickly, then falls to the bottom, even pooling at the bottom in a layer. Funny how that happens, when no other gas is around to displace it upward...almost like gas is effected by gravity and buoyancy is directly caused by gravity causing displacement.
Buoyancy is created by gravity, gases rise due to buoyancy, it’s not difficult, but you’re sure doing all that you can to deny what we’re trying to help you with. It’s the exact same displacement observed in other fluids, such as some oils rising in water. You’ve observed oil falling I’m sure...so what exactly keeps it from continuing to fall within water? Gas is a fluid, so it behaves similar. Your trouble is thinking in absolutes, you seem to think that because gravity is a downward attraction, it can’t have any influence or involvement in buoyancy, which is an upward motion. But I’m telling you, they’re one in the same, it’s the motion downward from denser matter (gravity), that pushes less dense matter upward, it requires gravity. The experiment I shared earlier in the van, does more than enough to prove what density displacement and motion of air fluids, is capable of. This is well understood in all of science. You’re free to challenge that I suppose, but good luck with that, as I’ve mentioned many times now, it’s an applied science today.
2
-
@SuperMoshady Yes, all matter with mass creates its own gravity, that’s the current consensus within gravity physics. But that’s a different topic entirely, we’re not even past the start of gravity physics, and that’s a huge topic to cover. So I’m sorry, but I don’t have all the time in the world to teach you General Relativity physics, you’ll have to catch up on that on your own time, I’m just here to have a light conversation on some basic physics 101 level stuff you had questions for. If there are holes in your current knowledge of science, then that is probably a big part of your problem.
I bring up satellites for two reasons. They’re in a vacuum and they have to be in order for their orbits to be possible at all (no friction in a vacuum, so high velocity orbits can be achieved). So it matters for the discussion, because they exist in a space you claim is not possible to exist...and yet that’s where they are. You’re very good at circler reasoning, but it doesn’t really matter what physics you misunderstand or twist, if technology already exists that defeats everything you’re claiming. I’m just saying, why bother wrestling with strangers in comment threads, when you could be doing more? But you’re right, it’s a bit of a distraction from what we’re discussing, so I’ll leave it at that.
I’m just calling things like I see them, there is a lot of physics you don’t seem to be aware of, or are intentionally ignoring for arguments sake, so you’re making a great many arguments from ignorance. You want to talk about logical fallacies, that’s a big one.
You seem to think repeating empty claims somehow makes them true, what a silly belief to have. Again, no laws of thermodynamics are broken, gravity puts gas back down to surface, you’re just misunderstanding entropy. You’d have to prove gravity doesn’t effect gas, but good luck with that, I’ve already demonstrated with a few examples that it does.
Now let’s see, you have some questions you keep mentioning, I’ll now address those quickly. I will mention though, you can be quite impatient you know, you do realize people have lives, right?
“Experiment is the part that pelroves the hypothesis.”
Yes, but you can’t set out to test a hypothesis...if you don’t first have a hypothesis. Gotta go in order here, we were just working on the hypothesis for now. You asked what the observed phenomenon in nature is, it’s motion between matter, we call it falling. We’ve all observed this motion, it happens, the question is why and how? That’s what science sets out to solve...what’s the point of doing science at all though, if some people are just going to deny a very simple phenomenon exists, just so they can cling to a bias? We have to remain objective, that requires we admit a few things. The motion of falling matter is a phenomenon of nature, it’s undeniable and you know it, so that’s where we start.
Ok, so a hypothesis can be formed here, that mass attracts mass. Like it or not, some guess work goes into hypothesis, we observe a phenomenon, but to figure out what’s causing it, we have to make a few guesses, then we test them. Several hypothesis were put forward to account for this observed motion of falling matter, the most prevailing being that mass is attracting other mass. Here’s where the cause and effect variables come in. So an experiment was devised to test mass attraction, it is known as the Cavendish experiment. I’m sure you’ve heard of it, but here’s a good explanation and demonstration in case you haven’t https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
Hypothesis is that mass is attracting mass. The Independent variable is the set angle of the suspended rod between the objects set to test the attraction. The dependent variable is the observed shift in angle of the suspended rod, once the mass is introduced. If no oscillation or shift occurs, then there is no mass attraction. If an obvious shift and oscillation is observed, then the hypothesis has evidence supporting it. So it ticks all the boxes for a valid experiment, observed phenomenon, hypothesis, independent and dependent variables all accounted for.
Feel free to watch the demonstration I shared, it explains in pretty good detail how the experiment is conducted and how variables such as torque, electromagnetism, air currents, etc, are controlled during testing. Upon all recreation, it’s quite conclusive, the masses are attracting each other, which does help support the larger hypothesis of why objects are attracted to surface. From there it’s been tested thoroughly, in many different forms, nothing so far has successfully falsified the hypothesis, so we can conclude it’s accurate.
“...would the gas stay at the bottom, or fill the space?”
Well, as I’ve already demonstrated with the example of smoke in a vacuum, it will fall to the bottom. With no denser matter around to force it upward, there’s just gravity, pulling the gas down, so it will fall.
“Is Earth an open system?”
Yes, but it also has the force of gravity, which attracts gas to surface and creates our pressure gradient atmosphere.
2
-
@SuperMoshady Another one for you, here’s another great experiment that verifies what I’m talking about https://youtu.be/YDXQ-VBjW7Q?t=192. I’ve stopped it at point so you can hear someone else say what I’ve already told you, that gravity directly causes buoyancy, but please feel free to watch the whole video. This is the understanding within all of science, that buoyancy is caused by gravity, so you’re not just arguing with me here, you’re arguing with all of science.
As stated before as well, the formula used in engineering for calculating buoyancy effect is Fb=Vpg, little g being the downward acceleration of gravity. Real engineers use this formula, when designing ship ballasts, or even when simply calculating how much weight a ship can carry. Without the downward acceleration of gravity within the equation, you couldn’t calculate this figure, that’s for a good reason, because gravity plays a part in the effect of buoyancy, as I’ve been trying to tell you.
So now you know, buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. Perhaps you’ll have a Eureka momentum here eventually like Archimedes, but we’ll see I guess. You really shouldn’t call someone stupid though, especially when it’s you who are in the wrong, you just get egg on your face that way.
2
-
@SuperMoshady If I may side track a little on a different topic. You know the nice thing about science, is that you can be pretty confident it’s correct, when the science works, when it is actually useful and is applied in the real world. The opposite is also true, the one nice thing about pseudoscience is that it reveals itself pretty quickly, the moment it demonstrates how useless it is. Tell me, where is FE science used in any applied science that you’re aware of? Just allow that to sink in for a bit.
Why no working scientific model? If Earth is flat, if no gravity, if a firmament is required for gas pressure...why is the heliocentric model still used for...everything? Better question, HOW is it used for everything? It shouldn’t work at all if it’s wrong. Millions of experts around the world, using the same science and formulas and geometry...and it always works. Hmmmm...I wonder why? Some pretty simple realizations I’d say...and yet it still doesn’t sink in for some. It’s truly incredible what ego and bias will do, the power of belief.
I think you’ve listened too far to many ramblings from pseudo intellectuals and grifters, like N Oakley or Bob “not a pilot” Knodel. You sound almost exactly like them. I’m curious though, what applied science have they contributed towards, that gives them authority over actual scientists who have contributed to applied science? Why do so many believe these people who have never achieved anything, beyond whining? Have these individuals derived any equations of their own, equivalent to the simple buoyancy formula (Fb=Vpg), that’s actually used in engineering today? Ever tried calculating a buoyancy force, without using the acceleration of gravity in the equation? Of course you haven’t, because none of you are scientists or engineers...just talkers. Talking all day long, but achieving nothing.
Becomes pretty obvious who’s pushing pseudoscience, when nothing FE rambles about, is useful in any way. I hope that sinks in someday.
Think I’ll stick to the science that’s actually working, thanks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What Flat Earth fails to realize here, is that they weren't making naked eye observations of a boat going over horizon...because you physically can't, boat reaches vanishing point before it ever reaches horizon and vanishing point doesn't make things disappear bottom first, it just vanishes from view, becomes to small for your eye to process the light. When people were making these long distance observations of boats back in 14th-15th century, they were using retractable telescopes that were common with ship captains and fishermen of the time. So they were making these observations with a device that would bring boats back into view as well...but then they kept watching the boats and THAT is when they noticed boats would start to disappear bottom first, as seen here at full zoom with the camera left rolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi23xZmS03Q Flat Earth fails here, cause they tend to turn the camera off instead of leaving it rolling. And you're claim here that if you got a more powerful zoom you could bring these boats back again...is not true at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc You really think you could bring these wind turbines back into view with more zoom? Cause I very much doubt that.
Vanishing point doesn't explain this, because vanishing point does not pick and choose what to make disappear first, vanishing point converges from all angles equally and at the same rate of instance. For even more problems with Flat Earth claims, explain to me how THOUSANDS of feet of mountains go missing in long distance imagery of mountain ranges. Perspective can't do that...but a curvature sure could. Here's a great video that demonstrates what I mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mgaamerica9185 Polls...oh boy, that relic of the past eh. Let me tell ya something about people of my age bracket and younger. I’m technically millennial, bordering on Gen X, and I’ve done several polls in my time...can’t say I’ve ever given accurate answers. Of course I can’t speak for everyone within my age demographic, but I do feel we generally don’t tend to give a fuck about polls. I personally see them as an opportunity for a bit of comedy, even if it’s only amusing to me at the time, it is still quite amusing, to fuck with the old systems, in some small way. Polls don’t really mean much to a majority of us I would say, they generally just annoy us, so they’re just trolling fodder.
In reality, you got probably 30% of millennials with a good sense of humour, and 10% of that 40% who probably answered truthfully. The other 60% are probably from the much younger end of the generation, who aren’t as jaded and experienced as of yet, and haven’t quite realized the small amusement to be found within fucking with the little things of the current system, that fails to evolve and understand the internet generations. I can really only speculate on that of course (though studies have been done that show public polls to be pretty inaccurate in general), but judging by my experience with my own demographic, who grew up on South Park and talking shit in video game servers, we’re a very sarcastic bunch. We’re the first kids of the internet, we invented trolling...polls annoy us, so they get heavily fucked with. So I would take them with a grain of salt...but I know the TV news generations grew up on polls, so they live by them....which is why fucking with them is so amusing.
Aside from that, in my experience chatting with hundreds of Flatties at this point...I would say most of them were older than me, many of them even bragged about it, as if that’s some kind of an achievement in our modern world of privileges. Just classic agism, older generations shitting on the younger gens, it’s nothing new, we’ll likely do it too eventually, it’s pretty normal societal behaviour. Just part of how the old cope with the loss of youth I imagine, it’s fine, I’m mid 30s now and I’m already feelin it, already a judgmental prick, as you can probably tell. 😅
Anyway, that being said, no disrespect, I’m really just trying to point out a perspective here you might not have been fully aware of. We’re the first internet generation, shit posting is our baby, if we can troll it, you can be sure that we will.
2
-
Welp…that’s gotta be up there as one of the dumbest arguments I’ve heard. Comparing objectively fictional characters and stories…to a plausible scenario, and pretending like they’re the same thing. Can you say False Equivalency fallacy? 😳 Optimus Prime is a fictional character…of course he doesn’t fucking exist. UFO’s however is a broad term for a phenomenon with plenty of evidence supporting it…and givin how vast the cosmos are, it’s within the realm of plausible that life and even intelligent life could happen again, somewhere else, and they could be more advanced than us…it’s absolutely possible.
And yes, I do know we can pass the Van Allen Belt, because I know the radiation levels within the belt are really not that strong! I know that if you can reduce exposure time within the belt, then the radiation dosage would be no worse than receiving a few X-rays. I also know that the Apollo missions plotted an orbital trajectory that went around the belt, not directly through it. Sooooo…yup, just another dumb argument from you really.
They didn’t lose the tech, what they lost was the funding to build and maintain new tech. This might come as a shock to you, but it’s costs a lot of MONEY to design, engineer, manufacture, test, maintain, and launch a single spacecraft. Would you want to go into the harsh environment of space, in a vehicle that’s been rusting in a warehouse for a few decades? Ya…probably not. So if there’s no funding for that purpose, how are they gonna go back chief? 🧐
Stupid people shouldn’t be allowed online….seriously, their should be a license required to comment online. 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
inquizative44 As Zrips pointed out, there are several observations one can make with the Sun, that don’t fit at all with the proposed flat Earth models. The first and simplest one being a simple sunset. We’ve all seen a sunset and a sunrise, but how exactly does that occur on a flat Earth? Think about it, if the Sun occupies the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, then shouldn’t it be visible 24 hours a day, from everywhere?
So Flat Earth will often rebuttal with “it’s perspective that causes this. It’s just like how power lines you see in a straight row will appear to drop down to the horizon the further they get from the observer, and closer they to the horizon.” Ok, but then if it’s perspective causing a sunset, then shouldn’t the Sun also appear to shrink in angular size before reaching the horizon? See they like to slot in ad hoc explanations, and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done...thinking their work is done. Problem is, perspective has many rules that can’t be ignored, if they’re going use perspective as their answer, then they have to test the sun in reality and see if it actually ticks EVERY box, not just the one they claim is true.
Globe Earth proponents have actually set out to test this perspective hypothesis, to see if it fits. Here’s a short list of what they test for. Under perspective, 1) the Sun should appear to shrink; 2) it should appear to speed up the closer it gets to the observer, and then slow down the further it gets, like a fast moving vehicle appears to do as it gets closer and then further; 3) if circling above, it should arc North when leaving your position and descend from the North when rising and coming back towards your position; 4) longer days in the Southern Hemisphere should not be possible.
There’s a great channel that has put to work testing each of these and many more simple observations of the Sun. Look up a content creator known as Wolfie6020. Him and others he’s promoted on his channel, have done several observational experiments putting the Sun to the test to see which model actually fits reality. In each experiment, the Globe fits perfectly to the observations...while the flat Earth models fail every time.
In conclusion, a simple sunset makes no sense on a flat Earth, meanwhile the Globe answers for this with absolute ease. So it’s a good observation to start with, if you’re really looking to figure out why so many people are calling Flat Earth out on their claims. Their model doesn’t work, taking just a little bit of time to put each model to the test against observable reality, verifies that pretty quickly,
So there’s a good reason why many of us don’t bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, we’ve done the research they’ve asked that we do, we now know exactly where they go wrong. If you’d like any further help, feel free to ask. I don’t mind sharing what I’ve learned on the topic.
2
-
inquizative44 Did you even read my comment? I’m well aware of what Flat Earth considers to be their model, that’s the model I was challenging, is the very model you’re describing. I’m not new to this debate, I’ve been researching it for close to 4 years at this point...so please don’t patronize me. You said you were on the fence, so I’m just sharing some info that might help. Up to you if you want to take a look, I can’t force you to do anything. I agree with you on one thing, I don’t much care for the insults and sarcasm, though I’m guilty of it myself at times, I much prefer civil discussion where ideas and information is shared free of ridicule.
The UN represents every nation on Earth...little hard to represent all the nations of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D flag. So they had to use a flat projection map. They chose the AE projection, because it has a nice pleasing triad composition. It’s a common composition in logo design, a triad composition has good balance, it’s pleasing to the eye, if I was tasked to design that flag using a flat map projection that represents all nations of the world, I’d use the AE projection as well.
Don’t chase bias evidence like this that you can only speculate on, it won’t lead you to any actual truth, it’ll just drag you down rabbit holes of endless paranoia.
2
-
2
-
@valherustinger7848 So Dubay says perspective, shows you someone zooming into a ship, then you stop questioning? 🧐 Why so easy to get you to stop questioning? What he demonstrated was an effect called the vanishing point, this is caused by perspective, it’s just your eyes optical resolution limit….but the part Dubay left out is that this can and does occur before horizon. Once something has actually gone over horizon, no zoom lens in the world will bring them back https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc. He also fails to mention that perspective converges inward from all angles equally to cause the vanishing point, it doesn’t pick and choose what to make disappear first. So why do things disappear bottom first? Perspective doesn’t really account for this…nor does it account for the dropping from eye level https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk.
So had you questioned Dubay a bit further, maybe you’d have realized he wasn’t being entirely honest about his perspective argument. It’s more like a sleight of hand trick than anything. It’s a pretty simple trick, he brought a boat back from vanishing point, then told you it was being brought back from horizon…when in truth it hadn’t really reached horizon yet. See how the trick works? He made a claim that it was horizon…but that doesn’t mean it was, it’s just a claim he expected you to believe without question.
Then you claim to have “topped your physics class”, yet you don’t seem to understand that gravity’s output depends on the amount of mass you have…and you wonder why it can’t be scaled down? 🧐 Not sure how you topped physics, if you couldn’t figure that out. Do you think…models in math and science have to be 100% scalable, in order to be true? Where did you get that notion? 🤷♂️ Can you scale an atom up, and recreate it to a level where you can see it and interact with it better? No…of course not…does that change the fact that the periodic table works when applied in chemistry? 🧐
We can’t recreate gravity sticking to a ball at our scale…cause we’d have to break physics to do that. Gravity doesn’t work that way. Plus, even if we could, we’re standing on a source of great gravitational attraction, so any water you pour on that ball is just going to be drawn to the greater force of gravity….if you were to create a source of gravity greater than Earth, while on Earth…they would effectively tear each other apart.
You’re not kidding when you said you don’t understand gravity…..it’s a wonder how you topped your physics class. 😅 Lets go with an easy one, if you feel you’re so good at physics. Explain conservation of momentum and relative motion in as simple of terms as you can. It’s an easy one, the laws of motion are one of the first things you learn in physics, and this knowledge is pretty relevant to this discussion and many of the arguments Flat Earth makes.
Also, what math have you been using to test curvature? Cause my math works out just fine.
They destroyed some of the older tech, because it was too unsafe to use again and too costly to continue storing, so why not just scrap it? Saves a lot of money. But they did preserve a lot of it in many different museums, why would you think they didn’t? 🤷♂️ That one NASA astronaut that said he’d “go back in a heart beat had they not destroyed the technology”, probably could have chose his words better, but his point was more that they didn’t currently have any NEW and WORKING lunar modules available (at the time), to make a new trip with.
But now they do…are you aware that they are going back to the Moon? Look up the Artemis project sometime, new missions are scheduled for as early as 2024.
Idk, from where I’m standing…it’s pretty simple to see how Dubay convinced you the Earth is flat, it doesn’t seem like you even made an attempt to question him and his claims.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Refraction is very real, and at this point a proven fact of how light and vision works https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. So it can’t be ignored as a variable, it absolutely must be considered, or you risk reaching a false conclusion. We’re just remaining objective, rather than listening blindly to claims made online, by people who don’t appear to know how a proper experiment is conducted, where all variables that can affect the outcome are factored, rather than ignored. We’re just going through the process of peer review and falsification, not our problem if you don’t like the results, science doesn’t concern itself with what we or others WANT to be true.
If you feel you can falsify light refraction as a variable to be considered, by all means, present your evidence. Otherwise you’re just chasing confirmation bias, and aren’t aware of it yet.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rogerdubarry8505 I didn’t say it does prove a spherical Earth, but a rotating spherical Earth does account for a sunset, in every way…from the steady 15 degrees per hour it traces through the sky no matter where you are, to the angular size of the sun which never changes, to the observable positions of the Sun from around the world, etc. All the data fits the Globe model…the geometry perfectly accounts for the occurrence of a sunset, requiring very little explanation. Earth rotates away from the Sun…there, explanation over. Meanwhile, the Flat Earth hypothesis of perspective accounting for this daily occurrence, really doesn’t account for it. When you really analyze the hypothesis closer, it does not hold up. You have to ignore several fundamental rules of perspective, to force that conclusion to make any sense…in fact it’s very akin to ramming a square peg into a round hole…that’s how many of us see the perspective argument.
Science is about falsification, the globe model holds up here, while the Flat Earth model does not…so while it doesn’t necessarily prove the Earth is spherical, it does falsify any possibility of it being flat. So that’s the point…your argument is not very good, you’re basically asking us to ignore simple geometry. Geometry that you should understand…it’s pretty simple stuff.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not repeating all the facts though, you're cutting them up and taking them out of context and then respinning them to fit a narrative. You're cherry picking, which is a known tenant of confirmation bias.
Here's how I know that. NASA didn't say they have ONLY been in low earth orbit, they have never said that. They said CURRENTLY, we can only fly MANNED missions in low Earth orbit, because they currently do not have any new spacecraft developed for deep space. The devil is in the details here, they have never said that they HAVEN'T been past low Earth orbit, they have only ever said that CURRENTLY they can't, because they don't have any new ships built and no missions locked in and cleared for launch. Are Flat Earthers and space deniers even listening to them when they talk? Cause we're hearing two different things it seems...and it's clear why, your bias is filtering the details out...maybe stop doing that, and start being more honest and objective with yourself.
So Why don't they have any new spacecraft for manned missions at this present time? Because their isn't enough interest and enough funding to bother with MANNED missions past low Earth orbit. We've already been to the Moon, it's a rock...not much more reason to go back, so why waste the time, man power, energy and money? It's not like they're not working on it though, because they are, that's part of what the ISS does, is learning more about living in space for long periods of time, but they really haven't started much construction on anything new, that has included all the new tech we have today, which will ALL have to tested and cleared, before they can ever go back into space with a manned crew...which is going to take time to engineer and build, when they decide there is interest again to even bother. And you're actually in luck, because they do have new moon missions planned and mars missions, so be patient.
But they put satellites and probes past low Earth orbit all the fucking time, the DSCOVR Satellite is about a million miles from Earth right now snapping pictures every 2 hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7j-0orCtYs There are several satellites in geostationary orbit right now doing the same thing, about 25 - 45, 000 miles from Earth. Here is a group of hobbyists that built their own radio telescope, so they could track these satellites and collect imagery from them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=276s
You're choosing to take NASA's words out of context, only hearing what you WANT and then ignoring the rest of the details. This is cherry picking, a perfect example of confirmation bias and it means your "real research" is flawed and full of holes. Ignoring many details, keeping only what supports what you currently believe. This is why people have a hard time taking you people seriously, because it's not hard to see...if you actually take the time to dig up the details that you intentionally ignore.
Thanks to the laws of motion, conservation of momentum and relative motion, our Earth operates like a stationary system. Thanks to this physics, pilots do not need to factor the shape and motion of the planet into their variables, when making aerodynamic calculations. So the aerodynamic flight manuals summarize this, by CLEARLY STATING that these variables are not needed for the math to follow in the bulk of the manuals. Unless it's a manual for orbital dynamics and rockets, these variables will not effect atmospheric flight, at all, so they are omitted. They do this, to simplify the math, it's a very common practice in research papers and scientific manuals. But they have to let the reader know what is being simplified, they are not making a statement or a conclusion, they are just making the work a little easier for the reader.
So that's another example of confirmation bias. You don't know how to interpret those manuals, you're not trained in how they are structured, so you skimmed through them (or someone else did, likely someone else) and then you took the words you were looking for out of context and then resold them to people to spin your narrative on it. My guess is, you were told this by somebody else and then you didn't bother to learn anything more about those manuals, you just agreed with them blindly. For people claiming to be doing "real research", you sure stop pretty quick once your bias is confirmed. You are a layman, until you are trained in something specific, then you will always be a layman. It's dangerous for any layman to attempt at interpreting structured papers, they have no working knowledge of.
Compasses work just fine on a Globe, all you require are varying counter balances depending on latitude...that's why there are different compasses, calibrated for Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. Go ahead and look them up, there are three main type, northern, equator, southern and about 5 latitude zones they calibrate for. Learn something about how things ACTUALLY work, before you make sweeping assumptions.
One last thing, maybe stop listening blindly to huxters on the internet, feeding you lies and hoping you don't check them on it. Question everything, don't just stop once your bias is confirmed. You have to be completely deluded and paranoid to believe the Earth is Flat at this point, it's fine to question what you're told, it's completely logical in fact, but a LOT of what makes our modern world tick, requires that we know the true shape and scale of our planet, in order to make it possible. Not a single company or industry or institution of science in the world, uses a Flat Earth geometry to help them build and navigate our world. They ALL unanimously agree, the Earth is a sphere...and that's for a good reason, because it is.
2
-
2
-
@dracofirex Ah, well then 😅. From my experience chatting with probably thousands of flat Earthers at this point (it’s a bit of a sad hobby)…yes, that’s the main goal as far as I can tell, to be right…no matter the reality. Most flat Earthers have one thing in common for certain, an inferiority complex. Being right means a lot to them, to the point where they will happily double down on this idea, no matter how much information you share, that will utterly destroy their current conclusions. It’s a normal psychological response really, being wrong does not feel good, it actually can cause a bit of psychological trauma. So denial is a pretty common first step in dealing with that. I believe the brain does what it can to mediate or lessen that trauma, which is why it’s difficult to accept when we’re wrong, it’s just the brain trying its best to regulate the emotional response that inevitably occurs from being wrong, it’s just easing that burden a little bit. But with someone with an extreme inferiority complex, it might as well be a death sentence, cause they just won’t change their mind, the trauma for them would be too severe, they can’t handle it…so they just go deeper.
I remember a clinic psychologist chimed in on this subject a few years back, and his response put it so perfectly, I actually saved the quote. This was his diagnosis of a common thread from patients of his who believed Flat Earth; “Severe inferiority complexes, compensated for by the rigidity of their own non falsifiable belief systems” Raymond Havlicek PhD. Basically, they’re mentally incapable of handling the experience of being wrong, so they gravitated towards a fantasy reality that can’t be falsified…because it’s entirely made up, an unfalsifiable belief system, so they can never be proven wrong again, in their fantasy. In reality the Earth’s shape is falsifiable, but not to them, whatever they say goes….so we’re not dealing with rational people here.
Anyway, I’m no psychologist myself, but it’s certainly something I’ve noticed as well, so I’m inclined to agree with his conclusion.
2
-
@T-REX72 When has the KKK, or Antifa ever contributed in government? To my knowledge, neither of them has...maybe local government, but certainly not state or national. Feel free to point out your evidence of that claim...but to my knowledge, neither is a recognized government party, nor are they on any government payroll.
Yes, I was speaking very generally. Like minded Idiots form groups all the time, some of them do damage. Like I said before, Creationists used to be laughed at too...now they’re organized, and lobbying to change entire school curriculums. It’s not a stretch to think Flat Earthers could do the same eventually, if they poison enough minds and gain enough support.
Just saying, if we can nip it in the bud now, we should do what we can.
2
-
2
-
I understand this was just your example to help make your point, but just wanted to point something out unless you weren’t aware; the “birds are fake conspiracy” was actually a social experiment by the founders. It was started by high school kids who were tired with misinformation ruling the public information pool, so they were trying to make a point; by starting the most obviously bullshit conspiracy they could think of, as means to shine a light on a real problem plaguing society today…the problem of misinformation. It was a test of Poe’s law, to raise awareness of a real problem we’re facing today. Essentially, it’s a big inside joke, that anyone can be a part of, with the goal of hopefully teaching people not to blindly believe everything they hear online at face value.
Anyway, figured I’d share that info in case you weren’t aware. Unfortunately, Poe’s law is pretty effective…so even though it should be blatantly obvious it’s just a joke to teach society an important lesson, it still falls a bit victim to its own joke at times. 😅
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Faze Rug: It is funny, but it works. Birds do have very similar bone structures to dinosaurs, which is why we suggest they may have evolved from them. Of course it's odd to imagine something as powerful and impressive as a T-Rex evolving into a chicken, but it is plausible. We took the Wolf and turned it into a Chihuahua in just a few hundred years...imagine what we could do in a few million years. The T-Rex was massive, requiring a lot of food to maintain itself and survive. When that food started becoming scarce due to a major shift in habitat, the T-Rex had to either adapt or die. The best way to adapt to such a change, shrink in size and require less food. Now, nobody is actually saying the T-Rex itself became a chicken, from what I understand the extinction of the dinosaurs happened quite abruptly, so the line of most larger species such as T-Rex likely died out, but there were smaller dinosaurs that could have survived that event and they could have evolved to create the chicken. Laugh at the idea all ya want, it is plausible. All we're saying in that case is that the Chicken has a much closer relation to Dinosaurs than we do. We all share a common ancestor, but the Chicken doesn't have to go back nearly as far as we do, to have a common ancestor with the Dinos.
You're gravely misunderstanding how evolution works, if you think the T-Rex just magically became a chicken over night.
2
-
You do realize that last guy is joking...right? Seriously, he knocks on the telescopes at the end, pointing out how hollow it is, making a joke that nothing is in there...you have to realize he’s just joking, right?
As for the rest, why is any of that alarming to people? Composites are a form of photography, stitching many pictures together to create a single image...your phone does it too, with its panoramic feature...it’s a pretty old and basic photography method. You require a photo editing software to create a composite...I don’t get how that’s somehow a conspiracy, they explain it pretty openly, it’s basic photography and photo editing.
One thing you should really stop and realize, where in any of those videos...do they say or make mention that EVERY PHOTO of Earth is a composite? They don’t...each person is just discussing the images THEY worked on. So why do people immediately just assume they’re talking about every photo of Earth? Why jump to the conclusion that every photo is a composite? And why is it such a conspiracy that they make composites of Earth? It’s just one of many ways you can photograph something...doesn’t need to be a big conspiracy, it’s just photography.
Fact is, millions of photos of Earth exist, most of them are actually single frame images taken from geostationary weather satellites. Just look up Himawari 8 or the GOES satellites sometime. Many more photos exist that were taken of Earth LONG before the days of CGI or satellites in low Earth orbit, capable of creating composites with. Just look up an archive of photos known as the Apollo project archive on the website Flickr. Click on the albums tab...and you’ll find an archive displaying the hundreds of photos taken of Earth during the various Apollo missions....taken long before CGI technology existed.
Point is, you’re spinning paranoid conclusions, around the words of experts just trying to explain a few things to the general public. Why is it so hard to accept that they would destroy old tech that was falling apart and was outdated? What’s so hard to understand about that? Why is it so difficult to understand that going to space costs A LOT of money...and so rebuilding these modules and testing them for safety is going to take time, R&D, planning, money? On top of that, it presents an engineering hurtle, because we’ve invented a lot of new technology in the last 50 years, any new technology they want to include on the new modules would need to be TESTED in space for safety, before it could ever be used in a manned mission...hence why its long painful process, as he described.
Listen, it’s fine to question things, perfectly logical...but Jesus...where are all these paranoid conclusions coming from? You’re taking rational explanations, removing them from the context and then intentionally spinning them into conspiratorial nonsense. These aren’t tough questions to answer...but you’re sure pretending like they are. :/
Even going so far as to not recognize a JOKE when you see it. Watch a few more of that guy’s videos...he’s still talking at length about photographing the stars, planets, galaxies. Little odd for a guy who appeared so rattled in the video you shared...don’t ya think? Poe’s Law...look it up sometime.
I’m not trying to be rude or mean...but it’s just shocking to me how these things actually fool people into thinking there’s a conspiracy here.
2
-
@WORDversesWORLD You sure are ignorant. Longitude and latitude both verify a Globe…they’re equal for two hemispheres, they’re designed from Geodesy. Any actual pilot or sailor knows how important it is to know exactly the shape and dimensions of the surface you’re navigating…it’s pretty vital information to have, or they can’t do their jobs. It’s really that simple…if you think they just start every voyage today blindly, without help from any prior knowledge of that surface, then you’re delusional and extremely ignorant. :/
So every pilot and sailor who successfully navigates the planet, using that model to help them do it, proves and verifies the Earth’s shape every single time they do it. So you know….probably millions of voyages a year. Because the model would not work, if it was wrong.
Celestial navigation works by measuring the angle of stars to horizon, that is correct, but the part you’re not currently aware of is how those angles are used and what they help tell the navigator. The stars drop to horizon by equal measures, a consistent 1 degree drop, every 69 miles traveled directly South. Each 1 degree drop is a major latitude line. It’s that consistent drop, that’s the problem for flat Earth. It’s basic geometry, if Earth was flat, the stars would drop less and less each equal distance of 69 miles, it wouldn’t be a consistent 1 degree drop every latitude…so the latitudes wouldn’t work the way they do in reality.
This is easy to test…you can test both that geometry and the observation, you got a car? Get yourself a sextant, then I’m sure you can travel 69 miles, then 69 miles, then 69 miles again, to test the consistency. Every sailor in the world knows this…they also know the opposite happens for the opposite hemisphere, the stars rise up by equal measure…revealing a completely new sky past the Equator.
This is exactly what we’d expect on a globe…it doesn’t work however if Earth is flat, that geometry does not fit what we observe. You can say it’s a lie all you want, but you can confirm it on pretty much any clear night. Or you can travel to the South, see the second sky yourself…or you can learn to actually navigate. It’s nit difficult, plenty of lessons and tutorials online for navigation….it relies heavily on Earth’s shape, that is a fact, not an opinion.
So feel free to learn it. You don’t have to remain ignorant to how things work. I don’t know why anyone would be so stubborn to something they can easily verify with just a small bit of effort.
2
-
2
-
Of course not, but most of us don’t think in absolutes. We don’t think everything is a lie, it’s a lot more complex and nuanced than that. Of course they lie, it’s no secret, but just because they lie sometimes does not mean they lie all of the time....because nothing is that black and white. In the case with the shape of the Earth, pretty fuckin hard to hide that truth from billions of people, who can all test the geometry of Earth, anytime they want...not to mention the millions of experts, who have nothing to do with NASA or government, that require our information on Earth be accurate, in order to do their jobs at all...a good example being pilots and sailors. :/
Flat Earth is nothing but an online scam, that (among many other things) takes advantage of some people’s inability to think in greys, rather than black and white absolutes. NASA had very little to do with deducing the shape of the planet, that was figured out long before they ever came around...and you do not require their help in deducing it for yourself, just a few simple observations and some common sense.
One last thing, there is a reason why science labels it’s conclusions under theory...and it’s very simple, it’s because they do not know everything. Because they don’t know everything, it means old information always has the potential to change, as new information is obtained...that’s the hard reality of information gathering of any kind. So they were very wise to call their conclusions “theories”, it means they’re not assuming anything as certain, they leave room for unknowns, so they always leave room for possible adjustment, it means these theories are not rigid. So what that means is, science also does not think in absolutes, it thinks in percentages of certainty. Some theories are less certain...but there is probably nothing in all of science we are more certain of, than the shape of our planet, it’s where science pretty much started...it’s the foundation of most everything.
Get a better filter and stop thinking in absolutes, the worlds not that simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Globeisahoax Questioning the claims of others is not bullying, it is a form of criticism and peer review, which is crucial to science and research. What you’re doing now is just a form of whining, and I could care less. Fact is, misinformation should not be allowed to fester, in any capacity. It does more damage than you realize, it ruins lives and in worst cases it creates a mob mentality, where gullible idiots band together and then real people get hurt…do you need a refresher on Nazi Germany, and the lives that were ruined because of the gullible eating up a cleverly crafted lie?
So I do what I can to counter misinformation, to hopefully keep people from falling into these rabbit holes of utter bullshit. What do you have to fear if you think you’re not wrong? You should welcome your opposition, if you truly believe your position is true, then you should easily defeat your opposition with your evidence. I welcome discussion, I welcome your evidence if you think you have it…while you ignore our evidence and call it bullying. :/
Questioning goes both ways Kangen. If you can’t actually hold your own in a discussion of the evidence and facts, then maybe it’s time you consider that YOU have been fed a lie. If you’re free to make claims, then we’re free to question them. That’s how a free society works.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s really not dude…we have a whole system of navigation today, built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical. If that knowledge was wrong, then that system simply would not work…but it does, with laser precision. Millions of people use it everyday, to plot successful navigation routes with, so it’s beyond speculation or assumption at this point, it’s a proven fact.
You’re just being ignorant, you can verify the Earth is spherical for yourself, at almost anytime you choose, with just a few simple observations and a basic understanding of geometry. Pull your face away from your screen for awhile and join reality again, go outside, touch grass…this ignorance is getting sad.
2
-
@jaydunn3251 No, I’ve travelled the world…I’ve experienced it first hand. In that time I’ve acquired knowledge and skills that helped me verify Earth’s geometry for myself…skills that anyone can learn. Anyone, at anytime, can learn how navigation works….you learn pretty quickly in navigation what shape the Earth is, and why that knowledge is important to have.
You’re the one speculating here…you are making arguments from ignorance. You don’t have too, if you just acquired some very basic skills, and then went outside and tested them yourself.
If I’m being a dick, it’s because I find ignorance to be very frustrating. It’s clear you don’t know for certain right now, and that’s fine, but you can learn…don’t ever believe you can’t. Learn to navigate, I’m telling you, no better way to verify Earth’s basic surface structure for yourself…millions of people do it every single day.
2
-
2
-
@k6827 Have you asked a surveyor if they factor in curvature, or did you just assume you know what they'll say? Be honest, have you talked to a surveyor about this? And what kind of surveyor are we talking about? Topography surveyor, Geodetic surveyor, or just a simple construction surveyor? The latter does not need to factor curvature, because there isn't very many times in construction that are going to require they factor curvature. But it does happen. Fun fact, the LIGO lasers in the US required that they build up one end a lot higher then the starting point, so they could keep the laser path tangent. That construction required they take into account Earth curvature, but it's actually pretty rare in construction, so construction surveyors don't really need to factor it in most cases, so many of them aren't even trained in how to do that.
What about this geodetic surveyor though, who has gone out and collected geodetic data from the Lake Pontchartrain bridge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU Looks pretty curved to me. These are physical measurements of the bridge, recording the arc of the plum angles relative to other plum bench marks taken on the bridge. Geodetic surveyors always factor curvature, they have too, so they are trained to do so and they have the equipment that can and will measure it.
So go out and talk to a geodetic surveyor sometime, and let me know what they say. I guarantee they will tell you all about Earths curvature, they work with it directly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@icherishcrochetandknit309 Are you kidding me? THIS reality is beautiful, it’s everything I need, I don’t require anything else, I’m grateful I even get this much. If your life sucks, it’s on you. I can’t be certain of anything after this, but I can be certain about here and now, so I’ll make this life a heaven...so I have. Maybe if you spent more time thinking about now, rather than after, you’d stop squandering this life and start enjoying it.
If you are squandering it that is, I make no speculations on your life, it just sounds like you’re not seeing how incredible this life is...and that’s sad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@icherishcrochetandknit309 And what if they’re not? Seriously...what if you’re wrong? Do you ever consider that possibility? From my perspective, you’ve decided to condemn a couple rich dudes...simply because you watched or read something online, and then agreed with all of it, blindly and without question. The real truth is just that they’re rich...and you hate rich people, it’s plain ol’ resentment and jealousy, left to fester. That’s the real truth...just the same ol’ peasantry, resenting the lords of the land. And It’s just turning into another witch hunt...justifying atrocities against people you don’t really know ANYTHING about, simply because someone told you they were “evil” and sent from “Lucifer”...and for some reason you believed them. 🤦♂️
I don’t deny at all that there are some rotten people out there, doing horrible things, that deserve to be punished...but blindly accusing people, and passing judgments without any real evidence, or before any due process...it’s mob mentality, it’s not how a healthy society should operate...it’s barbarism. You need to stop falling for every scary, click baity, bullshit video or website that comes your way and come back to reality.
I’m well aware of the Georgia stones and all the bullshit conspiracy dribble that surrounds them and other conspiratorial nonsense...you’re not the only one with an Internet connection, a majority of the world probably knows this stuff by now...we’re blasted with conspiracy bullshit almost daily, so save it. It’s all bullshit....you know what the real truth is more likely to be? We made it all up, society. We always need a villain to defeat or blame our problems on, cause we all get bored without one...and we don’t like admitting that WE are just as much the problem as any rich guy. But the truth is, NOBODY’S hand is really on the wheel, there is no shadowy overlord, just human stupidity that we can’t seem to rid ourselves of. Society cooked up this boogie man, and it’s slowly eroding our mental capacities, sliding us all into a shared paranoid schizophrenia. It’s gonna become a self fulfilling prophecy eventually...if people keep buying into the hysteria, rather than really thinking. Then real people get hurt...for no reason...and we’ll justify it by saying we we’re just snuffing out evil...and the other side will do the same, never realizing all we had to do to find evil was look in a mirror.
I’m tired of it...the world is tired of. I often think Religion needs to go...that it’s always been the real problem. That’s my opinion, and it gets worse with every nut job I encounter...but, I know it’s not going anywhere anytime soon, so I try to accept it...just wish people could learn to start using their heads...instead of blindly following online hysteria. 😔
2
-
@icherishcrochetandknit309 If medicine to cure the sick and save lives is considered “sorcery”, then bring on the sorcery. I don’t believe you, because you don’t have real evidence, just speculations and biased assumptions. Accusations before evidence, judgements passed before proof of guilt. It’s barbarism, and I refuse to join that sort of primitive mob mentality.
Sky News is basically Fox News for the South...heavily biased conservative media pundits...all they care about is drumming up hysteria, of course they’re gonna lie to you, fear gets the best ratings. Fear gets you angry which gets them more support...they gave up on unbiased objective news coverage a long time ago, because it doesn’t sell.
I don’t believe you, because in my experience, you people are not rational, you are delusional humans trapped in a dogmatic belief system, that’s done nothing but slow human progress down, and it can’t disappear fast enough. Now you’re going so far to believe the Earth is flat and scientists are all just lying to you...while holding a device in your hand that only exists thanks to the efforts of these people you think you’re smarter than...it’s incredible how deep the delusion goes.
You need to understand, for people like myself who have never been religious, within any of the thousands that exist, you might as well read me lines from Harry Potter, Scriptures are just as fictional to me. Stop trying to convert us, stop praying for us, or warning us...we’re tired of delusional people, attempting to rob us of our time here, in the only life we can be certain of. If your God has an issue with us just trying to exist, free from what we see as basically a cult like any other, then he’s an asshole, whether he exists or not. It’s that simple. Just cause he creates life, gives him no right to own it, or enslave it, command it, or control it. I will live my life how I choose, please respect that, and then I’ll do my best to respect your choice as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tranquoc-binh5287 All I’m saying is, we don’t throw out an entire scientific model...because of one person’s (or even a group of peoples) misunderstandings of engineering and physics. Does the second hemisphere just go away because you’re having trouble wrapping your head around gyros? Should we scrap current navigation systems, that use Earth’s spherical geometry, just cause you think gyros shouldn’t work on a globe? Do satellites just not exist anymore, because you think a flywheel couldn’t function on a spinning Earth? No...all of these things will still exist, they don’t change simply because someone has some personal misunderstandings that are their own.
When you really get down to it, it’s just one groups refusal to admit they don’t know everything about physics or engineering. That’s basically what Flat Earth boils down too.
I’m all for people questioning science, that’s what science is all about, asking questions...but when do people consider the possibility that they’re maybe reaching false conclusions, due to their own personal lack of knowledge or understanding? Flat Earthers are just so over confident...never accepting that they could be wrong, they never even seem to consider that as a possibility...and I just find that odd. That’s strange human behaviour to me, because I often question whether I’m right, I’ll always consider the possibility that I could be wrong, I never assume I’m infallible. Because nobody is infallible, not even genius’s.
You have some great questions concerning gyros, so I urge you to learn more. Not even I know everything about them. The technology is advancing so quickly now, that I’ve heard of tiny gyros with absolutely no moving parts...and I have currently no idea how that works, but it’s fascinating. The MEM gyros within your phone actually measure gravity and Coriolis, so they readjust constantly to the current gravity vector and Earth’s rotation. Tons of information online for how they work, so feel free to research them.
I’m sorry, but your argument is a bit flawed here. You seem to think they can’t engineer every gyro system with mechanics that can account for surface geometry and motion...but why exactly? If these are two variables that need to be accounted for, and if engineers can account for them (which I’ve demonstrated that they can), then why wouldn’t every gyro system include these mechanics? And if one doesn’t...then do you ever consider that maybe they’re either flawed designs, or perhaps the mechanism wasn’t important for the job being used for?
Just saying, your own misunderstandings, do not change science and engineering. The fact is they DO design gyros with mechanisms designed to account for surface geometry and motion...so why would they bother including these mechanisms, if they don’t really need them? That’s a good question you should ask yourself. But, keep researching I suppose, you seem passionate about this, so don’t let me or anyone else discourage you.
2
-
Water is inert, and so it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it. Here’s what water will do while put under a constant and steady centrifugal force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. Water doesn’t “seek level”, it doesn’t seek anything, it’s not alive, it conforms to forces that put it in motion, like all matter, it just eventually reaches lowest potential energy state. In a field of force such as gravity, lowest potential energy state is closest to centre of force, so it forms around that centre, forming a sphere. A water droplet does the same thing due to surface tension, a bubble does it as well due to air pressure.
You’re not debunking the globe by ignoring forces such as gravity. With Earth as big as it is, water would only appear level from our tiny perspective, you’re not falsifying gravity, nor the globe with your statements, you’re just ignoring physics to reach the conclusion you want to be true.
2
-
2
-
Certainly, it’s a flawed experiment, the perfect example of a biased researcher not doing enough to ensure his conclusion is without error. It’s also a perfect reason for why peer review is so crucial to science, because nobody is infallible and huxters do exist.
Johnny is correct, Robotham ignored important variables like refraction, which does effect what we see at distances, but it’s worse than that, he also used the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared can give you a drop from a tangent line at surface, but we do see further the higher up we are, so height of the observer should be part of the equation as well. He included no such variable in his calculation. So no wonder his calculation didn’t match his observation, that tends to happen when you use the wrong math. Even a standard 6 foot viewing height drastically changes how far you’re able to see. He also didn’t collect enough data or control for hidden variables using proper control experiments. He just took one marker, made one observation, and called it a day…it’s sloppy science. It works very well on an audience with no scientific backgrounds, but that’s about it…though that’s really all you need to sell a grift.
To be fair though, while it’s remembered in science history as a poorly conducted experiment, the experiment itself is actually a good one in premise. So it actually has been repeated (and done much better) many times in the last 200 years, all of which actually verify the Earth is curving. If you’d like a more modern recreation look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it’s far more in depth, with far more conclusive results. The official blog for the expedition has a whole section on refraction too, with clear demonstrations of its effect, if you’re curious as to why it’s an important variable to account for. There’s even a quick video you can find here of the demonstration, just search rainy lake experiment refraction. Atmospheric refraction does effect what we see at distances, essentially allowing us to see further than the geometry alone would allow. That is common knowledge to any surveyor or sailor worth their salt, but not very common knowledge to most other people, so it’s understandable if one would overlook it as a key variable, but not something science should ever overlook, least of all to confirm a conclusion.
Anyway, hope that helps, take care.
2
-
2
-
@saltysergeant4284 Well, I’ve actually tracked and spotted satellites by telescope, and they’re moving far to fast and far to consistently to be balloons in atmosphere. Weather balloons do not have the aerodynamics, or the capability to traverse the sky as fast as they do. So no, you are reaching a biased conclusion on that one I’d say. Just because NASA does launch weather balloons still today, in no way falsifies satellites I’m afraid.
There’s other problems with that conclusion as well, but really, the documented speeds from tracking these objects...is just not plausible. The ISS makes roughly 16 complete orbits of Earth in a single 24 hour period...you really think these balloons are traversing at speeds greater than any known aircraft in existence? A satellite can easily do that, there’s no atmosphere where they are, so no drag force, means no burning up. Rocket propulsion in a place with zero drag force, can easily climb the velocity to an orbital velocity over time.
No, you’re really reaching on that one I’m afraid and not thinking it through very well. They would need a network of balloons to pull off the scam you’re claiming...thousands of balloons, that would constantly need to be replaced and maintained around the clock...and even if they could, it would not account for what we observe in reality. Balloons simply do not have the capability of flying as fast as they’re observed to be moving. Amateur astronomers track these objects all the time....you really think they wouldn’t spot anything fishy?
You do realize I’ve been researching this for 4 years right? You really think I’ve never heard this claim before, or debunked it? I thought we weren’t going to patronize each other.
2
-
2
-
@saltysergeant4284 We do see different stars, they’re called the seasonal stars...and you even know many of the constellation names, they are the zodiac constellations. That is basic astronomy knowledge. The stars we see all year round are the circumpolar stars. Earth is a sphere, that’s 3 dimensional, so you have to think in 3 dimensions here. The poles are not facing the Sun, so it’s logical then understand they would never be blocked by the Sun...hence why we see them all year round. The stars along the ecliptic though...different story, they’re periodically blocked by the Sun. Which is true...you can confirm that on any clear night, just get a list of the seasonal stars, then try and find the ones currently out of season.
If you want to talk stars though, don’t forget the Southern Hemisphere stars...you are aware they exist right? Why can’t the North see these stars and vice versa? Makes sense on a globe...doesn’t make a whole lot of sense on a flat Earth, with only ONE sky.
2
-
@maatssun6713 We can test gravity, many ways to do it, it’s verifiable science. What we can’t do is scale down gravity, for the exact experiment you’re asking for....if you understood gravity at all, you’d know that and you’d understand why. But we don’t have too, because Earth already does it, so we test Earth...it’s not hard to understand.
The balloon footage is your demonstration, go look some up sometime, no point for me to waste my energy looking them up for you.
Here’s the reality of your situation, Flat Earth has no working model, and has nothing we can actually use in applied science. They claim to have superior scientific knowledge...yet nothing they spew leads to anything we can actually use, so Flatties will never contribute to anything useful for that reason. You just have bullshit...some of you are well aware it’s all bullshit, and you’re just trolling people....and some of you are the suckers who fell for it. Which one are you I wonder?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jaredscary Boy....that sure was a whole lot of gish gallop and word salad, displaying for everyone here how little you actually understand about physics. Says he's "icky smart when it comes to this topic" yet didn't bother to do the math when it comes to our rotation. If you have a road that's 24,000 miles long and you're traveling at 1000 mph, how long will it take you to reach the end? Pretty simple...24 hours....not 1 minute. Earth is roughly 24,000 miles circumference...and it takes 24 hours to complete ONE rotation. Soooooo...not very "icky" smart from where we're standing.
Besides that, we do not measure rotations in linear speeds like mph, we measure them in rotations (rpm's). Centrifugal force is increased by the rate of angular velocity change per second, which is effected mostly by rpm's (revolutions per minute). Rule of thumb here is, the more rotations something completes per minute, the higher the rate of angular velocity change per second, the more centrifugal force is generated. Earth completes ONE rotation every 24 hours...that's a VERY slow rotational speed....so guess what, VERY little centrifugal force and VERY little chance of anyone ever noticing that motion by it's inertial output. :/
Learn some physics...or you will continue to be fooled by scams on the internet. I could go through every single one of your points here and point out your errors, but you likely won't listen, if I dump too much information on you at once, so it's pointless. I don't need to do that though, cause it's pretty easy to see your main error in all your conclusions, is your lack of knowledge and understanding of physics. You have rushed your conclusions before considering any of the physics involved and that's why you've reached such false conclusions.
It's very easy to disprove a flat Earth...just try your damndest to explain how a sunset works on a Flat Earth. It doesn't work, basic spacial geometry (and common sense) will tell you that the Sun would NEVER set over a Flat Earth, with a local sun that is rotating above. You would see it 24/7, from everywhere on Earth...even you have to be honest with yourself and realize this isn't logical. Meanwhile, the Globe explains a sunset with absolute ease. The Earth rotates away from the Sun, giving one half visible line of sight to the Sun, the other half facing away in darkness...there, explanation over. It's exactly what we'd expect to see occur, on a Globe. If you're wondering how the 24 hour sun works, just play around with an actual model of the Globe sometime. The tilt in the Earths axis relative to the Sun is why this occurs. Here's a great Globe model simulation you can play with sometime, give it a go. https://drajmarsh.bitbucket.io/earthsun.html
Explain a sunset over a Flat Earth...you'll find it's pretty fucking ridiculous. Again, learn some physics...it's the gap in your knowledge that keeps you from learning how things work. It's fine to question what you're told, even logical, but doesn't matter how smart you think you are, if you lack the pieces to a puzzle, then you will never solve it. The pieces you are missing is your understanding of basic physics...so now go find those pieces, or con artists will continue to take advantage of you.
2
-
What’s so non scientific about climate change? We record data, the recorded Earth temperatures over decades show that it is rising…and we understand that C02 contributes to greenhouse gases. It’s proven through the scientific method to trap heat for longer, and we do create a lot of pollution through the burning of fuels that create more C02, specifically carbon 13 isotope, which is increasing in atmosphere, that’s what we detect an increase of…and that’s the exact isotope that cars and power plants produce, while Earth generally naturally creates carbon 12. So what’s so non scientific about this? 🤷♂️
Have you been to any major cities like LA, London, Hong Kong, or Bangkok? The air pollution in these places is so dense you can’t even see through it…so why is it so hard to see that mankind is capable of increasing greenhouse gases? You can literally see the pollution we’re capable of creating. It doesn’t take much, even a small increase in any of the greenhouse gases will raise temperatures through the trapping of more sun energy. We are dumping more C02 into the air through our power and transportation technologies…so it’s pretty simple to deduce that we’re causing the current increase in temperature.
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? 🤷♂️ What’s so wrong about wanting to reduce pollution? We used to all agree that was a good thing…so what changed? Think y’all been watching too many movies…there’s no shadowy villains plotting to destroy us all in the real world, it’s just us I’m afraid.
2
-
@stevebrightmore4937 Depends on what you define as "genuine good research". The internet is full of non experts, con men and trolls, spreading a lot of misinformation. You have to be VERY careful you're not just being taken on a ride by bias researchers, showing you only what they want you to see and hiding the rest of the details that refute their claims. There is no system of peer review on YouTube or any social media, so it makes it pretty easy to make up bullshit and sell it as truth.
I fear that people are being misled by con men, some who are intentionally misleading people, others who are just so deep in their own personal bias, that they can't see how they're wrong. So be careful out there, don't let bias and paranoid lead your thinking, it will strip you of your better reasoning. Remember to turn that skeptical lens around sometime and question the claims made by Flat Earth, don't just listen to them blindly, question them with the same zeal you now question the mainstream with, it's the only way to remain objective.
That being said, have you looked at the Globe side of the debate at all? Are you aware of the main channels that are providing the counter arguments and evidence to the Flat Earth claims? I have been looking at this argument for a little over 3 years now, is there any arguments you are still on the fence with, that you require a little more insight with? I might be able to provide some help. I don't claim to know everything, but I do know this particular subject quite well at this point, so feel free to ask.
Anyway, point is, stay sharp and never turn off that skeptical lens, don't follow this movement blindly, question it as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Afraid of ignorance and paranoia turning into a mob mentality that effects progress and distorts knowledge? Yes, that is a real concern, can’t allow the paranoid and ignorant to force their superstitious bullshit and muddy the waters of knowledge, or else we get nothing done. Afraid of being wrong? No, could care less, science doesn’t mind being wrong, it learns a lot more from its mistakes than it does from success, science is all about falsification, that’s how it works. But they’re certainly not just going to roll over for every kook and crackpot with delusions of grandeur and nothing but speculations and empty claims. They’re gonna make claims, then they should expect the peer review of those claims. Flat Earth has no working model, and nothing that’s currently used in any field of applied science…that’s for a good reason, because it’s not reality. You can keep kicking that dead horse if you want, but you’re wasting your time.
2
-
@therussells4950 Well, considering every volcano on Earth spews molten iron in very high composition, that sure helps give us a clue. The fact that a liquid iron core spinning around a solid inner iron core, would easily generate the electromagnetic field we detect around Earth…that doesn’t just happen on its own, so an iron core makes sense of that phenomenon. The fact that we know iron to be one of the densest materials and the most abundant on Earth, it doesn’t take much deduction at that point to know that gravity would pull the densest material to centre. But the science that really helps us determine the inner composition of Earth, the science that gives us the most data, is the science of seismology.
Every Earthquake generates three different seismic waves, the surface wave that travels along the surface, which are the waves we’re familiar with, and two different waves that travel through the Earth, P and S waves. P waves, aka Primary waves which can pass through any material but are deflected differently depending on the material, and the slower moving S waves, aka Secondary waves, which do not pass through liquid and air, they stop at both liquids and empty open channels of gas.
Every single Earthquake gives us data of these two waves, passing through the Earth and pinging stations on the other side of the Earth, before the surface waves arrive, essentially because they took a shortcut through the Earth. This does two things, confirms the Earth is spherical, because the waves pass through Earth and hit stations on the other side, and it also gives us data on the Earth’s physical properties. It has confirmed that Earth’s inner core is mostly iron and nickel, which also just so happens to be the two most abundant alloys on Earth, with a liquid outer core and a solid iron inner core.
That’s how we know the inner composition of Earth, so now you learned something. Feel free to look up the science of seismology anytime, particularly on S and P waves and what they can tell us, it’s pretty fascinating research. You can also visit the IRIS archive anytime, which is where all world seismic activity is catalogued publicly, the data goes back almost a century…they’ve been studying Earth this way for a long time now.
What you should take away from this is that humans are indeed limited in what we can do physically, we can’t yet travel to the inner core, this is true, but we’re a pretty clever bunch, we have found many work arounds to our physical limitations. Point is, you don’t have to physically go somewhere, to learn about how that place operates on a physical level, you just have to be clever and devise different methods of exploration and discovery. Learn some science please, educate yourself on the many things mankind is doing out in the real world, stop getting your science from huxters online who really don’t know shit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@luckyhaskins69 So I assume you have money, being an old tech CEO as you claim (unless you floundered pretty hard), so assuming you do why not take a trip down to Antarctica to see the 24 hour Sun for yourself? If it really means that much to you, seems like a really easy way to make sure, just a little bit if travel and money and you can know for certain what’s what. I’ve been as far South as a little town in NZ known as Invercargill, and their longest day in the summer is 15 and a half hours long...how exactly does that work on any flat Earth model?
It’s just a basic problem of geometry, if the Sun occupies the same visual sky for everywhere on Earth, then how exactly does it set? Your line of sight would never be blocked. So I’m sorry, but how good do you think your “critical thinking” really is, if you think the Sun could ever set the way it does in reality, if the Earth is flat. You have to at least see why anyone would stop and call BS on flat Earth. Doesn’t take much to understand basic geometry.
You know, in my times traveling South, I’ve also been fortunate enough to see the Southern rotation of stars for myself, long before I even heard about this whole flat Earth thing. I’ve seen the Southern Cross on two different continents...again, it’s just basic geometry that raises the question, how exactly does that work on a flat Earth? It’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe, but I’ve heard no solid arguments for how that works on a flat Earth, just a lot of stretched logic and mental gymnastics.
Also, here’s a very in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. The conclusion here is pretty conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should be given its scale. Feel free to have a look sometime.
Just sayin, you guys come around these chats acting like it’s stupid anyone would question flat Earth...but then expect everyone to just ignore some pretty easy clues that point to Earth being a Globe, all under the guise that you’re a “critical thinker”. Well, we don’t really care how smart you are or think you are, do you have any evidence that supports your claims, or do you think we should just kneel before you and accept everything you say blindly and without question? Just makes you sound desperate for attention...doesn’t really change any minds, so why bother?
2
-
@luckyhaskins69 Ok, but you didn’t really answer the question of the Southern rotation. The question is how does it work on a flat Earth? How exactly does the geometry work? Your answer was, go to a planetarium? I assume you’re making the “dome”argument. A rotating dome can sort of answer for one rotation (though it would appear to become more and more oval the further you got from center), but it does not answer for there existing two rotations. I’ve seen a lot of different flat Earth maps and models, none that quite fit every observation in...the globe however does it effortlessly...every observation.
Just sayin, this is something we’d expect to see on a globe...but that does not make much sense on a flat Earth, among many many other things.
And no, I’m not new to this discussion, for the last 4 years I’ve engaged in hundreds of conversations with flat Earthers, I know their arguments pretty well, it’s really not often I hear anything new anymore to be honest. Doesn’t mean I know everything, but you’d be hard pressed to present me with an argument that I’m not familiar with and haven’t looked into at least a little. The geometry is still something flat Earth has never given a straight answer for, from sunsets, to star trails, to navigation, etc, nothing they claim matches with what I’ve seen and experienced in reality.
So feel to try again, perhaps share some evidence you feel accounts for the flat Earths geometry problems.
2
-
@luckyhaskins69 No, I would claim that water flows from high elevation to low elevation, and elevation on my “ball”, is measured from centre as the starting point. High elevation is further from centre, low elevation is closer...so water is seeking lowest elevation, it’s seeking to be closest to centre. Gravity pulls to centre, so it’s an objects mass that is seeking centre of gravity at all times, if more mass becomes lower than its centre of gravity due to that mass being at a lower elevation than the rest of its mass, then it will all fall into the lower elevation, until it’s all at its lowest possible elevation again, and thus stops moving. Water is a fluid, which gives it an interesting chemical bonding causing it to pull on other molecules of water as it passes, will cause a flow of water with enough of it collected together in motion with each other, this generates momentum and then you have a current.
The lowest elevation water has found here on Earth, is typically the ocean, which has an equipotential surface, meaning a surface that is at equal distance from centre of Earth. A bubbles surface for example, is another surface that is equipotential, maintaining same distance from centre...which forms it into a sphere.
Your problem here is your own personal misunderstanding of how gravity works, elevation works, and that you seem to think North is up and South is down...as if gravity pulls in those directions. Last I checked, things fall towards surface...not South.
2
-
@luckyhaskins69 You know there is very good reasons for why people do not bat an eye at flat Earth claims, because we understand what they overlook and where they’ve gone wrong. Flat Earth likes to claim it has an open mind, but your closing statement in one of your last comments to me, sure doesn’t sound like an open mind to me...the very opposite in fact. Just sayin...what if you’re wrong? I know you don’t think you are, but personally, I don’t think anyone is infallible...the mark of true intelligence to me has always been to keep that very real possibility open that you could be wrong and allow for open discussions where further examination of information can be pursued, no matter how sure you might be.
I’m in these chats for two reasons, one being the same as your reason, to share information on a subject I’ve come to know a lot about, information that I feel my opposition ignores and doesn’t share. The other reason, is to engage in civil discussion with an opposing viewpoint, to challenge what I think I know and see if it really is accurate. This process will never end for me, because I do not know everything and never will, so old information will always have the potential to change as new information is acquired...but never before proper review. Modern Science operates in the same way and I’m sure you’d agree, it brings results. People who think they’re infallible though...these people tend to always end up on the wrong side of history and don’t get much accomplished beyond tyranny.
2
-
Well, I mean it makes perfect sense (to me personally) why an individual who made a discovery of such wide spread application, would feel emotional when someone spits in their face for it; why attack them when they’ve brought such benefit to all our lives? Why so ungrateful? What achievements do they have under their belts to give them any right to speak against those achievements, against applied knowledge?
I understand fully why an expert with years of experience in their field would be offended by layman pretending they’re anywhere near their level…I’m not as confident in understanding (exactly) why a layman would get emotional about it. Resentment? Jealousy? Inferiority complex? Conmen/troll just pretending to care because they know it gets them the attention they require/need? Not as easy to pinpoint, the motivations for the latter is further reaching and more nefarious I believe.
For me it’s simple; I’ve travelled around the world, I understand that knowing the true shape of the Earth is pretty vital information to have if you want any hope of navigating the Earth successfully, so who are these people to argue with thousands of years of applied knowledge? I get emotional because it’s sad that anyone could be so ignorant, uneducated, and un-cultured. That’s extremely sad too me, because I personally couldn’t imagine myself enduring such an empty existence devoid of exploration and experience.
So I can only speak from my own perspective, it hurts me deeply to see people taking such callous disinterest in the vast wealth of humanity’s history and knowledge, and how we achieved it all! Deducing the true shape of our world was a major discovery, more vital to our current prosperity than most discoveries could ever be…why do so many take that for granted today? It’s sad…that’s the only emotion I feel when I hear of this mess.
2
-
You’re misunderstanding the inverse square law a bit, it has more to do with the area around the object that’s being illuminated by it, not so much the source of light itself. Individual photons of light don’t get weaker by distance, as far as we know they travel indefinitely maintaining their intensity. So inverse square law has more to do with how focused a grouping of particles of light are, distance spreads them out over a wider area, decreasing the surrounding illumination…but the source of light is always going to be just as focused as it always was, not increasing or decreasing really, almost the same amount of light photons still arriving at you. For the most part, a curved surface will still fan those photons out and disperse them, so distance will still cause a difference of how many photons arrive to your eye, but inverse square law is more so used for the illumination around a light source, and well, there is nothing in space to illuminate…it’s empty.
Think of it this way, does a bonfire get brighter the closer you are too it? If you stand 20 feet away then stand 5 feet away, does the intensity of the source of light increase the closer you get, or does the area around it illuminate more? The area around the light source illuminates more the closer objects are too it, but the light source itself, doesn’t change much, right? That’s where the inverse square law applies, the surrounding illumination, not so much the light source itself. Does that help understand this a bit better?
So just a bit of a misunderstanding on your part I feel. What’s more perplexing is how the flat Earth model can explain these sunlight patterns on Earth, with the inverse square law https://youtu.be/fEYsgP4CuSA?t=31. The Equinox for example…how exactly does light stop at the pole forming a perfectly straight terminator line, when light is supposed to disperse evenly from a light source? 🤷♂️ Do you really think inverse square law can account for these light patterns? In all your thinking upon this problem, did you ever think to turn your attention to the model you’re currently seeking to support, to see how well it holds up to the same standard of analysis?
You’re asking some good thought provoking questions actually, these are great physics and astronomy questions in all honesty, which tells me you’re intelligent, but I think your bias is keeping you from asking these questions objectively. Or you’re just having a laugh. I get that arguing a nonsensical position can be a great mental exercise as well as entertaining…I just don’t think it’s very funny to spread misinformation, so it’s never been my cup of tea.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Murphy_Gaspard Yes, of course they lie to us about a great many things, nobody would argue they don’t…but they can’t lie about everything, it actually takes more truth to tell a lie than people realize, and this is just far too big for them to keep hidden from 8 billion other people. I don’t think you quite understand how many industries rely on accurate information of Earth’s shape, in order to function at all…it’s very important information to have.
You’re giving governments far too much credit; they can barely hide their mistresses, you really think they could successfully hide something as crucial to science, as Earth’s basic shape? Think of all the country’s in the world currently at war with each other or that consider themselves enemies…yet they all keep this one secret without spilling the beans? It’s very far from plausible.
Though it’s a bit irrelevant, like I said, you don’t require government to verify for yourself the Earth’s true shape. Speculations certainly shouldn’t lead your conclusions, evidence should.
2
-
@Murphy_Gaspard The problem I have with the whole “NASA is faking everything” camp, is it’s mostly speculations and misunderstandings…not a whole lot of actual evidence. Was it a bubble in a pool, or just ice debris from the ship? Are rockets being launched into the ocean, or are they shot at a trajectory that can put them into an orbit? Was calling Nixon from the Moon impossible, or do people just not know much about patching a radio feed through a phone line?
At the end of the day, both sides can really only speculate…and that’s all I ever see in those “fake space” documentaries on YouTube, endless speculations, not a whole lot of solid evidence. And when they’re not speculating, they’re misunderstanding physics, or making false assumptions on the engineering of the technology.
I once watched one trying to make the claim that the old Gemini space suits couldn’t swivel the heads. They cut footage from a bunch of various clips, all showing zero swivel. So on the surface it seems like a legit claim…until you dig a little deeper, and find the original footage. Watching the original footage, you notice they conveniently cut the clips, before you see the heads swivel. Why would they edit that out, than for any other reason but to deceive you?
So I’ve actually noticed the opposite from these “fake space” docs; they sure are trying hard to lead you towards the conclusions they’ve decided are accurate, while discouraging any other plausible explanations, and cutting out anything that could cause you to question what they’re claiming.
So who’s really lying? From what I’ve seen, it’s the people cutting together those documentaries. That’s why I try to tell people, don’t just nod and agree to everything these videos show you blindly and without question, challenge them just as thoroughly as you challenge the mainstream information…you might be surprised to learn who’s really being deceitful.
But it’s pretty irrelevant to the topic of Flat Earth I feel. Why focus on something you can only speculate on, rather than test and make observations on the surface of the Earth we all live on? None of us will likely get to space in our lifetimes, so there’s very little we can verify first hand on that front, we can really only speculate. But you don’t have to speculate when it comes to the Earth…you can test it yourself. No government can stop you from making observations on the Earth we all inhabit. So why not focus on the evidence we can actually verify first hand?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@captainmeow2771 It’s a heated topic for sure, but that’s expected, when a bold claim is made, that was thought settled hundreds of years prior. Especially when it’s a claim put forth by layman. From an trained expert’s perspective, it’s just interpreted as ignorance and arrogance...this sparks a reaction, that’s pretty natural actually, we all do this to some degree. Also, you have to understand that it can be very difficult to know when someone is being sincere, or when they’re just trolling. So the attacks are mostly, just from having spent a lot of time dealing with the grifters and con men of the conversation...and to be sure, these people do exist, and they’re not worth anyone’s time, so we have to weed them out, essentially fighting fire with fire.
But some of us are a bit more patient and empathetic to an opposing position, and don’t mind answering questions, if they’re sincere. I agree that there’s nothing wrong with asking questions, nothing should be off the table for discussion, no matter how well established. So feel free, what questions in particular would you like a little more information for? You strike me as sincere and mature enough for a civil discussion, so I don’t mind lowering the shields and seeing what I might be able to help with. No ridicule, I’ll just offer what information I can and leave it at that. So give me a question and I’ll see what I can answer.
2
-
@captainmeow2771 Ok, well first of all, unless we’re both involved in choices made within the organization of the UN, we can only really speculate on your first question. I prefer to stick to evidence I can verify, I personally prefer staying out of speculative “evidence”. I certainly believe speculations alone should not lead a conclusion, but I think a lot of people do form conclusions that way anyway. I just feel it’s important to point out, that we should all learn to spot the difference, between actual evidence and speculations. That being said, I do have an answer for you on this point, so I will give you one, just know that I’m happy to admit my answer is only one of many plausible answers, in the sea of speculations one can make here, so the answer I’ll provide here is speculative.
I’m not a member of the UN handling that sort of decision, but I am a digital artist/illustrator, so I have a lot of experience with graphic design, such as logo design. If I was hired to create a flag for the UN, that included a representation of the planet in map form, well, first of all I’d know I couldn’t represent the entire surface of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D surface. It’s impossible to represent (with complete accuracy) 3 dimensions, using only 2.
So a map projection would have to be used, a flattened projection of the globe. There are several map projections to choose from, the most common is the Mercator map, but another one being the Azimuthal Equidistant projection, or the AE map for short. This is the map FE uses, but do you know how this map is created? It’s a projection of the Globe, flattened out from the North polar axis, here’s a great video demonstrating how this map is made https://youtu.be/9Wq3GiJT2wQ.
So the UN is not using a flat Earth map, it’s actually the other way around, FE is using a globe projection map.
So the fact they both use the map, from my opinion, is purely coincidental. As an artist though, out of every projection map that exists, I can tell you the AE projection has the most pleasing composition, it’s the most balanced and pleasing to the eye. We are all drawn to pleasing, balanced compositions, so an artist would choose that projection for the flag, for the same reason someone from FE would be drawn to it and decide to use it, because it’s balanced and pleasing to the eye.
So if I was designing the flag, I’d probably choose that projection as well. The UN represents all nations, so it’s pretty vital to have an image that includes all nations. The bonus to the AE projection, is that it doesn’t favour any one nation, the North polar axis does not reside on any nation or even continent, so it displays every nation from a neutral standpoint.
So I hope you can now understand a bit better how a graphic designer would approach designing the UN flag. There’s actually an image somewhere, displaying the many different proposed rough flag ideas sketched for the UN, the majority of them not making use of the AE projection. If I find it, I will be sure to share it with you. Question is, if the UN knew what they’re flag was going to be, why would they bother with several different mock ups that don’t include the AE?
But anyway, that’s a plausible answer I feel, but again, I can only really speculate, unless I was involved with creating or deciding what design to use. What I don’t have to speculate on, is that FE did not create the AE map, they took it and claimed it as theirs, but they did not create it. You can look up the patents for the Gleason (basically another version of the AE), which is the earliest known use of the map from FE, the original patent states it is a projection of the globe, as is the AE. So FE can not claim they created this map.
And upon all review of the map regarding flight paths and sailing routes, it doesn’t work for navigation purposes either, because it’s not accurate to the actual surface dimensions of the planet. Because again, projection maps are not accurate representations, they are only projections of a 3D sphere, in 2 dimensions, meaning they are grossly distorted. In the AE’s case, the distortions get worse and worse the further from the North pole you get.
Anyway, hope you find this information insightful, or at least interesting. Let me know if you have any further questions. I’ll now take some time to answer your other question.
2
-
@captainmeow2771 So your second question starts with an assumption. You seem pretty confident that pilots and planes don’t adjust for curvature, but I’d be curious to know first what led you to that conclusion? The trouble your question has, is that a pilot follows the horizon indicator and the altimeter, which gives them readings they’re constantly adjusting too, in all vectors, constantly. So think of it like driving down a highway, you’re constantly making tiny little adjustments to stay on the road, none of which you probably notice, now just imagine adding a third dimension of travel, for a globe that takes roughly 70 miles to make 1 degree of arc difference. To get that figure, just divide 25,000 miles, by 365 degrees. You’ll get 68.493 miles, per 1 degree. Earth is massive, I hope that figure helps better understand just how slowly a pilot would be arcing down.
There’s also this to consider. If Earth is a globe, with all the physics that comes with that scientific model, then the horizon indicator and the altimeter would shift with the curvature, meaning the pilot will adjust to stay on track with these instruments. Altimeter is designed to read air pressure, indicating altitude, it’s basically a barometer designed to measure air pressure and calculate altitude from that reading. Air pressure would be equipotential (at equal distance from centre of the globe) on a globe with gravity physics. So the altimeter would adjust with the sphere, and so the pilot would adjust as well.
A horizon indicator makes use of mechanical gyros, which do not adjust to gravity on there own, but to overcome this they have included what’s known as a pendulous vane, in the mechanics of the device. What these are, are basically little hinges on the gyros gimbles, which are affected by gravity. They are designed to put the gyro back into alignment with surface, using gravity to do that. Because the hinges will drop once out of alignment with the current gravity vector, this applies a torque to the gyro, which pitches it back into alignment with gravity.
What this means is, even the horizon indicator is designed to adjust to gravity, so it too will pitch down any time it’s out of alignment with gravity. So a pilot will also adjust to this indicator, so if it’s pitching, then so too will the pilot.
You can learn more about both devices with a quick YouTube search, explaining how they work. Just search altimeter mechanics and then pendulous vanes for the horizon indicator.
Anyway, I hope that also helps provide some insight to your question here. I will mention I’m not a pilot myself, but I’ve spent a long time now researching the same question you’re asking here, and I’ve learned a lot about the mechanics of a planes instrumentation, in that time. A lot of it is also basic physics and geometry (equipotential is a geometric term), which I do have a lot of prior experience with, especially geometry being an artist as long as I have been. Let me know if you have any further questions.
2
-
@captainmeow2771 I’m sorry, are you saying that you have a friend who’s both a flat Earther and a pilot/expert in a field relevant to the discussion? Interesting, the majority of FE don’t typically hold any official titles relative to the topic, but there are a small few. You had mentioned it was a friend you were hesitant to argue with, because it just got toxic, but I was unaware of their background. I can see why you’d hesitate, official titles can inflate an ego.
Ya, see it’s very tricky to hold a conversation on such a topic, even without the other person holding actual credentials in a relative field. Unless you’re well versed and experienced in a wide range of subjects, it can be difficult...and since the majority of people are not very well versed in science, it’s easy to overwhelm them with jargon and gish gallop. The arguments of FE cover everything from general physics and geometry, to perspective, surveying, and optics, to aeronautics, engineering, mechanics, etc, it’s quite the long list of topics you almost have to become an expert in, just to have an opinion, let alone argue with any sway.
You have the right idea though I’d say, just be patient, don’t take anything personally, any immediate attack is mostly just from fatigue, lot of trolls in this conversation online...can put anyone on edge. Learn as you go, if it interests you enough, no shame in not knowing something, nobody knows everything and nobody is infallible. Avoid chats with the toxic side of things, those people only interested in forcing you what to believe, that goes for both sides. I’ve been actively chatting with people of FE for a long time and though I strongly disagree with them, I do still admire their tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds, so I do try my best to never talk at them, rather just share information. Doesn’t always work though, I have my limits too, but I find it’s the best way to approach things. It is a toxic topic, but you can find civil discussions still, just takes a thick skin and some patience.
Anyway, I’m happy to continue providing some further information and perspective on the topic, so feel free to ask me any other questions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
fred Not if those “facts” are completely false or fabricated. It’s true that we should never assume too much about an opposing position, but if the model being refuted is completely broken from the start of analysis, then it doesn’t really matter so much. The Flat Earth model is not used in any applied science today, so there’s really no argument here anymore, we know Earth is a Globe beyond any reasonable doubt. We’re putting satellites into orbit...that’s simply not possible on a flat Earth. World navigation uses a global coordinate system, with two equal hemispheres...millions of people use this mapping of our surface to find their destinations with perfect precision. If Earth was flat, a global coordinate system would not work for navigation.
It’s cute that the Buddhists and other old societies have maps, but just cause they’re ancient and we tend to romanticize them for that, does not make them right by default. Believe it or not, the Buddhists can be wrong...and in this case, they absolutely are, can’t just let our bias cloud objective truths, nobody is using that map or any other flat Earth mapping to navigate with.
And Admiral Byrd was not a flat Earther, he never once claimed to be, he was just the first to really explore Antarctica in great depth...and when he spoke of land larger than the United States, he was more than likely referring to the continent of Antarctica itself. So please don’t join the speculation game...taking another persons words out of context and placing bias upon their work, is not valid evidence, it’s just empty speculation and confirmation bias.
Stick to the science and pay attention to the world around you today. Do you really think scientists and experts could create everything around you in the modern world...but they couldn’t figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the Earth?
2
-
That’s a gross over simplification of the real situation. They didn’t lose the technology, they decommissioned the old tech that was already built, because it was old and starting to ware...this made them unsafe for manned missions, so they were dismantled.
Then NASA lost funding for future lunar missions, so for years R&D stopped on building new lunar modules. In that time, new technologies were developed, but none of it was being tested in space, so none of it was being cleared as safe for use in these modules. The old systems used were all analog systems, which are much sturdier but limited in what they could achieve. Our current computer technology is more susceptible to damage in strong magnetic/radioactive fields, like the ones found in deep space. This presents an engineering challenge for new lunar modules. Nothing can be put into these new modules, until they’ve all been tested and cleared as safe for use in space...that takes time.
Could they just rebuild the old modules? Of course, but why would they? They were limited in what they could achieve, and if we’re gonna go back (which we are btw, just look up the Artemis program), we need technology that is updated.
So it’s a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be. You lack the full picture, so no wonder you find it so ridiculous.
2
-
2
-
The Van Allen Belt was discovered in 1958, a full decade before they ever went to the Moon...so get your facts straight before you go spreading misinformation. It’s not so much the crew that has to worry here, it’s more the new computing tech that is far more susceptible to damage from electromagnetic/radiating fields, than the old analog systems of the old modules. Yes, long term exposure to the field can be harmful to the crew, so it’s a risk they all take, but it’s really not as harmful as you’re making it out to be. It’s more the tech they have to make sure won’t fail, that’s the larger issue in the new modules. Maybe you’re not familiar with how engineering and R&D works, but EVERY new system has to be tested and cleared for safety, before they can send a manned crew up in a newly designed module. This takes time, especially when you’re basically redesigning every new computing component, so they can withstand this field without failing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
From what I understand on the issue is that Joe pencilled them both in for a debate, before asking either of them. So Neil didn’t back out of anything, he had no idea there was even a debate to begin with. Would you agree to a debate you weren’t asked about in advance? Probably not…so why should he? Neil has made it pretty publicly clear that he does not do debates, so why would should he be forced too do something he’s not interested in? The bullying is actually from Flat Earth…like kids on a playground calling him chicken from a distance, just trying to bait him into doing something he has no interest in doing. It’s a vane attempt to force your will upon him…not much more.
To add to that though, you know Dubay has been called to thousand of debates, by many experts and layman alike…he has so far accepted ZERO calls to debate. Unless you’re aware of any he has partaken in, I am currently not aware of any…and it’s not from lack of trying. So what’s he so afraid of? 🧐
It shouldn’t matter, if he’s not interested in debates, he shouldn’t be forced too do them either.
Debates are a public spectacle…but science doesn’t actually settle anything in single public debates, because debates can be won even if you’re 100% wrong…all you gotta do is be the better bullshitter. So that’s not very productive, in fact it’s quite counter productive, because it gives huxters and pseudo intellectuals an advantage…in an arena they typically wouldn’t have any say in, because huxters typically don’t bother with acquiring credentials. In science it’s left to the evidence, as it should be. Peer review is a form of long form debate, but it’s not public, only accredited experts are allowed to review, and it’s not done in a single televised event like a boxing match. Peer review can take years and typically requires multiple expert opinions…not just two individuals squaring off.
Unfortunately huxters do exist, and a tactic they’ve been employing for centuries now is to bait experts into public debates, by essentially calling them chickens. So scientists are actually pretty careful who they interact with, because they’re very aware of this. The huxters have everything to gain by baiting a celebrity scientist like Neil…they essentially gain an audience they wouldn’t otherwise be able to garner themselves. Which gives them free advertising to sell their grift.
If you think grifters don’t exist…then you are extremely naive. What damage can it do? Plenty…it can poison the well of information. It’s far smarter to just ignore them, and let them fizzle out from lack of attention. Giving them a free platform where they can spread potential misinformation…not very smart. If they want a debate, they’ll have to earn it…that starts by earning the credentials. Dubay is a Yoga teacher who’s probably never conducted field research or stepped foot in a science lab before…he certainly has not earned any right to speak amongst experts.
2
-
@pauldooris539 No, the Michelson Morley experiment was not an experiment to test Earth’s motion, it was an experiment to test and hopefully detect and measure the Aether. It did not succeed. Its conclusion was deemed as inconclusive, both in the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. If you form a conclusion from an inconclusive result, then you are doing so out of bias.
The Aether was widely hypothesized during that time, but has never been detected, measured, or proven in any capacity. So how exactly does something that does not likely exist…prove the Earth is not in motion? 🤷♂️
Foucault pendulum does successfully detect and measure Earth rotation, as does the lesser known Foucault Gyroscope experiment, which is actually used today in a device known as the gyrocompass…a device used aboard most modern sea vessels today, that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. You can look up the engineering specs for the gyrocompass at any time, they usually explain pretty clearly how they work.
Einstein was talking about optical experiments as in experiments using light…which is what the Michelson Morley experiment was using, light in an interferometer. But you should find the rest of that quote, because it goes on to address that Earth is in motion. And he was proven wrong on that first statement (about the optical experiment unable to detect Earth motion) years later, with the Sagnac experiments, which have since been used to detect Earth’s rotational motion.
So your information is a bit twisted…tends to happen when you get all your information from huxters. This is exactly why scientists have to be wary of who they debate with…cause some within the general public are easily misled by cleverly crafted misinformation. Conmen know this, and so do scientists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aceneto9386 You do not need to go to space, to deduce the shape of the Earth. Just a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations is all you need. Here’s what’s sad…for some reason people will believe a stranger online, tell them the Earth is flat, and they’ll believe them completely without question, while meanwhile millions of pilots and sailors around the world are navigating the surface every single day, with extreme precision, using a system of navigation built around the knowledge that Earth is a sphere. Do you need an accurate map to find a destination? Yes, of course you do…so how exactly do you think these people do their jobs, if they don’t have accurate knowledge of the scale and dimensions of the Earth in which they navigate? Stop being so gullible…maybe people should pull their dumb faces away from their phone or computer, long enough to go outside and experience the real world, or open a book.
2
-
2
-
2
-
ZACH Yes, people make mistakes, that’s why we have peer review. Of course that refraction demonstration I shared isn’t representative of the ocean...it’s merely to prove that light does indeed refract and it’s caused by changes in air density. Once you know that for certain, then the bullshit argument from Flat Earth saying “refraction isn’t real” becomes a real eye roller. Then it becomes pretty apparent, which side is ignoring variables. Science knows enough about refraction today, that we can actually calculate it, all we require is the refraction index for that day. Here’s a pretty in depth discussion breaking down the math for refraction https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/.
And here’s an depth recreation of the famous Bedford Level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Just scroll down to the second half of this report, where they focus on refraction...and let me know if they ignored any variables.
Science is doing it’s best for people...it’s layman who are not actually paying attention, just making a lot of assumptions about science. Science isn’t sure about a lot of things...but the true shape of the Earth, is not one of them.
2
-
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 No, the real trouble is that you're a layman, misunderstanding a LOT about science...not just the concepts it teaches but also the language and the way it operates as well. This leads you to a lot of false conclusions, you don't really know much about science, so you misunderstand it often. That's really all I've seen occur from Flat Earth so far...and it's a real problem.
Everything in physics that is verified and labelled under theory, is proven through experimentation and observation...it's not just numbers on a paper, nothing graduates from hypothesis into theory until it has been verified with evidence and then peer reviewed. Everything can be explained and verified to you if you actually take the time to review it. The real trouble is many people don't bother to look at these experiments and attempt at understanding them, so instead they just make empty claims that they don't exist...or they just make this common gem of an argument "it's just a theory". Which just forfeits you from conversation the moment you make that argument...cause it proves to us you don't know the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory. Real science isn't easy...it requires a LOT of effort from you, a lot more care and diligence and it requires you remove all bias to seek objective truth only.
Theoretical science is just the sketching phase of science...it's where they draw up the blueprints for future experimentation. I don't think I need to explain to you how important blueprints are for building a house...why would you think they don't require a step like that in science? Tesla was an experimental scientist and an inventor, who felt that every scientist should get their hands dirty and do some experimentation from time to time, rather then just theorize...and he's right, they should. But he was doing just as much math as anyone else...he was a mathematical genius, but he wasn't funded by any university, he did everything himself, so he had no choice but to do the experiments himself...though he preferred it that way, he was a jack of all trades. Theoretical scientists don't generally get paid to do experiments...so they typically don't. Experimental scientists do...they are the next step after drawing up what the math says is possible. After that, it's up to experimental scientists to verify it further...nothing goes past hypothesis in science until it has been verified...so theoretical scientists are not verifying scientific concepts, they're just using math to help us probe deeper into what is possible.
If you understand that the universe functions on mathematical principles, then you can use that language of the universe to help unravel its secrets...that's all they're doing, using another tool to their advantage. You people would ask that they stop........but WHY!?! Because it doesn't make sense to you and that not knowing terrifies you? It's just incredible to me.
Anyway, is there any physics in general you would like to know more about? I might be able to help you with some answers. Use your video you shared for example, pick a proof in there you feel currently that is indisputable and I'll see if I can falsify it and help you with the physics that they're misunderstanding.
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 I will say this much for right now, it's not that Flat Earth doesn't ask great questions, they are the exact same questions scientists once asked on their path to learning more, so they are GREAT questions. The trouble is that Flat Earth holds their questions up as proof, rather then seeking the answers. It's just odd to me really, especially in the information age. I think Flat Earth focuses a bit to much on attempting to falsify our model, which is great and all, that's what science is all about is falsifcation, but focusing so hard on our model lead you to forget to pay attention to your own model...which can't even explain a sunset last I checked. A better question to ask, is why are there two hemispheres? With their own stars, constellations and celestial rotation? These are things the Globe answers with ease, while the Flat Earth does not.
I am a bit busy currently, but I can share this with you. https://drajmarsh.bitbucket.io/earthsun.html It's a very interesting simulation of the Globe that can help you to visualize some of your questions for why the stars don't appear to move during a rotation, it also explains the seasons by showing you how the angle of the Sun moves the direct solar path of the Sun from tropic of Capricorn to Cancer and back again. So play around with it sometime, flip it upside down so you're facing the poles and hit play, it'll rotate the stars for you.
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it we can see farther than we should be able to on the ocean?
"
The short answer, we don't, we see exactly as far as we're supposed too. Flat Earth lies about the details or performs bad math or both...then some people don't bother to question things further to see if the information is accurate, it's pretty simple.
The long answer, well, first of all, how far do you think you should be able to see and what math were you using to verify it? A big problem with Flat Earth that I've come across, is that they use the wrong math a lot. A basic rule of thumb in mathematics, always make sure you're using the correct formulas for the proper jobs, or you will risk reaching a false conclusion. So it's simple really, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion.
So how far do you think you should be able to see and what information are you getting? It's very easy to lie about how far we see...a person can just shoot a number out, tell you we shouldn't see that far and then unless you question him directly on his math and details, how are you supposed to know he's even telling the truth?
Two things you need to make sure you're getting right with long distance observations, you need to make sure you're using the proper math and you need to make sure the details you're receiving are actually accurate. 8 inches per mile squared is the worst offender in flat Earth...this is not the correct math to use for making long distance observations. It does not derive a figure for your line of sight, or for what is hidden from your line of sight due to horizon and curvature...it is missing many key variables that you require to help you discern that. But flat Earth blindly listens to this math anyway...even though it's wrong and it has successfully roped in a lot of people now, who didn't bother to look at it closer to see how it works.
8 inches per mile squared is a basic parabolic equation, it's not for calculating curvature on a sphere...it's only really good for about 100 miles and then it stops being accurate. As I said prior, it doesn't derive a figure for your actual line of sight either, all it's doing is measuring a drop from a tangent line at surface....which means the numbers it gives you are only accurate, if your eye rests at sea level...which is of course NEVER the case. You always look down at horizon and as you go higher in elevation, your horizon extends as your line of sight extends. 8 inches per mile squared does not include a variable for height of the observer....so it is the wrong math completely.
I've seen some other formulas that do a slightly better job, but they still ignore certain variables, such as refraction. Yes...you need to include a variable for atmosphere refraction. Here's a quick experiment that verify's why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction is real, it does occur in our atmosphere and yes it does change what see at distances, especially over large bodies of water. It works by increasing the density of the air, which refracts light down, which raises objects behind a curve up. The demonstration I shared makes it pretty clear...this can't be ignored. To do so is being bias. We know enough about refraction today, that we can accurately calculate it.
So you have to make sure you're using the correct math that includes all the variables and doesn't ignore the ones you don't like. Here's a great calculator I have found that is quite accurate, calculating a geometric curvature and a standard refraction curvature. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ And here's a forum discussion breaking down the math in greater detail. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
Basically, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it's pretty simple. What's odd to me, is that Flat Earthers don't seem to ever bother to check their math...they just listen blindly to people sharing the same bullshit formulas and they just nod and agree that they're accurate and never check them for accuracy...it's incredible.
The other thing you have to be careful of, getting the proper details. You need to make sure the distances are correct, the height of the observer is correct, the location, etc...it's very easy to fudge the numbers, if you have the wrong details...and it's VERY easy for people to lie online and just give you bullshit numbers. It happens a lot.
So when you ask me "How come we see further then we should?" well give me an example, what did you see that convinced you we see to far and what were the detals, then I can go through the observation with you, cause I can pretty much guarantee you either did the math wrong or the person lied to you about the details of what you're seeing. So you have to VERY careful with this one...the trouble is I don't feel that people are and that's how they fall for this one.
A better question to ask, why do the bottoms of objects disappear first at distance? I've seen photos of distant mountain ranges and people will ask why we can still see them at hundreds of miles...then they'll completely ignore that the pictures were taken from several hundred feet elevation, that the mountain peaks drop from eye level the further they are and that you're only observing the very peaks, that THOUSANDS of feet are missing from the base of those mountains, every single time. How does thousands of feet go missing, if the Earth is flat? That's a much better question to ask.
Here's a few great observations for you if you think we're really seeing to far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=28s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Idg1MA10k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
2
-
@dominiccharvet546 "I have studied both sides for over three years now and have never seen a real picture of earth from space."
3 years and you've never seen a real picture from space? Have you really been looking? Is your search bar broken or something? Here's a great archive of images from the various Apollo missions. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums There are thousands of images archived here, just one of many places online that archives these photos. There are hundreds of pictures of the Earth in here, you just browse through these sometime and then let me know if you feel these are fake or not. I think the Apollo 16 photos are some of the clearest, so take a look at some of their photos found here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
If you think they are fake, then tell me how you verified that. Tell me the method you used to reach that conclusion. These are high resolution images, so click on a few Earth images sometime and blow them up as big as they will go and then analyze them closer. I am an artist for a living, to my trained eye, I have yet to find a single brush stroke, paint blotch, or flaw in these photos, which is present in ALL photo realistic paintings. There is no such thing as a 100% photo realistic painting...most people are not aware of that, cause they are not artists. There is always a flaw and a trained eye can spot them easily. So to my eye, these all look VERY legit, but feel free to let me know what you see.
No, you wanna know what I think....you're paranoid and you're allowing people online to feed that paranoia. You've been looking at only ONE side of the argument, I can tell...because you're still asking the same questions they ask, that have answers. Had you actually looked at the Globe side of the debate, you'd know the answers to these questions by now.
The true Globe proponents are out there, they're just not easy to find compared to the Flat Earth con men that have made it their life's obsession to feed you more of this misinformation on the daily. They're not as invested in this mess, so they don't get as many hits, so they are harder to find.
Let's get down to it. Look outside....do you REALLY honestly believe, that all of this amazing technology could exist, but scientists can't figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet? You REALLY believe that? At the end of the day....NOTHING out in the real world uses a Flat Earth model in its framework, from navigation, to communication, to science and technology, to infrastructure. Navigation being a big one, nobody is out there right now navigating the world using a Flat Earth model. It should be pretty common sense, but you can not hope to find a destination, if you do not have an accurate map to help you. If we were navigating around a Flat Earth, while using a Global geometry...people would be getting lost every single day. Pilots, ship captains, military personnel and rescue crews, these people rely on our knowledge of the shape and scale of our planet to be accurate, in order to do their jobs. There are two equal hemispheres, and we travel along great circle routes...this would not occur on a Flat Earth.
Just watch some videos from an actual pilot who's spent a lot of time in this mess. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020 This guy is an example of some of the bigger names of the Globe Earth proponents on YouTube. When it comes to navigation and knowledge on flight charts, flight paths, the actual working mechanics of an airplane, this guy is quite knowledgeable. If you've really been looking at both sides of this argument, then you'd have found this channel by now. Just give it a look over sometime, lots of great videos making TONS of observations of his own, focusing a lot on world navigation. His videos on plotting flight paths are some of the more interesting, especially the challenge serious when he was asked to plot three 90 degree angles, that return back to starting location....which would be impossible on a Flat Earth, because a triangle can not have 90 degree angles on a flat surface....but a Globe can. He was successful in mapping this on THREE separate trials, using THREE different flight charting methods. And he's not the only one who has also done this. The simple fact is, those are real flight paths, he's charting on real flight charts that actual pilots use. If you can plot these charts, then you can fly them...and so if you can plot three 90 degree turns, tracing a triangle and returning back to starting location...then the Earth is a sphere. It's the only shape that can achieve this. Here's that series for you to have a look, it's quite interesting, it was a long back and forth between him and the guy issuing the challenge, documenting first hand how arrogant Flat Earthers can be....he did his challenge several times over, and still he refused to believe it. That's not thinking rationally...that's just good ol' fashioned denial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FJG65nbUO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Fi-86uSqs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU6oEOjk6Yk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_qP-r0asww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVp_yJgSwfA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScJ4QW7gAlw
Flat Earth is just a paranoid fever dream man. They're filling your head with some bullshit, which is just designed to make you doubt your fellow man. I can keep answering your questions for you if you're still interested. I do enjoy the discussion...but after 3 years of looking for myself, I have now concluded that Flat Earth is a scam and it's getting harder for me lately to have patience with people. It's just incredible to me what these people have actually convinced other people of...and even more shocking that they'll then turn around and use a computer, accessing a massive online network, sending information instantly over WiFi signals...and then they'll tell us that scientists don't really know things? Like holy fuck...that's arrogant. You have to consider the possibility that paranoia and bias are leading you more then rational thought, it's fine to question what you're told, but do you ever turn that lens around on Flat Earth and question them? I'm sure you did at first, but do you still? I have successfully falsified pretty much every claim made by Flat Earth, so I have concluded now, that it is a scam. I can keep going and help you out with things if you'd like some further insight, I do enjoy the civil discussion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@awakehunter9140 "but a picture is worth more than words and HD video should be easy too yet that’s where all have been proven faked."
The trouble is, you're concluding every picture is faked...but how do you know for sure they are faked? Just because CGI exists today and things can be faked, does not mean they ARE faked. It's pure paranoia that would lead someone to think in such blind absolutes. You're reaching a conclusion from an assumption, not actual evidence. Flat Earth doesn't prove these photos are faked...they just claim they all are, without doing much of any work to verify that claim. What method has Flat Earth used verify ALL of the pictures taken are fake? Have they looked at every photo? How many have you really looked at closely? Do you search for your own and analyze them yourself, or just the ones Flat Earth YouTubers provide for you?
Here's an archive of the thousands of photos taken during the Apollo missions. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums Now take a look at the Apollo 16 archive here for me https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. There are tons of photos here, from low Earth orbit and beyond and these are in very high resolution. So now click on this one for me https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21709833861/in/album-72157656739898544/ and blow it up to as large as it will go by clicking on the photo a couple times. Now look around on this photo and tell me...HOW did they fake this photo, back in the 70's? Can you prove they did? What method did they use to fake this photo? I'd be interested to know, I'm an artist for a living, these are pretty darn convincing to my eye.
Every photo in this archive has been around since the 70's, LONG before CGI was even possible. Have you seen these photos before and have you verified them as fake? If so, tell me how you did it, or did you just assume they are faked before ever looking?
We're just getting a little tired of how lazy Flat Earth is when it comes to conducting actual research. You seem to only go so far as to confirm your bias and then you stop looking. If you've concluded these photos are faked, then tell us how you did it, how you verified every single picture as faked. Otherwise, all we can conclude, is that you didn't really bother to verify they were faked...you just blindly stated that they are. So then what good is photo or video evidence, if you're just going to call it all faked right out of the gate? Why ask to see something, if you're not even going to honestly take a look? It's frustrating to us...it's pointless to ask for pictures, if your paranoid mind is just going to say it's all faked, before even proving that claim as accurate. So look at those photos in that archive, there are hundreds of them, just one of many places online that archives photos like these. Tell us how they faked these. Go ahead, we're interested to know. But if you can't, then consider the possibility that they weren't actually faked, that these are are actually real photos and YOU have been conned by huxters online, filling your head with bullshit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tombass3288 You’re right, there’s not ONE book, there are thousands if not millions of books written for modern science. I’m sure you know what a science text book is, research journals, encyclopedias, etc. I shared scientific information that directly refutes your claims, and then you just fling insults in response. Insults are not an argument, but it is usually a sign that you really have no counter argument.
Point still stands, your misunderstandings and clear cognitive biases, do not mean we just toss out centuries of collected knowledge. Insult us all you like, it doesn’t change anything, or defeat our positions, not even in the slightest...just gives us more reason to question you.
2
-
Well, then you've just described your bias to us. You're not actually looking for truth, you're only looking for the information that confirms a bias you WANT to be true. Science doesn't operate that way, it doesn't care about what you WANT to be true. So this is not an argument, it just confirms that you have a very strong bias, that leads your thought processes.
Aside from that, how does a massive universe diminish God in anyway? That version of God is truly powerful...having created an IMMENSELY vast universe that we can NEVER fully grasp or ever hope to explore and fully experience. That to me is a truly all powerful God...your version built what exactly, a small terrarium? You really think that's more impressive? No, what you have trouble with is the possibility that YOU are not special...which means you're likely a narcissist who only thinks about himself. It's a very real possibility that YOU have to come to grips with I'm afraid. It doesn't mean you don't matter though, of course you do, nothing matters more in this universe then life! If you really think about it, the universe couldn't exist at all without life to experience it. In a way, you create the universe with your 5 senses, if you couldn't touch, see, hear, taste or smell...then nothing would really exist, cause if you can't experience it in anyway, then how would it exist? Consciousness creates the universe as much as the universe created you...so that means you are VERY special, you're apart of it all, because the universe really doesn't exist if there's no life to experience it...it would just be a waste of time without life. For a lot of us, this is actually very humbling.
That's how many scientists look at it, though actually, most scientists are actually theists like yourself...not the other way around. They have no trouble marrying the concept of their religion, with the current knowledge of the world. Science doesn't work to destroy the concept of God, it likely never will either. It just works to figure out how this reality operates at the mechanical level, nothing more. If you can't figure out how to make the most of this life you have currently, then that's your problem...science really doesn't care. You are not special, but at the same time, you're the most important thing that has ever happened. I know that's a bit fucky to grasp, but for a lot of us, it's quite humbling.
2
-
@JavierGarcia-pg4zg NASA didn't prove the world was round...we figured that out LONG before NASA ever came around. All they did was take the first photographs that HELPED to further verify the Globe. It's a body of knowledge that makes up the entire Globe model, pulling from thousands of different fields of study, compiling thousands of years of near countless research. NASA isn't the sole reason why we believe the Earth is a globe, they're just one of the many contributors.
You yourself can verify the shape of the planet by yourself in your own back yard, with a few simple observations. Just observe any sunset, then try and make sense of that on a Flat Earth. That barely scratches the surface though, but it's not something that can be taken lightly either. Aside from that, nothing in the modern world today uses a Flat Earth model, from navigation, to communication, to science, engineering and infrastructure...it's all built on the foundations of a Globe model. Many of these would not work or continue to function, if the Earth were in fact Flat but was using a Globe model system to operate. Navigation being the biggest one that would fall apart...should be pretty common sense, but you can't hope to find a destination, without an accurate map. If our Maps are not accurate...then people would be getting lost every single day and large scale navigation would fall apart. There are no ship captains, pilots, military personnel, or rescue crews, that use a Flat Earth model to navigate the world with. That's for a good reason.
All Flat Earth is doing, is making people paranoid by sowing the seeds of doubt in them. It's easy online to spread misinformation, just bullshit and share half truths, with a bias narrative attached. Snake oil sellers of old WISH they could have reached as many people as we can today! There are people out there that take real joy from fucking with you so they WILL lie to you. YouTube has no system for checks and balances, no peer review system that weeds out these con men, so they're free to spread misinformation freely. So you have to be very careful who you get your information from. I know their arguments sound convincing on the surface...but don't just listen to them blindly. Question Flat Earth just as much as you now question the mainstream. If you are then great, and it's fine if you are still reaching the opposite conclusion. As much as it might annoy some of us, we can't force you to believe anything you don't want to, as hard as we try, and you shouldn't be mocked for having your own opinion. So don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to mock or discourage you, it's perfectly logical to question what you're told. Just be careful where you get your information from, that's all I ask of people.
2
-
2
-
@Why_Contain_lt “Even when given photographic evidence you bury your head in the sand and shout FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY!!!”
And you’re not? 🧐 You see a photo of Earth from ISS, or weather satellites, or the Apollo missions, showing a very clear curvature, and you just immediately call them fake…so you don’t think that’s a bit hypocritical? 🤨 I think you’re projecting a bit…I’d say kettle, meet pot.
“Why is every single image of Earth CGI? Every single one, except for the ONE image they claim is real from 1972 which has been proven to be falsified based on the visible artifacts when imported into imaging software.”
Oh boy🤦♂️…they took a LOT more than just one photo during the Apollo missions…they took literally hundreds. They’re well archived too, you can find them pretty easy if you actually bothered to try.
Those artifacts you will find in ANY compressed jpeg image…every single image you’ve ever seen online, that’s compressed into low resolution jpeg format, has artifacts like that……..it’s jpeg compression, it’s what happens when you shrink an image file from high resolution to low resolution in jpeg format…it doesn’t mean the images are fake, you numpty. 😂
Every single one of your questions just verifies that you know pretty much NOTHING on the topics you’re arguing….and that right there is your real problem. You’ve been suckered by huxters online, who fed you some bullshit my dude…and it worked on you, because these are all topics you have little to no actual understanding of.
2
-
@Why_Contain_lt “It doesn’t have to be a force. An object finds its equilibrium…”
And how exactly does it “find” that equilibrium genius? Is it alive, did it make a conscious choice to move from one place to the next? You’re not quite understanding what classifies something as a force. Does a heavy object fall when you drop it? Yup, sure does. Is that falling a motion? Yup, sure is. Do you know of anything in our physical reality that’s put into a motion without a force to cause it? 🧐 Nope…nothing changes from one state of motion to another, without a force to cause it. There’s a very clear motion occurring, it even occurs in a vacuum where there is no medium, and it’s always in the same direction. That means a force is present to cause that motion…it’s really that simple.
All science did was give it a name, because that makes it a lot easier to discuss it, when we give naturally occurring phenomenon a name. We can name the upward motion buoyancy force…so why can’t we do the same for the downward motion? 🧐 Density is already defined in physics and mathematics, it’s just a property of matter, a scaler variable…it’s a ratio of mass to volume. It is not a force, because it does not cause motion, it’s just how much mass occupies a volume of space…nothing more.
Your conclusion basically boils down too “things just fall because they do”…great, if only science could be as lazy. 🙄 The fuck we gonna do with that? How do you put that into a working formula an engineer or scientist could actually use? 🤷♂️ Here’s the formula for calculating weight; W=mg. The formula for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. The formula for a planes weight to thrust ratio; F/W=ma/mg=a/g. Notice something in each one? That little ‘g’ is gravity…you might also notice that mass or density are also included already…..now why would we include density twice, and how exactly is a mathematician supposed to figure out the force vector for each, without a force? 🤷♂️
Like seriously…your conclusion just tells us all you have no idea what you’re talking about, but you sure ate up some bullshit that made you think you do. 😅
There’s no getting around it bud, only forces can cause acceleration and change in state of motion. Your conclusion provides no real answers…it just makes an observation we’re all very aware of, you’re just describing buoyancy force…you’re not explaining anything new, that science doesn’t already know. You’re just ignoring the parts you don’t like. It’s intentional ignorance, classical denialism to confirm bias…you’re not the first layman to attempt that, not even in the slightest. 😅
2
-
@ChristSOLO144 Ok, but you’re basically just trying really hard to deny gravity...you’re not really falsifying it, you’re basically just replacing it with a new word. A word that is already defined...and has nothing to do with motion or forces that put things into motion. Buoyancy and density as you’re describing them are already included in the theory of gravity, so you’re basically just cutting the word gravity out, then acting like you’re discovering something new. Which just makes it sound incredibly ignorant. But, let’s just look a little closer here at your problem, maybe it’ll help.
Let’s define what density is first of all. It’s just a state of matter, it is how much mass occupies a given space...that’s it, that’s all, full stop. So now let’s define the perimeters of both buoyancy and gravity. Both are considered forces, because both cause a motion in matter. That’s the main problem with your density argument...it leaves a very obvious question unanswered, how exactly does density by itself, put matter into motion? It’s the motions you should pay attention too. I mean if you want to talk of physical laws of nature, then don’t forget about the laws of motion. The first law of motion states, that a force is required to put matter into motion, without a force being applied then a mass will remain stationary and vice versa, matter will also remain in motion until a force acts against it to slow or stop it. Pretty simple.
So what happens when you drop something? Well, it’s immediately put into motion...and if motion requires a force, then this tells us a force is acting on that mass to put it into motion. The other possibility is that we’re in motion, not the dropped object, but that’s very unlikely as it would have to be an accelerating motion due to the effects of relative motion, and that’s unlikely because light speed would eventually be achieved and well..we also already know we’re in motion at a steady rate, but that’s a different topic, so I digress.
But matter does fall, it’s undeniable. This falling is a motion...density can not put matter into motion on its own, because density is not a force, it’s just a state of matter. So a name was given to this downward motion, just as buoyancy was given for the upward motion. That’s basically how gravity physics started out...it’s just the name we gave for a motion that is a fact of reality. Things fall...that is a motion, that motion is always consistent in one direction, so gravity is what that motion was called. It’s pretty simple. They’re not gonna call it density, density is already defined...it’s not a force, it does not cause motion.
So do you see a little better now why saying “it’s just density and buoyancy” is a bit flawed? Why is objects going up a “fundamental law of nature”, while objects falling down isn’t all of a sudden? You don’t think you’re being a tad bias...doing all that you can to intentionally deny a pretty undeniable fact of reality?
Let’s look at it mathematically, how do we mathematically apply your conclusion of density in useful equations? Let’s go with a simple one, like the formula for calculating weight, which in simplest form is just W=mg. Notice the little ‘g’ in the equation? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, which on Earth is measured to be 9.8m/s^2. Ok, so instead of applying the downward acceleration of gravity, let’s put density there instead. W=mD....hmmm, well that’s a bit redundant now isn’t it, mass and density are basically the same thing...so there’s basically no way to calculate weight with this arrangement, there’s no force being applied now, no accelerating motion.
I mean, should be pretty simple to understand, I’m sure you’re able to understand how a scale works. You press DOWN upon the top surface, applying a FORCE, to generate a weight value. If there’s no downward force...then there’s no weight value, pretty simple, right? Ok...so if gravity doesn’t exist, then how exactly does a scale register a weight value, while a mass is resting on top? You have to apply a force to register a weight value, right? How does a resting mass, apply that force, if there’s no force of gravity pulling it down?
W=mg, that’s how a scale calculates weight...it requires a downward force. Remove that variable, and the formula no longer works. Equations like this use facts of reality, like the downward acceleration of gravity, in order to work at all. If we don’t have known facts...then we don’t have working equations, then we have no applied science, so nothing gets engineered.
Your density argument is ignorant. Yes, we know dense matter occupies lowest potential energy state, this causes a displacement of matter forcing less dense matter up, we call that buoyancy...thanks for stating the obvious. But that tells us essentially nothing about how or why that dense matter is always attracted DOWN. Why that direction? What causes that motion? Gravity goes on to explain what’s happening, many experiments have been done now that verify it’s an attraction between masses. Mass attracting mass, caused by a bending of space around masses. If you’d like to see the experiments that helped us reach that conclusion, I don’t mind sharing.
The density argument doesn’t explain anything...it’s just an argument Flat Earthers came up with, so they could convince themselves they didn’t require gravity. They know full well how inconvenient gravity is fir their core arguments, so they just decided to make that problem go away, by denying gravity exists entirely. The density argument is their current iteration of that attempt...but it’s just as flawed as all the other attempts. Mental gymnastics, meant to confuse people and get them ignoring basic fundamentals of physics. Flat Earth is just teaching people how to be ignorant...ruining any possibility for the end goal of science to occur, which is applied science.
But, if you still think they’re onto something, then by all means, go ahead and derive me a new equation for calculating weight, one that doesn’t require a downward force.
2
-
@VedicSpirituality Yes, this is a question of Coriolis effect. Remember though, those are linear speeds you are using in your math, not rotational velocities. Our rotation is of course not linear, so I think you're using the wrong figures and missing some physics here as well. I'm not entirely certain though, I'm a bit tired and haven't processed this fully yet, so just a quick thought. Your math is also quite basic here, have you considered that you might be deriving your figures incorrectly? Perhaps missing a variable or two as I mentioned above? So is it actually a "hole" or merely a rushed conclusion based on the use of improper figures and data? I think this question would be a great one to ask an actual pilot or aerospace engineer. Here's a great video I found on the topic, perhaps give it a look sometime and see what ya think. I skimmed it briefly and it seems to be what you're discussing here, so perhaps it'll interest you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYAfHW0I8
It's a great observation though and not one I've come across yet, so it's interesting and I'll have to ponder it further when I'm up again, but in my experience...every time Flat Earth claims to have spotted a "hole" in the Globe model, it just turns out to be a rushed false conclusion, that they reached due to a lack of knowledge and understanding on the topic. But, I do try to give the benefit of the doubt until I know more. I'll give it a closer gander later.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think in the case of the wine (and similar statistical studies like it), we’ll find pros and cons to pretty much anything we consume. But headlines are sold on shock value these days…so one side of the story is often over exaggerated, while the other is overlooked, when it’s probably somewhere in the middle…but that’s boring, right?
It’s different for the fundamental sciences I feel, such as physics or chemistry. For me, it’s not difficult to spot junk science…does it work and can it be applied? If not, then it’s more than likely bullshit. Nobody is navigating the Earth with a Flat Earth model for example…they all use the globe model, and it works upon every proper application. So that’s how I sift through the muddy waters of information these days, at least with the fundamental sciences. It’s kind of the nice thing about junk science really, it eventuality reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamaldeep13 In terms of quantity of FE nonsense on YouTube, definitely improved…I was in these chats as far back as 2017 when it was REALLY bad, hundreds of comments a day under one video, new videos uploading constantly. But at least back then the majority in comments (not so much the videos they were making) were asking questions in good faith, I could have real conversations and maybe help a little, answer some questions, felt like I could actually get through to some people. Today…it’s just nothing but the die hard trolls making the same dumb arguments ad-infinitum. Not much discussion to be had anymore, they’re only looking for attention, so insulting is all we can really do. I’d say it’s better that it’s not infecting more people, the interest has died down substantially…but I don’t have Tik Tok, and I hear it’s getting bad on there. Still, I’d say it’s gotten better, not in terms of the arguments (seems they’re just getting dumber) but in terms of popularity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Buoyancy...you just described the physics of buoyancy, which is directly caused by the downward force of gravity...which is physics 101. Ever noticed that things still fall in a vacuum chamber? No displacement occurring there, just straight down, towards surface, no matter the material dropped. The question is what causes that motion? A force is required for all motion, that's also basic physics. Guess what causes the displacement of matter that occurs in buoyancy? The downward force that pulls denser matter to lowest potential energy. If nothing is pulling that matter down and putting into motion, then how would it push anything out of the way? If nothing is putting it in motion, then how exactly does displacement occur? But go ahead genius, derive me a new working equation for buoyancy that engineers can actually use in the real world, to help them design thing such as ships and ballast tanks, derive an equation that does not use gravity as a variable. Here's the current formula for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Go ahead and remove gravity...see how useful it becomes.
Funny how you guys pay attention to the constellations...yet completely seem to forget that the South Hemisphere has it's own stars, its own constellations, its own axis of rotation, around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. Wonder why that always seems to slip your mind? 🤔
Then you'll talk about physics as if you're the experts....yet completely forget about the laws of motion, namely conservation of momentum. There's nothing in all of physics that's more established and well understood, then the laws of motion...you wanna talk about Physics 101, it's the first thing you learn in physics. Yet you can't seem to understand how a plane lands on a moving surface....jeez dude, maybe go back to school and learn some PHYSICS?!
You're one to talk about "brainwashing" and "indoctrination"...YOU ARE RELIGIOUS! A bible was fed to you since birth and now you believe it all on faith alone, no evidence necessary or required, it's all just true and that's that...cause a book told you it was? And you're gonna lecture us on brainwashing? You have to stand in AWE, of the masters of bullshit and brainwashing, that is all religion. Nothing has robbed humanity of its common sense and better reasoning, more than religion.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of pretending Flat Earthers are not anything but stupid. You guys are absolutely delusional. Get back to us when you have a working model that can actually be used in ANY field of applied science. Until then, it's just another online hoax that some suckers fell for.
2
-
@richardhislop9928 Doesn’t answer at all for the motion, why it’s always in the same direction, why its rate of acceleration is always 9.8m/s^2…you’re not answering for anything, just denying a basic fundamental law of physical reality, that nothing is put into motion without a force first putting it into motion. Last I checked, falling is a motion. The whole point of science is to figure out HOW things work…all you’ve done is stated the obvious, that things fall. Great job…but HOW and WHY? Can’t achieve much if we’re just gonna be lazy and never dig deeper into the functions of reality.
I have no problem with people questioning consensus and challenging established science, go ahead, that’s encouraged in science. The trouble is your conclusions are flawed as shit, and it doesn’t take much thought or effort to see how. So we’re just calling out your obvious errors. So why should any of us just blindly agree with you, if we see right through your bullshit? No, what you’re asking of us is to NOT think for ourselves, that’s what you’re really asking. Welp, whine all you want, but we’re not just gonna roll over and accept information without question. So tough titty.
Again, get back to us when you have a working model. Let us know when you’re able to put it to actual use, in inventing and innovating new technologies. Until then, save your empty babbling.
2
-
@richardhislop9928 Still not answering for the why or the how. Why does matter orientate in the directions it does? How does it fall? Your best answer so far is “somehow”. Well great…if only science could do anything with “somehow”. I’ll give you a further answer, denser matter has more inertia, meaning it’s harder to move by kinetic impacts/forces, so as it’s pulled down by force of gravity to occupy the lowest spaces first, it easily pushes the less dense matter with less inertia out of the way, up in the exact opposite direction of gravity’s pull, because it doesn’t have enough inertia of its own to effect the downward motion of much denser matter, but the dense matter sure does, so it will occupy lowest position first. That’s why buoyancy is always in the same vectors, but opposite direction, of gravity….it’s gravity that causes the effect of buoyancy in the first place, it doesn’t occur without it. The downward force, is what starts the displacement, causing a chain reaction of motion.
This is proven in countless experiments of buoyancy, from dropping things in vacuum, to putting density columns in zero g environments, or free fall. And it’s applied science…that’s why the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2) is a variable in buoyancy equations. It’s no coincidence that this downward acceleration measurement works when applied in buoyancy equations…it’s because they’re directly linked, part of the same chain reaction of events. If it wasn’t, then the equation (Fb=Vpg) would not work when applied.
And either way, you’re babbling on about a lot of physics you only seem to know bits and pieces about…but none of that changes the fact that we’ve measured the Earth, millions of pilots and sailors navigate its surface every single day, it is undoubtedly a sphere. Do you really think they could plot accurate navigation routes around Earth, with precise accuracy, if they didn’t know the true shape and scale, of the surface they navigate? 🤷♂️ Does your personal misunderstandings of physics, change anything about the applied science of navigation? No, it doesn’t…it’s basically just a sleight of hand trick, keep us occupied on the physics that can be juggled and misinterpreted, while more obvious evidence is ignored…but you’re really just fooling yourselves.
Flat Earth is an online hoax, it always has been. You need to get a better bullshit filter…or at the very least, conduct your questioning with a less snarky attitude. You come here with a holier than thow attitude, you’re just inviting the same response in kind. Wouldn’t you rather have a civil conversation, rather than all this dick waving? You flash that ego around, it just gets other egos involved in a negative way…it’s not very productive. We’re thinking for ourselves too, so don’t claim or assume we’re not…if we weren’t, then you’d be having a much easier time here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK We don’t see the same stars all year round, look up the seasonal stars sometime...it’s basic astronomy. These are the stars that lie along the ecliptic plain, you even know the names of the constellations found here...they are the zodiac constellations. The stars we see all year round are the circumpolar stars, they are locked to each polar axis, and therefore are never blocked by the Sun. You do realize we live in 3 dimensions, right?
Polaris does move, it’s shifting constantly, any astronomer will gladly show you the data on that. Parallax easily explains why it’s a slow process...pretty basic laws of perspective.
But alright, answer this question, since you’re all about the stars. If Earth is flat, how exactly does the South have its own celestial rotation of stars, around its own pole star Sigma Octantis? That geometry is exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe, but sure doesn’t work at all on a flat Earth with a rotating sky. Go ahead and give me a logical explanation for the Southern stars...heck, the entire Southern Hemisphere is a bit of a problem for you numpty’s. 😅
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK I’m an artist, a digital illustrator of books, comics and video games to be more precise. Perspective and spacial geometry are a few things I’ve had a very simple time understanding, my whole life, and at this point I’d consider myself an expert on those perimeters. I don’t care how much you distrust the government...that doesn’t make the Earth flat by default. You’ve just traded one corrupt institution, for lying conmen...who have ZERO working experience in the topics they bullshit about.
Nobody trusts the government, but I do trust my knowledge of perspective, my common sense and my eyes...there would not be a second hemisphere of stars, on a flat Earth...and they certainly wouldn’t be rotating around their own pole star. Fuck even something as simple as a sunset disproves flat Earth! How exactly does the Sun set...if line of sight is never blocked? Hmmm? Any answers? It’s pretty basic geometry...don’t have to be a scientist to understand this. The geometry doesn’t work. FE will claim it’s just perspective causing a sunset...but then completely ignore the many fundamental rules of perspective, like angular size, rate of travel, parallax, etc. Variables that do not fit that explanation.
So sorry if I’m not impressed, sorry I don’t fall for obvious online scams...Flat Earth is the dumbest conspiracy online, super easy to debunk. You fell for a con...maybe you’ll realize that someday, and hopefully it’s sooner rather than later, cause it’s a waste of energy and time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's nice and all, but If everybody thought the way you do, we'd hit a wall in our understanding pretty quickly and then we'd never get anything done. You're basically just telling people ignore concrete evidence...because it's too hard, you're choosing incredulity and bias over objective reasoning. Truth is our senses have their limits and they can be fooled...so we can't rely on them for everything. You can't see bacteria with your naked eye, does this mean it doesn't exist? Of course not. You can't see most of the electromagnetic spectrum, but it's currently sending and receiving your WiFi data. You can't smell carbon monoxide, but that doesn't mean it isn't there, it will still kill you. Just a small example of why we can't rely on our senses for everything. It might be nice to live in a world where you can just simplify everything, but the reality is mankind can't advance very far forward on our senses alone.
I think you should be a little more grateful for scientists and the work they do, every modern comfort you enjoy today is thanks to their probing deeper, going beyond what our senses are capable of providing for us. From the electricity that comes direct to your home, to the car you drive, to the phone/computer you're using right now to read this message. Do you know how these things work? Do you think you could recreate these technologies and make these discoveries on your own? If no, then what makes you think your methods are better, than those who do know how these things work?
Just some thoughts to ponder, it's fine to disagree, but the Zetetic method is very limiting....and it just does not get us very far. Sure it's simpler, but nature is under no obligation to make sense to you. If we want to unravel the mysteries of reality, we have to use every available resource to our advantage...not just stop at our senses.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Gravity...and the fact that space does not suck. You're confusing the definition of vacuum here, space is not like a household vacuum cleaner that produces a suction, there is no suction in space. If you look up the definition for vacuum, the first definition is "a space completely void of matter", that's what is meant by vacuum in the context of space. It is jsut an empty space...that is all. Since space does not generate suction, there is nothing trying to suck our atmosphere off...but ya now what force does exist? Gravity, that attracts all matter towards the center of gravity, in our case Earth. Gravity is what keeps our oxygen and our atmosphere contained.
There is of course entropy, but what people seem to forget is that entropy can be slowed. You do it all the time, any time you use a thermos to keep your coffee hot. Our Earth does the same thing with gravity keeping entropy contained, slowing it down and keeping atmosphere from being lost due to entropy. It still does occur and it will eventually win in the end, it always does...but it's going to take a VERY long time. Gravity contains atmosphere and it slows the process of entropy as well, essentially keeping it contained.
So this is yet another reason why Flat Earth fights so hard to deny gravity. It's a real problem for their model.
But let's look at it another way, we've sent weather balloons to the fringes of our atmosphere and brought back pressure readings of near perfect vacuum...so where was the barrier? We've taken photos from these heights and there is clearly black space above our blue atmosphere below, so again...where is this barrier? It is a physical tangible medium isn't it? So why haven't we interacted with it yet? Why haven't we bounced or refracted lasers or radar off of it yet? Why haven't we hit it with anything yet?
See the issue? We have not found any evidence for this "container"...but we have found tons of evidence for gravity. So what would you like science to conclude? Would you prefer they ignore the evidence and follow bias instead?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ya but the gas pressure isn’t a uniform 14.7 psi all throughout the system, it gradually becomes less and less the higher you go in elevation, that’s pretty common knowledge I would think. So the pressure down here at surface is not caused by a large volume of gas pressing against the walls in a container, it seems much more likely that it is caused by the weight of the air above pressing down on the air below. Much like stacking anything, the pressure at the bottom of that stack will be greater than the pressure at the top of the stack. Like if someone stacked a bunch of mattresses on you, are you gonna feel more crushed while at the bottom of the stack or near the top?
So this is what we measure, air pressure is greater at surface but continues to become less and less the higher you go...exactly like matter being stacked on top of matter.
So what happens when you run out of matter to stack? You have zero matter...zero pressure, in the case of our system, you have space...that’s all space is, a void, empty space without matter, zero pressure.
So what creates this pressure on our Earth then? Gravity...gravity is the container, it attracts all matter to the surface, which causes it to begin stacking, which creates pressure, pressure that is greatest at surface and less and less as you go higher. Only a downward attracting force would cause this pressure gradient, what you’re describing would mean it should be 14.7 psi everywhere, no matter your altitude, but it isn’t...that’s not what we measure in reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, that’s a common misconception of Big Bang Theory, it doesn’t state that something came from nothing, it just states that everything was once very dense and then it went through a great expansion and matter began to form from preexisting particles within that expansion. The question of “something can’t come from nothing” is a bit of a paradox. Cause if God exists, who or what created him? Who or what created that thing, and so on. At some point, something started from nothing...or it’s always existed, which is an equally perplexing problem for us humans to grasp, as everything we do in life operates on the notion of having a start and an end.
Big Bang doesn’t replace the concept of God though, it just helps explain how our current universe formed. It’s the leading theory of cosmology today, because it has the most evidence supporting it, that’s all. Look up the 4 pillars of the Big Bang if you’d like to learn exactly what that evidence is. If a better theory comes along someday though, that provides even more evidence, then Big Bang will be replaced. That’s how science works, it’s a long process of trial and error, of building upon prior knowledge and refining it.
The goal is not to eliminate God, and it likely never will even if it was. It’s just to learn more about how physical reality works, that’s all science has ever set out to do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@arthurmack7026 The Moon orbits (just like all things in orbit do) due to two factors in balance, gravity and conservation of momentum. There’s gravity in space...you’re just misunderstanding the concept of zero G. It doesn’t mean gravity isn’t still effecting objects, zero G just means you’re feeling no inertial effects usually experienced on the surface, like the inertial feeling of weight, which is created when your body is squeezing against the surface of Earth due to gravity, the only thing that’s different in a zero G environment is the inertia created by the surface stopping you from going any closer to center of mass...but gravity is always there.
Orbits are achieved thanks to gravity and an objects forward velocity keeping it in free fall around the object pulling it in with its gravity well. Think of it like a coin spiralling around a funnel, orbiting around the center, the only difference is that a planet, moon, star, satellite, etc, is experiencing no friction, no air resistance, so nothing to slow its forward velocity, so it just continues to orbit indefinitely, the center of mass never sucking it in completely.
Your trouble here is your lack of knowledge on the subject. You’re reaching false conclusions due to your own misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of how things work here. It’s fine to have questions...but you for some reason just assume your questions don’t have answers. Which is just such an odd way of thinking...do you honestly think you know everything there is to know, that there’s simply nothing more for you to learn? Who thinks like that? Especially if you’re not an expert in any field relevant to the discussion.
No, you’re not catching flaws in the model...you just don’t understand the model. These aren’t real arguments, they’re a display of your scientific illiteracy.
2
-
2
-
Yes, this is exactly why most in science would agree, that public staged debate is no way to settle science. It is scary how many in the US though, see everything as a battle…with clear winners and losers. They do tend to hold winning above all else…regardless of the truth. It’s a very broken way of getting to the objective truth of things, for the very reason you described above. Science is settled by evidence, data, facts…and hopefully it remains that way, but now the jocks think they’re scientists all of a sudden. 🙄Sadly, their methodology is baked right into how they think, very emotionally driven, instead of objective and honest.
2
-
@treefloraken8263 I think you've just described your bias though. Why does the bible stand as a source of truth to you? Is it possibly because you WANT it to be true, not because it actually is? From my perspective, having never been religious, I see the bible very differently. The bible is not a scientific research paper...it has no science, no data, no equations, no research, no experiments, no facts. From my perspective it appears to have been written by normal men, who in there time had very little understanding about the physics of the world and so interpreted what they believed to be true from their own narrow understandings from their time. So why do you believe the words of the bible, over science that can be verified? Science that refutes the words of the bible on almost every page? That's really what interests me about many Flat Earthers...many of you are religious, mostly Christian in fact. I know this, because I've spent many years now talking with Flat Earthers, and I'm confidant now in saying that around 90% of the people I talked too were religious and most of those people were of Christian faith. I find that fascinating. Of course I didn't actually graph that statistic and keep track, so it's likely off a bit, but the very large majority of Flat Earthers I've chatted with are religious.
You pretty much summed up one of my own conclusions about Flat Earth, I think Flat Earth has brought faith back to people. It has made the belief in God even stronger for them. In a time where faith was waning in people due to science and the things we know today, Flat Earth has now created a possibility for you that science has maybe been lying to us all this time, which has renewed your vigor in your religion. I get it, it must be a powerful feeling...but you have to wonder then if your belief in a Flat Earth is being led more by your bias...or from actual facts. Because from where I'm standing you have to ignore a LOT of science still to believe the Earth is flat. What you're describing above in your comments is your path to following your bias over science and how that bias has only grown stronger. Not to say you won't turn your ear to science and listen, from what I gather you are at least one of the more reasonable and honest Flat Earthers, which is refreshing to see by the way, but you are still drawn in by your religious bias. I think in a lot of instances, it even trumps the science. Maybe fills the gaps when you can't explain or understand a concept for yourself.
Anyway, I mean no disrespect to your beliefs, but I have to ask if you've ever pondered the possibility that perhaps you are led by your bias more so then anything else? Are you aware that you have a bias? From what I'm seeing, it's a very clear bias, your faith in the Christian teachings. I for one don't think it's stupid to question science and the reality we live in, it's quite logical actually, so I don't comment to mock Flat Earth, I'm actually still quite interested in what it has to say...but time and again, I find a lot more confirmation bias leading people in Flat Earth, then I do actual honest research. So I'm just being blunt, have you ever considered that perhaps your bias has led you down the wrong paths of understanding?
2
-
@orstern1784 Ok, but you have a paradox there, because who created God? Guess you’ll tell me he just always existed? Well how convenient that you get to use that argument but I can’t for some reason? I don’t really argue that God is an impossibility, only that nobody can really say for certain, that’s pretty much the position of most Atheists. It’s not just an argument about whether he exists or not though is it, the larger problem is that people use the existence, to confirm THEIR beliefs of what God is and what he wants...as if they have any real clue. Every religion thinks that their version of things is correct...but even if you could prove God exists beyond any doubt, that still doesn’t mean you can just immediately jump to “my version of God is the true God and that’s that”, no, I’m afraid you’d still have a long ways to go to reach that conclusion...and good luck with that, cause some will even fight to the death to say their belief is the only true belief. What a waste of time...do you really think God cares? Creates an awesome reality, the likes of which we can never fully comprehend...just to have us squabble and kiss his feet? Sounds pretty pointless if you ask me.
I don’t really care either way if God exists or not, it’s more the superstitious delusions that people create surrounding this God, that’s what I personally take issue with. Having never been religious, you have to understand my perspective is a bit different. All I’m seeing is thousands of other religions, completely different groups of people, from all around the world, who all reached a different conclusion...so which ones right? Well, they all think they are, but my guess is more likely that none of them are...especially since modern science continues to disprove all of these ancient beliefs. Does the world work on magic? No....so why do we for some reason give magical stories in the Bible a pass? Then you study human psychology a little bit, and learn that people are pretty prone to filling the blanks in their knowledge with superstition, cause it helps put their minds at ease, when they don’t fully understand something. Why go through the trouble of actually figuring it out, when you can just make shit up!? So much easier and less stressful.
If God is real, that’s fine, but I very much doubt he’s as petty to torture a soul for eternity...simply for not believing in him. And if he does think that’s somehow a just punishment for something so small, then he’s an asshole and doesn’t really deserve my devotion. If you want to worship a monster, you go right ahead, but I’m not about to do that, especially when I have no real reason to believe this psychopath even exists. Luckily, it’s very likely not true at all, so I’m none to worried.
2
-
@s3phster82 Yes, it's pretty standard to cover thermodynamics within any physics 101 class, so most with a standard education would at least know of it. But I know where you're going with this, it's the classic assumption Flat Earth likes to impose, that an open system would somehow break thermodynamics.
But thermodynamics has more to do with energy transfer, not so much matter transfer and we shed energy all the time...in fact it's our open system that makes that much easier to do. Objects with mass, are subject to attractive forces, which can sap them of kinetic energy that keeps them in motion. One such force our atmosphere deals with, being gravity, which effects all matter with a mass. So gas can only travel so high, it will eventually succumb to gravity. Doesn't mean thermodynamics is being violated, the energy is still free to transfer, and we do actually shed a lot of atmosphere as well, that's why our geo corona of atmosphere actually extends as far as the Moon, and there's no clear line for when atmosphere ends and space begins.
Flat Earth would maybe have a point, if our system wasn't constantly receiving new energy, that plants and other life could then use to make new gas at the surface...but I'm sure you've heard of the Sun before, right? Of course you have, apologies for being cheeky, but you get my point I hope. The Sun is of course constantly providing us with new energy, so any gas we do lose to entropy, is replaced and it will continue to be replaced, so long as the Sun is there providing our system with new energy. Entropy always wins in the end, so it won't last forever, but it's going to take a very long time.
I would argue that it's actually Flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws. If we are to follow their assumption of a contained system of gas under pressure through the means of a container. The Sun is still providing new energy in this model, so if the new gas that's created can't escape...then why doesn't the pressure rise drastically within the entire system? Shouldn't we be experiencing a much higher pressure by now? With how much new gas is created, it should be rising astronomically on a daily basis.
Either way, the argument FE makes with thermodynamics, is a tad ignorant. They ignore that gas is subject to gravity...heck most even deny gravity even exists just to make the argument appear even more convincing, but it's just ignorance stacked on top of ignorance, and it doesn't survive much scrutiny. It's all talk, without tangible evidence supporting it. The argument hinges on the assumptions that gravity doesn't exist and that their is a dome above us, containing atmosphere. It's enough to maybe form a hypothesis, but certainly not a conclusion. You'd have to completely falsify gravity, with experimental evidence, and you'd have to verify the existence of this container, with evidence. Key word being evidence. You can not form a conclusion until both of those variables are accounted for...even then, it would have to go through years of peer review and recreation of experiments.
Anyway, it's fine to disagree, but until you have the evidence, the argument really has no actual legs to stand on and would never survive in an actual arena of scientific inquiry and review.
2
-
@allentremper8243 Sure, I don’t mind, I’ll let you know now though that I’m not new to this discussion. Been researching it for several years now and I am currently concluded that Earth is spherical, but if you’d like to bounce some concepts or information off of me and see what I think, feel free any time. It’s good to chat with an opposing viewpoint I feel, to challenge what we think we know....just really difficult to find folks who aren’t just in these comments trolling. I respect that people are challenging mainstream ideas, that’s what science is all about really, falsification, so even if I may disagree, always open to hear a different perspective.
I just enjoy learning, even if I disagree, always something I can learn. Anyway, feel free any time, perhaps start with something that really sways you, some evidence for Flat Earth that you feel shouldn’t be ignored or that really convinced you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
In the English language, words take on a new meaning depending on the context. In geometry for example, level is defined as perpendicular to the center of object. Gravity works the same way, level in this context means perpendicular to center of mass, or center of gravity if you prefer. So no...level in this context does not mean flat. You picked the first definition of the word and forgot that words have many different definitions, depending on where they are being applied...that's why English is hard language to learn, apparently even for people who speak it as a first language.
8 inches per mile squared is a half truth, it's accurate for discerning curvature...but it does not calculate a figure that represents your line of sight, nor does it calculate what is hidden by horizon. It completely ignores important variables such as height of the observer...I'm sure you are aware that you can see further the higher you go in elevation, it's pretty common sense...so 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math, because it does not include a variable for height of the observer. Plus many more variables, such as refraction. It is a very basic equation for a parabola...so it is the wrong math to use for the observation. Use the wrong math and you will get the wrong figures, which will cause you to reach a false conclusion...it's as simple as that.
Also, horizon is only 3 miles at sea level from a 6 ft viewing height...horizon is extends the higher you go, so again...you have to use the correct math, or you will reach a false conclusion. Here is the correct math for discerning what is hidden by curvature. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ If you click this link and scroll down you will find a handy diagram that shows you what is being calculated. It even includes the 8 inches per mile squared visual represented by the dotted "Surface Level" tangent line and the solid line labelled "Drop", that's what 8 inches per mile squared is calculating...a drop from that straight tangent line down to surface. That is not line of sight or horizon...so it again, it is just simply the WRONG MATH to use for these observations. Give this calculator a try sometime, there is also a link there that leads to a forum discussion that breaks down the math in greater detail. Here's a great video explaining this calculator a little more in depth as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPNUU3yw2Y&t=9s
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, you probably believed the words of some stranger online without question, who was preaching about Flat Earth, so what makes you think you weren’t just deceived by conmen? Why believe the words of strangers online, who have most likely never contributed to any field of science or engineering? 🤷♂️ Why so quick to trust people who have never demonstrated that they actually know what they’re talking about?
Also, it’s not “see curvature every 8 miles”, it’s “8 inches of curvature squared every mile”, big difference…though that’s not even quite accurate, just another half truth Flat Earth uses to con people. As for curvature, here’s some basic geometry demonstrated for you https://youtu.be/U8Vz9r2yWO8. The closer you are to the surface of a sphere, the flatter it appears, so you can’t be so quick to assume that it’s flat, just because it looks flat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Observe one sunset, then realize how impossible that is on a flat Earth. Or, learn to navigate like an old sailor, and ask yourself why they have to use geodetic conversions to properly complete their routes. Actually...the entire craft of navigation is built on the conclusion that Earth is a sphere, from measuring the angle of Polaris to the horizon to help find your latitude and thus triangulate your position, to being able to circumnavigate, to there being two equally sized hemispheres, the list goes on. Anyone who’s spent time actually navigating the Earth, knows for absolute certain that it’s a sphere. Because it should be pretty common sense, that if people are going to navigate successfully, they’re going to need an accurate map/model to help them do that. And since there’s millions of people out there doing that right now, finding their destinations with perfect precision, while using globe coordinates to help them do it...it’s pretty easy to realize that flat Earth is just an Internet hoax.
2
-
@jordanemede As pointed out, a simple way to measure Earth’s circumference (and thus the radius), is by measuring shadow angles from various locations, with a simple stick that’s perpendicular to surface. You’re claiming this works on both models, but that’s pretty ignorant of the actual results…the trouble is that the angles recorded only fit on a globe, with parallel light from a much larger Sun. The flat Earth model can only account for two angles (and only if you plot the data in 2 dimensions), take any more than 2 shadows measurements, and you’ll start to notice that the Flat Earth with a local Sun can’t actually account for those angles.
It’s been repeated many times, a great example are the many presentations from a Jos Leys here on YouTube. He’s a mathematician who’s plotted the data many times now on both models, creating some pretty clear simulations, demonstrating how the angles only work on the globe model. I’d urge you to check them out.
2
-
@jordanemede 2nd law of thermodynamics has more to do with thermal energy transfer, hence THERMOdynamics. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, its thermal temperature reaching equilibrium with the surrounding air, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Pretty simple right…that’s thermodynamics in action. It’s referring to the energy, not so much the matter. Matter has mass, and all things with mass are subject to forces, like gravity, that can and do keep them contained. Entropy will always win in the end, but thanks to attractive forces such as gravity, it’s going to take a long time. Entropy of matter is easily slowed and contained, by attractive forces. You’re proof of that, your entire body is an entropic system, constantly resisting entropy, thanks to several different attractive forces working in tandem, to hold you together. Are you breaking thermodynamics laws? Clearly not.
So no…it’s not “disproven by the 2nd law of thermodynamics”, you’re just misunderstanding thermodynamics laws. There’s no laws of thermodynamics being broken here, and your personal misunderstanding doesn’t change that. Earth actually does shed energy and even gases, constantly in fact, every single day…and the open system of the spherical Earth with gravity, allows it to do that. And it’s not a problem for our atmosphere, since the Sun provides us with an abundance of new energy back into the system every day, which helps creates new gas.
For this reason though, it’s actually Flat Earth models that break thermodynamics laws I feel. If you believe atmosphere requires a physical barrier/container, then you believe in the firmament model of Flat Earth. Okay, but our Earth is constantly receiving new energy from the Sun, which also helps in the production of new gases at the surface every day. So if your system is contained…with no way for the energy or the new gases to escape, then wouldn’t we expect the heat and pressure to increase substantially over time? I’m sure you’re aware of what happens when you keep a constant flame on a container of pressurized gas, for a long period of time.
So I think you’ll find it’s Flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws…not the other way around.
Gases have mass, all mass is attracted by gravity. It’s pretty easy prove too…drop something. Ever seen what gas does in a vacuum chamber? It drops too…it is not free from gravity. All things with mass, are attracted to other mass, proven in countless different drop tests, and the Cavendish experiment. As Flat Earthers love to say, do your own research, I can only do so much for you.
You know even Flat Earth has confirmed the vacuum of space, without realizing it. I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons they’ve sent up themselves. Ever happened to notice in the footage brought back, the blackness of space above our blue atmosphere? It even surrounds the Sun. Did you also happen to notice the balloons always eventually pop…as they’re designed to do, once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flat Earth has indirectly measured and observed the vacuum of space…but you know what they’ve never found? A container.
Pretty important in science to draw conclusions from evidence…not broken understandings of physics. You can’t even really form a hypothesis here, because your understanding of thermodynamics is in error.
So it’s a pretty weak argument at the end of the day.
2
-
2
-
False, Earth’s rotation has been detected and measured in several different ways. From ring laser gyros and Foucault Pendulums experiments that do detect it, to the gyro compass which uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function, to Coriolis effect which is well documented and is exactly what we’d expect to see occur on a rotating sphere. Ignorance of the science is not an argument and it changes nothing.
No, neither Einstein or Tesla said that. Only Flat Earth peddles density and buoyancy, no actual scientists say or believe that nonsense, just layman online who were successfully conned by huxters. Einstein determined that gravity isn’t technically a force by the regular definition, just motion through curved space time, doesn’t mean he was saying it doesn’t exist. It still behaves as a force from our perspective, so it can still be treated as such, Einstein made that pretty clear. Tesla disagreed with Einsteins conclusion of General Relativity, but understand that in his time, the science wasn’t yet conclusive, there was still room for argument. Genius does not imply a person can never be wrong, people need to really stop thinking it does.
There is a small nugget of truth here though, density causes space time to curve, so in a way, density does cause the effect of gravity. Though it’s still an attractive motion we observe between two masses, so that attraction needs a name, makes it easier to know what is being discussed. Denying a very obvious motion of nature, just to win an argument, not a very sound strategy to reaching objective truth. Density is just a property of matter, that is already defined as how much mass occupies a certain volume of space, so it can’t be both a force and a state of matter, doesn’t fit the definition. Gravity is the name we give that downward motion, buoyancy is the upward motion. Buoyancy however, does not occur without gravity. The downward acceleration of matter is the direct cause of density displacement, which causes buoyancy.
FE is just trying desperately to rewrite physics to fit what they want to be true. That’s not science, it’s confirmation bias. It’s akin to ramming a puzzle piece into place, even though it clearly doesn’t fit.
2
-
@yhenry77 Fair enough, apologies for being pushy or rude, it’s been a frustrating day. I can shift into a more civil tone, to be fair these are good questions and points, so I’ll drop the attitude.
1) Simple deduction, we observe gravity, it’s measured, it’s tested, it causes an accelerating motion down to surface. Gas is not free from this effect, lighter gases in vacuum chambers fall, instead of rising. The accelerating force is consistent with barometric pressure, it makes sense of it, and it’s even used in pressure math and buoyancy equations. Example Fb=Vpg is the simplest buoyancy equation, the little g being the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). Gravity is strongest closer to its source and it has direct relation between mass, all mass is attracting mass, more dense mass will produce more gravity of its own, causing it to reside closer to lowest potential energy. Creating a gradient in pressure...simple deduction of every variable involved, no parts contradicting each. Even the vacuum is measured, to some small degree even by layman, that’s why I mentioned the weather balloons that pop in upper atmosphere, they wouldn’t do that unless in vacuum conditions.
FE likes to think that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is that contradiction, and that’s a valid question, but then they forget that thermodynamics has more to do with energy than it does matter. When your coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave, or was it just the thermal energy? entropy is still occurring, but entropy can be slowed and contained by attractive forces. You for example are an entropic system, held together by many different forces...you’re not contradicting thermodynamics, are you? No, and neither is our atmosphere...thanks to gravity. Also electromagnetism, nuclear force both strong and weak, static attraction, etc....our atmosphere has no problem existing next to vacuum.
This is observed and measured.
Now, I’m a bit busy currently, so I’ll respond later again perhaps. These are developing into better forms of your original point, so they’re good questions. Apologies again for the attack of character and assuming too much about you or your points. I try not to do that, I do try to treat people like people, but I get reactive sometimes.
2
-
@yhenry77 They are, that’s how an orbit is achieved. It’s their forward velocity that keeps them from falling to Earth, but gravity puts an arc on their trajectory, so they essentially fall around the planet, like a coin spiralling around a funnel hole, it’s basically the same physics...in the simplest form. Gravity is just motion, through curved space and time. An orbit is only possible thanks to gravity, that’s how everything orbits.
That’s the simple form of the explanation, if I have more time later, perhaps I can go a bit further and provide some further insight. There are some simple astronomy observation experiments that anyone can do, that help to verify mass attraction in celestial objects. Here’s the thing, understanding gravity did more than just explain how things fall...it quite literally unlocked the mysteries of the cosmos, mysteries that mankind had struggled to answer for millennia. Once gravity was realized, these mysteries fell like dominoes, everything from how orbits are achieved, to how planets form and why they’re spherical, to how the sun burns, it all started making sense and the math started adding up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@KangenAlec So a vaccine takes time to distribute, nobody is taking it at the same time, meanwhile people who have taken it are dying in droves, numbers that would be impossible to hide...don’t ya think people would stop taking it pretty much immediately after that? It’s not as simple as you think, that is a dumb strategy...people would be demanding the ring leaders heads on a pike, after a scandal like that. On top of that, many people won’t take it, cause they’re paranoid...so these paranoid people are all that’s left? Why would any ruling class want these paranoid people to be the only ones left? They wouldn’t, these are the first people they’d want gone, they’d want only the people who comply, to be around...so you’d make sure the virus is real and the vaccine works...kull the heard of these recklessly paranoid people, and then they look like heroes instead of murderers at the same time. Far better strategy.
But it’s more likely, the internet has created these boogeymen, and you fell for the hysteria...it doesn’t really exist. Either way, YOU can’t even figure out the Earth isn’t flat, so no reason to trust your judgment on anything.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@emeraldamb4771 The title of the video is “WHY people think the Earth is flat”. Where in that title does it say this was intended as a debunk? 🤷♂️ This isn’t a science channel, Johnny is an independent journalist, he’s just delving into the ideology of Flat Earth, not so much the science.
But the point of repeating that experiment was meant as a joke…and jokes aren’t as funny if you have to explain them, but I’ll explain it anyway. It’s an inconclusive experiment, it ignores gravity physics entirely, so it’s not a valid experiment, but many Flat Earthers don’t understand how it’s flawed. But anyone with even a basic understanding of physics (so most people) can almost immediately realize how it’s stupid…you can’t use a spirit level to determine Earth’s surface shape, any more than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet. It will follow the force of gravity…rendering it impossible to determine Earth’s shape, using that tool.
So repeating the experiment was done as a jab at them…but it also helps make a point, and it fits with the main theme of the video. A big reason people become Flat Earthers, is because they’re stupid. This was a nice way of pointing it out, without directly saying it…he was being polite, through subtle mockery.
That’s the point. This video is not a debunk, it’s putting a lens on the people who fall for this shit.
2
-
@Nspeedtheone So a "real" scientist according to you, is somebody who agrees with you? Why would you want to watch a debate between two people that would agree? Not much of a debate then and that's not really the point of this channel. This was just a simple chat between two people of differing opinions...to qualify for the Globe side of the discussion, he pretty much just had to be a scientist that held the position of the majority of scientists, which is that the Earth is a Globe. That's what this channel does...it brings two people together of opposing views, for a simple discussion....it's interesting because they don't agree. Sure, they could have found an actual expert in Earth science, I'm really not sure what field this scientist specializes in, but it was still interesting getting a generalized opinion.
Just sounds to me like you wanted to remain within a confirmation bubble. I don't really get why people would prefer an echo chamber of information...you learn nothing new from only listening to people you already agree with. It's your opposition where you'll learn the most from.
Furthermore...are you asking that people not dispute flat Earth claims? Should everybody just listen and agree to them blindly and without question? Would you do that? When a claim is made, especially one that goes against general consensus, it should expect to be challenged for that claim. Science should never just blindly follow new information on the sole basis that it's new (though in this case, it's not, flat Earth theory has been around a long time). I think you're being a bit unreasonable, just because somebody does not agree with you, does not mean they haven't taken a look at your evidence. The other alternative...could be that you rare wrong, and just don't know it yet. That's why it's good to chat with an opposition, because they might help you see what you've missed. In that regard, I admire Flat Earth, but they have to grow up a bit and accept that when they make a claim, it will be challenged and reviewed.
2
-
@chrisque1171 Is that all you're looking for was an unedited video of a rocket from ground to space? This whole time I thought you were asking for ground to the Moon, or ground to Saturn, or even ground to the ISS...the reason these don't exist is because of how much footage that would be. The Moon is 3 days, to another planet it's several months to several years and even the ISS it takes a few hours to link up with it. So these videos don't exist (maybe ISS, but I haven't found it), because it's just too much data. But here, I've found several videos unedited of ground to space rockets showing the curvature along the way, so I'll share those if you're willing to take a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGYYqDDfRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMfQHzjNvRU
The thing is, it's very hard to find this sort of stuff on YouTube. The algorithm kinda favors big channels and videos with more views and more flashy entertainment value...and so things like raw footage get pushed down to the bottom, in favor of the flashier, chopped up and edited videos. I found these through a google search...and it didn't take long, you just have to search in different places. There is also more then likely a forum someplace that has an archive of raw footage like this, so stop searching YouTube...cause you likely won't find anything like this coming up in the search. But there is tons of video like this, these are just two that I was savvy enough to save...but I have seen more.
2
-
2
-
Do a little research on the physics of relative motion sometime, namely the law of conservation of momentum. It’s the same physics that allows you to toss a paper airplane back and forth while in a system of motion, inside any moving vehicle, and it will keep up with the forward motion of the vehicle, conserving its momentum at all times. Give it a try sometime, and here’s another even simpler test, next time you’re in a moving vehicle, moving forward at a consistent rate of travel, toss something straight up and allow it to drop back down into your hand. But now think about that a little more, if all you did was toss the item straight up, giving it no forward velocity…then how exactly did it keep up with the forward velocity of the vehicle, to land back down into your hand? Because of conservation of momentum, and the law of inertia…relative motion, the laws of motion.
Try that paper airplane experiment as well, the next time you’re in a fast moving vehicle, say a passenger jet moving at 500 mph. Can you toss anything at 500 mph? Of course not…but I guarantee you’ll have no trouble tossing a little paper airplane back and forth inside the vehicle, and it’ll glide through the cabin of the vehicle with ease, maintaining the velocity of the vehicle and keeping pace with it. It’s the same exact physics that allows that jet to fly within the relative inertial system of Earth and all its motions.
This is physics 101, it’s really not our problem if you didn’t pay attention in physics class. Your own personal lack of knowledge and understanding, does not mean much, as far as arguments in science go. The laws of motion are some of the first laws of physics you learn about…easy to understand and even easier to test and verify for yourself. I suggest you do some research on the laws of motion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As was already mentioned, refraction is basic physics, it’s well documented and studied, it’s very real. I’m sure you’re aware of it’s effect, you’ve gone swimming before I’m sure, so I’m sure you’re aware that objects under the water appear in a slightly different location than they actually are, that’s due to light refraction. That shimmering effect off a hot road in the summer, that’s light refraction. Mirages, light refraction.
This is common knowledge for any scientist, surveyor, sailor, etc…refraction will effect what you see at distances, so it must always be factored. I get that it’s not common knowledge for many in the general public, but you live in the information age…you could search it anytime, and learn all about it, even see some simple experiments that verify it.
For a great demonstration, look up the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, has a whole section on refraction with some great video demonstrations and photos.
It’s great that Robotham (Parallax) was doing his own experiments, but that doesn’t automatically mean he was doing it correctly and without errors. This is why we have peer review in science, because errors are actually pretty common in experimentation, often takes a different set of eyes to catch them, because we all (unfortunately) have our own cognitive biases, and limitations in knowledge and experience.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Preston Macy The 8 inches per mile squared equation does not represent your line of sight though. The numbers it derives are for a drop from a tangent....now think about this for a moment, is that tangent line from surface YOUR line of sight? No...it's not, unless your eye is resting directly at sea level (which is never the case), then at no point is this math representing YOUR line of sight. If Earth is curving down from the start of that tangent line...then at what point does an object become obscured by the horizon? The 8 inches per mile equation doesn't calculate that, it gives no figures for what distance horizon is given your observer height, nor does it accurately calculate exactly how much is hidden from your line of sight by horizon. The simple fact is, it is missing variables for the conclusion Flat Earth is claiming it gives...no matter how many ways you slice it, it is the wrong math to use for long distance observations.
Here is the correct math. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ This includes variables for height of the observer, height of the object, arc length, tilt angles, everything you require to make a geometric calculation. They also include a variable for standard refraction...which can not be ignored in this math, as refraction can and will effect what you see at distances. 8 inches per mile squared, is lacking variables required to reach an accurate calculation for this observation, so it is the wrong math...it's that simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Colours can vary wildly between different cameras, lenses, film, etc. Plus every photographer I know, typically does colour correcting in post, adjusting hues, contrast and lighting, etc, on every photo they take. So if you expect every photo to be the same colour, then you’re clearly lacking a bit of photography knowledge.
And the Nazi’s knew the Earth was spherical just like everyone in the world did…so it’s pretty paranoid to conclude, or even make the leap in logic required to think making use of the worlds most skilled scientists and engineers=Flat Earth. Here’s a hard truth about the world, if you have a specialized set of knowledge or skills that a government can exploit for their gain, then you have value, and thus you can avoid potential prosecutions. Happens all the time…probably every single day in fact. It’s certainly not right, but it doesn’t mean the Earth is flat.
2
-
2
-
@UrbCrafter Actually the beam from lasers do bend https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=282, for the same reason all light bends in atmospheric conditions, because of refraction.
This is the problem as I see it, you’re not a physicist, or a mathematician, or a scientist of any kind. That doesn’t make you stupid, but it does make you untrained, and less knowledgeable, and therefore unqualified and less likely to conduct a proper scientific experiment. It takes years of practice and training and acquiring knowledge, for scientists to learn and hone proper experimentation practices, where you’re careful to account for every known variable, and factor it all into the PROPER equations. Your average layman doesn’t have that practice or training or knowledge…but oh boy, do they ever love to think they’re experts of everything anyway. People watch a few YouTube videos, and think they’re experts now. It’s a problem…and it’s only getting worse. Good ol’ YouTube university. I’m not saying you can’t learn things here, of course you can, but it has no real system of review and so it is chalk full of misinformation and it can be hard to tell the difference.
Fact is you said you’ve done the math…and then you shared the WRONG math…as I had a feeling you would, because I’ve talked to a lot of flat Earthers and they’re all guilty of the same thing, using the same bad math. I even explained to you a little bit why it was the wrong math, but it seems you just straight up ignored what I said. Trigonometry does apply, because these are line of sight observations…so straight lines of sight. You can factor observer height, and you can accurately determine the horizon hump height and the drop of the object being viewed, all with trig…so don’t tell me it doesn’t apply. :/ If you’ve ever actually reviewed the Eratosthenes experiment, you’d know he uses some basic trig, to help him determine the circumference, so it’s a lot older than you think.
I can’t verify any of your observations with lasers, so what makes you think I’ll believe they even occurred? 🤷♂️ Either way, lasers actually do not travel straight through atmosphere, that is a common misconception people have. Lasers are just focused light…so they’re subject to the same refraction and diffraction as all light is.
I don’t doubt you’re trying, I certainly don’t think you’re stupid either, that’s not the problem (sometimes), but for a guy who claims to have no horse in the race…you did share a flat Earth video from a known conman (Rob Skiba), and you’re arguing for that position in these comments pretty hard despite how flawed and easy to falsify it is. So I’m inclined to not believe you. Seems you’re quite certain of where you stand, you’re just unwilling to admit it for whatever reason. Conmen and propagandists do that sometimes…pretend like they’re “just asking questions”, when they’re really seeding propaganda, I see it all the time and it’s annoying.
In any case, I do feel your math is in error, and you’re ignoring variables like refraction. There’s always a standard refraction to factor, especially over large bodies of water where air density will be greater above the water due to rising humidity…but it’s not like we ever leave atmosphere when making these observations, so it can’t be ignored in any observation, it matters.
You know there is a lot more evidence as well, than just curvature observations. You are aware that millions of pilots and sailors around the world, all navigate using a system built entirely on the knowledge that Earth is spherical. Do you really think that system would work…if it was wrong? Does that system just disappear, because you couldn’t figure out why you were seeing things far away? You can learn to navigate at any time, that is something you can learn on YouTube in an hour or two…I would guarantee once you did, you wouldn’t think the Earth is flat anymore.
Anyway…I hope you’re not just here to spread misinformation, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. It’s fine to disagree and fine to question things, so I can respect your position, if it’s genuine. I hope this information I’ve shared was at the very least interesting. Thank you for being civil, it’s rare to find in this discussion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shahmielhakim1510 So if it renders, then the coding exists...so the destination technically exists, right? Listen, it’s well understood in philosophy that really the only thing you can be certain of is that YOU exist; “I think, therefore I am”. But so what? A person can go crazy thinking in nihilism, robs you of truly enjoying the only life you can be certain of. Get out and travel, you’ll be glad you did...believe it’s just “rendered” all you want, doesn’t really matter, if it’s there when you get there, then it exists within time and space. And if it un-renders when you’re gone, then it still exists in time and in a memory...so it still technically exists. It’s a waste of time worrying about existence in nihilistic terms, might as well just enjoy it.
I mean, technically, your five senses create your reality for you...so technically YOU create the universe, just as much as it creates you...so technically, life has never been anything but a simulation, doesn’t mean it’s not real...you’re experiencing it, aren’t you? Even a simulation exists physically in the form of coding and experienced through your physical sense of vision...so it technically exists. Best to just make the most of it.
But...what do I know, I’m just a bot programmed for optimism. 🦾🤖
2
-
2
-
Misused? It’s a very standard thing that does occur in the atmosphere...especially over large bodies of water where air density will be greater due to humidity. So how is it misused? It’s a variable that has to be considered...if you don’t, then you’re not really being objective about things, you’re being ignorant for the sake of bias. There is always a standard refraction index on any given day, so it has to be included as a variable.
I’m sorry if flat Earthers are tired of hearing the term, but that doesn’t mean it just goes away, just cause they’re slightly annoyed by it. They’re annoyed because it’s not very convenient for their bias, but we don’t follow bias, we should factor everything. If you feel refraction isn’t important, here’s a great experiment you should see http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment it’s pretty extensive, but just scroll down to images 31 and 32, to get a pretty clear demonstration for why this variable matters.
2
-
2
-
@flatearth5821 Science builds on prior knowledge, that’s part of how it works. No single person can solve every mystery...luckily we don’t have too, we have communication methods, like recording knowledge and data, it’s kind of a huge part of what gives us a major advantage over the other animals. The reason it works, is because of constant falsification...that process never ends, we will forever be reevaluating science, recreating experiments, tweaking theories and refining them. If Newton or Copernicus were lying, then it would be super easy to falsify their work. Millions of people have been trying for centuries...they haven’t succeeded, because they’re very likely right in their conclusions, that’s why falsification works, it leaves only the truest conclusions left standing. You can assert all you want that these people were just lying....if you can’t prove it though, then that claim means absolutely nothing.
But, sometimes falsification after a long period of established science does succeed, guess how Einstein got famous. He challenged Newton, and succeeded, he completely rewrote the physics and nearly replaced all of it. The only difference he has with FE, is that he was able to prove his conclusions...he wasn’t just asserting them and then calling it a day, he did the work.
The trouble here is...you’re not really falsifying anything. So far, your falsification of gravity is “no force is required”. Which if we look at it objectively, is just an empty claim, with zero experiments or data or prior knowledge supporting it. It’s frustrating...because you actually think you’re falsifying 400 years of science, simply by saying “no force is required”. But it just leaves some of us stunned as to how anyone could actually think an empty claim is a valid falsification. We’re left with only two reasons why anyone would think that, either that person is doing it intentionally to confirm bias...or they’re simply not aware of how proper falsification works.
We’re more than happy to go through the steps of how you reached that conclusion, but so far, there are no steps...your explanation for why things fall down, is basically “it just does”..........great, well what’s even the point of doing science at all, if we’re just going to conclude everything with “it just does”. If science just concluded everything that way, we’d likely still be in the bush, thinking fire is just something the gods make.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, you have no answer for the downward accelerating motion observed in every day life. But it happens, science just gave that motion a name, they called it gravity. Denial is not an argument against that motion, it’s not proper falsification, so it’s not science. You are not doing science, you are ignoring things you don’t like, so you can conclude what you want.
We can’t achieve anything with that method.
2
-
@flatearth5821 “the stone falls to the bottom, but nothing sets it in motion”
Yet it’s in motion....so HOW is nothing putting it in motion? In any other motion that exists, something is required to put it into that motion...so why is this the only one that does not require anything to set it in motion? And what evidence do you have that confirms no force is required? Simply stating that no force is required, is not falsification, it’s just an empty claim...nothing more. Do you really think empty claims should hold weight in any argument?
You have to realize how empty your assertion is, right? It’s incredible to me how someone couldn’t in this case.
I heard a great quote once that really sums up bias behaviour like this. I will paraphrase, but it roughly went as follows: “Science deniers often believe that power belongs to those who have the greatest will to take it, and what greater act of will, than the ability to override truth.”
I find that’s exactly how confirmation bias functions in many cases like this, I think it’s just people asserting dominance over something they feel they’re superior too...and often, people have no idea this is what they’re really doing and that’s the most frustrating part about it.
Here are the facts. You do NOTHING to falsify established science by simply saying “it’s not true”. You do NOTHING to falsify gravity physics by simply saying “no force is required”. These are just empty claims, and plane ol’ denial.
So try again. Explain why no force is required in the downward motion? I’m giving you a chance to continue with your explanation. What evidence has led you to that conclusion, that this motion is the one exception to the laws of motion?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@phiteonn3541 What subject exactly? You didn’t really share anything substantial or of relevance to Earth science, just shared the name and channel of a known conman, as if we should all be impressed. So I warned others of your source, just as you warned people of the FE society, seemed like that was the topic. Now I’ll mention some more info on your source, because I’m free to warn people of whomever I wish, if I feel it’s worth mentioning.
He’s not a recognized expert in any field relevant to the discussion, he’s a yoga teacher...to my knowledge, he has no secondary education or experience in anything relevant to Earth science. So why should anybody take him seriously on something he has no real expertise with? He just makes up bullshit, shooting off mountains of gish gallop and empty claims, while expecting everyone to agree without question, to pat him on the back...for what exactly? It’s only made worse by the fact he’s a Nazi sympathizer...though I agree, even a broken clock is still right twice a day, it still says a lot about his character.
You felt it necessary to let people know something about FE society, so I’m just doing the same, and warning them of Dubay.
2
-
2
-
Air density is always decreasing with altitude, so there is always a standard refraction index you have to factor in EVERY observation, not just some. It can fluctuate a little due to temperature humidity, but there’s always a standard refraction, and it does more than you realize. Ignoring that fact is not an argument against it, it’s just willful ignorance to confirm a bias, which is the very opposite of objective reasoning.
Also, 8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math to use for these observations, it does not represent your line of sight or horizon distance, so it doesn’t calculate any figures that can help you determine what is hidden from your line of sight. All it does is measures the drop from a tangent line at your feet, which means it’s really only accurate if your eye rests directly at sea level, which of course is never the case. It is missing many key variables, like height of the observer, horizon distance, arc length, refraction, it’s just a very limited equation. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
Here’s where you can find the correct math https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ and here’s a handy calculator that puts this math to use https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ notice it includes a standard refraction index calculation as well. This math is accurate, this math is actually calculating your line of sight.
You can call us “sheeple” or whatever buzz word of the week you think should rattle us, but it’s not going to stop many of us from staying objective and pointing out the errors we’re seeing. Don’t get mad at us because you’re falling for an online scam.
2
-
@trojax44 If we're angry, it's because we feel people are being very disrespectful and ungrateful towards the scientists who have worked very hard to make their lives easier and better. You think your laptop came into existence on its own? Do you think electricity has always come direct to peoples homes since the beginning of time? No...these things only exist thanks to the work and efforts of scientists, engineers and experts. To believe all of these people are lying to you (for no reason), is to spit in the face of these people. If we're angry, it's because we feel you're being very ungrateful...where did this divide and distrust come from? Scientists and experts know things you do not...the proof is in the technology they have created...none of it would work, if their knowledge was all lies and bullshit. You're happy to make use of the technology science has provided for you, and then use that technology to tell the rest of us how much smarter you are than those scientists? It's incredible that you people don't see how arrogant that is.
Do you ever stop to consider the possibility...that maybe it is YOU who just aren't getting it? Do you ever consider the possibility that you have fallen for a scam on the internet, perpetuated by the village idiots of the world? I'm not saying that to mock you, but these are real questions people need to ask themselves from time to time...and be honest with themselves when they do.
We're not so much angry, as we are frustrated...and we're frustrated, because you don't listen. There is a reason people don't bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, because we know how they are wrong and we're just doing our best to help you guys see that. It gets nasty, when you get offended for the attempt...I get it, nobody likes to be corrected, but Flat Earth should at the very least consider the possibility, that they might be in error. Flat Earth claims to be more open minded...but you sure shut those minds off quick the moment anyone tries to review your work and point out any errors you may have made. It's fine to disagree...but Flat Earth is being just as nasty in their handling of peer review.
Peer review is crucial whether you like it or not, if you make a bold claim on a public forum, then you should absolutely expect to be challenged for that claim. If you can't handle that review, then don't make the claim. It gets nasty because neither side is listening to the other...and that is frustrating. Be more open minded to your opposition how about. Flat Earth keeps asking that WE do that...but why don't you realize that you're not very open minded anymore, when it comes to the things we're saying? Flat Earth is just as much to blame for why these discussions get nasty, as Globe Earthers are. You're not listening, and that's frustrating...you don't want people getting nasty, then open up to the possibility that you could be wrong and treat the conversation with an open mind. The mark of true intelligence I feel, is in the ability to entertain a concept or idea, without necessarily believing it outright or even at all. You don't have to agree...but it would be nice if both sides LISTENED to the other. Then there wouldn't be so much nastiness.
You could be wrong in your conclusions, if you want people to listen to you, then you have to stop acting like you know everything and start opening up again. Have discussions, not debates. Some people will troll you sure, but some are willing to chat and share information, rather then talk at you, but that requires both sides keep their minds open...and I'm sorry, but Flat Earthers do not do that in most cases, they put their shields up the moment anyone tries to review their work. This is what starts the nasty discourse, I hope you can see that better now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@babystwo4003 Ok, his second claim from his 200 proofs video is that horizon always rises to eye level. Now have you ever stopped to realize first of all, that he doesn't share any evidence for that claim, just states is bluntly and then moves on to make 198 other empty claims with no evidence to support them? Have you ever bothered to question this claim or any of the others he makes? Let's look at this claim a bit closer. It's pretty simple really, if the Earth is flat, then horizon should rise with eye level as you go higher in altitude. If the Earth is a sphere, it should drop from eye level the higher you go in altitude. Very simple premise and accurate, according to spacial geometry and perspective.
So is there a way to measure eye level and see if it actually rises or stays the same? Yes, I am aware of 2 ways you can test it. One is with a simple leveling rig, you can build with supplies kicking around your home. The other is with a surveyors tool known as a theodolite, which is a tool designed to measure horizon for topography purposes. So let's look at an example of each and see what they can tell us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUr9ymz_nVI - leveling rig.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc&t - theodoolite.
Both of these quite clearly demonstrate that horizon does not in fact rise with eye level, it actually drops, which is what it should do on a Globe. To take it further, can we calculate by how much the horizon should drop on a globe at our scale? Yes, here is website where you can watch a demonstration that has simulated that calculation and compared it to real world observations. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth Just click on the yellow outlined tab labelled "Curve" in the top left corner of the simulator, and then watch the demonstration. The calculations fit with reality perfectly...verifying the Earths projected scale is accurate.
So first of all, Dubay conned you here with a simple slight of hand trick, presenting an empty claim that you didn't bother to question, keeping you focused on his claim while he moved on without presenting any evidence to verify it. Second, had you bothered to question it and look into it further, you'd have maybe learned that there are valid ways to test this claim. Had you looked at those experiments that can be used to test this claim, you'd have learned that his claim does not support what we actually see in reality. Horizon does not rise to eye level, it drops the higher you go in elevation, that is what we actually measure in reality. So he lied...and had you stopped to question him, you'd have maybe caught that lie. What makes you think he's not doing the same on all 200 proofs?
Eric Dubay is a con man....and you're falling right into his lies like a sucker. Don't just listen to his ramblings blindy, QUESTION his claims...you might learn who the real liar is.
Now that was one claim that I picked from his list of "200 ways to lie about and misunderstand reality", feel free to pick another for me to debunk and I'll be glad to help you out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jlstonejls123 If the bullying started with them, yes. If you’re gonna dish it out, you best be able to take what you dish out in return, or maybe don’t bother even saying anything…many flat Earthers come to these comments, simply to pick fights. They’ll find it here, and we’re more than ready to respond in kind, to any stones cast our way. I pop by here from time to time, because it fascinates me how the conversation here still continues, and I enjoy joining sometimes…and nobody pulls their punches here….so it gets ugly.
But in any case, most people are very emotional, reactive, and ego driven, I think that’s pretty common knowledge, would you agree? A thicker skin makes it possible to take the insults, without taking it personally. Then it becomes possible to cut through it, and not lower yourself to the same level, maybe even learn something. Sometimes it just takes one person to drop their sword and shield first, before a civil discussion can ever take place. You’ll probably take a few hits in the process, so best to toughen up and not take everything so personally.
Neither side of these types of discussions are bad people (for the most part), we both just get emotional. I can certainly forgive outbursts, cause I do it too. And we all have egos, you felt compelled to start your comment with a brag, that’s your ego doing that. It’s going to flare up other egos…it shows a level of disrespect for another’s intelligence…and people don’t like that, doesn’t matter what side you’re on. I get that you’re “deeply concerned” and feel we’re all falling for a deception, but then maybe explain why you feel that way, rather than taking a jab without context.
Anyway, I don’t feel I’m explaining anything that’s not common knowledge of basic human behaviour. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I don’t mind if people cast insults, go right ahead, but don’t be surprised if you’re insulted in return. I don’t take it personally, I don’t know you, so I could care less. I’d of course prefer a civil exchange though, but I had to risk a little insult to explain to you that I feel you came off a bit big headed in your original comment. So I risked being a bit big headed, to make that point. My apologies if you don’t agree it was a fair response.
But enough of the empty rhetoric, I won’t bore you with it any further…and I’m just rambling now anyway. Perhaps you’d like to elaborate a bit more though, on why you feel it’s us in the web of deception. I don’t mind hearing you out. What is an example of some globe science, that you feel can easily be disproven? I’m curious to learn your perspective, as you seem quite civil, mature and reasonable. Perhaps I can share some information you might have overlooked, or maybe learn something.
2
-
@jlstonejls123 No problem, and understandable, in all honesty Flat Earth does ask some great questions. I’ll just stick to the science now, and share what information I can from the opposite perspective.
So the problem I feel with these zooming in observations, is that there are plenty of examples where objects have reached a point where no amount of further magnification will bring them back into full focus. Look up the Turning Torso Tower observation sometime as one such good example. In that observation, hundreds of feet of the buildings base becomes more and more obscured, the further away the observer gets. So in the observations you’ve seen, how certain are you that they didn’t just claim it was simply vanishing point and not horizon, then expected you not to question it? Vanishing point can and does occur before horizon, especially with your naked eye, it’s just an effect of perspective, an objects size relative to its distance. I’ve seen plenty of the same observations, of people zooming in on boats and ships, bringing them back into focus…but as far as I’m concerned, they’re just demonstrating the vanishing point, they’re not really doing much to verify it as their conclusion. It’s enough to firm a hypothesis from, but that’s really about it….yet they draw their conclusion anyway?
Vanishing point is something many aren’t aware of it seems. I am because I’m an artist for a living, perspective is something I’ve studied most my life. I’m quite familiar with vanishing point and how it works…but I think Flat Earth isn’t being entirely honest here, I think they’re dazzling people with something they’re not all too familiar with, then blindly claiming horizon doesn’t exist. But…again, there are plenty of examples of objects obscured at their base, some things like buildings and mountains, are obscured by hundreds, even thousands of feet. You can try to zoom in as much as you’d like in these examples, they will not rise up. I can share many examples. So I get that they’re claim is vanishing point…but is that good enough? Does it actually account for what we observe, or is it just a rushed and biased conclusion, that’s not been proven conclusive just yet?
Many in FE will claim it’s simply ocean waves and swells obscuring the base, but most swells and waves will only go maybe, 6-10 feet max, give or take? The trouble here is another fundamental rule of perspective they seem to ignore. Objects aren’t just observed to be obscured at their base, they’re also dropping from eye level. Any art student who’s studied perspective well enough can tell you, that anything at eye level, will not drop below it due to perspective alone. And vice versa, anything below eye level will not rise above it. Vanishing point converges at eye level, and it converges equally from every angle inward. So in that tower example I recommended you check out, the tower has about 8-9 columns, all roughly 20 meters each. It’s probably 15 feet or so elevation from sea level, and I believe the observation is roughly that as well, so eye level for that tower would be the front entrance. It sinks from eye level, hundreds of feet…perspective will not do that. If an ocean swell is 6-10 feet (except in extreme conditions, they obviously can go much higher, but assuming relativity calm waters), then at 15-20 feet observation height, your eye level is well above those waves and swells. Yet that tower is observed to drop hundreds of feet below the observers eye level. I don’t feel perspective and the vanishing point can account for that, but a curvature sure can.
So I feel Flat Earth is taking advantage of people here, exploiting a gap in their knowledge, in making a inconclusive claim they haven’t fully tested. I also find it odd, that they almost seem to think they’re the first people to ever consider using a telescopic lens, at a shoreline. Do they honestly think scientists made these observations of ships disappearing hull first, with their naked eye? If so, then they must have a very low opinion of science and scientists.
There are plenty of other further problems as well. I find they’ve taught a lot of people the wrong math as well, 8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender. That is a parabola equation, representing a drop from a tangent at surface, it does not represent a line of sight over a curvature, it has no variable for height of the observer…among many other missing variables. So it’s simply the wrong math…yet they tell people it’s correct to use for these observations anyway. That tells me they’re either a bit mathematically illiterate, or they’re doing it intentionally to con people. Use the wrong math, and of course your numbers aren’t going to fit your observation…that’s pretty common sense I would think. That’s why it’s a basic rule of thumb in science, to always double and triple check your math, especially when you get real world results that don’t fit the predictions. I can go deeper into why that math is incorrect if you’d like, and share the correct geometric math, but I’ll leave it there for now.
Then there’s also the variable of atmospheric refraction, but that’s a whole other topic requiring further explanation. I’ll address it only if you’re curious, this is already getting quite long.
In my honest opinion here, I feel Flat Earth isn’t being entirely honest with these observations, and I don’t feel they’re doing enough to render a conclusive conclusion. It feels more like a sleight of hand trick to me, keep your eye on the explanation they’re giving you, and then they dazzle you with the completed trick when they demonstrate the vanishing point effect. Then they’ll claim there’s no actual horizon…but is that true? What evidence and further observations do they really offer to support that claim? Science is well aware of the vanishing point effect and how it works, as are most artists…but there are still observations of objects dropping hundreds of feet below eye level, and becoming obscured bottom first. I don’t feel perspective alone accounts for what we observe.
2
-
Ya...at least evolutionary biology is a lot harder to verify, with a lot of science that can be misinterpreted and argued. Still lots to learn in that avenue and lots of work to be done yet and at the end of the day we still don't know everything about it. I'll give creationists that much...they're wrong of course, but I can see how someone would fall into that mess and believe it. But the shape of the Earth....you have to be completely deluded to believe the Earth is Flat, all while using all the technology that science has provided for you in this day and age. If people REALLY truly think, we could achieve all our current technological achievements...but we haven't figured out the true shape of the Earth yet...then they are fucking stupid and paranoia leads them, not rational thought.
So ya, I'd keep a creationist friend I think (unless they were really pushy with their religious beliefs, but then we'd likely not be friends anyway), but a Flat Earther...yikes, ya, I don't know about that one. Unless you can bring him back from the brink...but I think he's just gonna get worse, cause it's probably gonna take over his life and his identity eventually.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Eric Dubay is a con man...and you have been conned successfully by a lying, self absorbed, narcissist, with desires of being a cult leader. We have reviewed his work, he's not a secret to us, except when we did, we didn't just listen to him blindly. It doesn't take long to sniff out that he's a bullshitter. Spend just a few short minutes of your time watching this video if you could please https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4 I'll wait.
This is an actual expert of paleontology, with years of field experience under his belt, reviewing one of Dubay's videos on dinosaurs and why he thinks they're fake. It's eye opening just how many times Dubay lies...in just a short few minutes.
I have done this as well, with his many Flat Earth videos...he is lying like crazy and for some reason, Flat Earth just nods and agrees and then calls the rest of us bainwashed? It's incredible. If you never question what he says, then he will take you on a ride. So don't just listen to Eric blindly...he will fill your head with some bullshit.
Don't assume that just because people have reached a different conclusion to your own, it means they haven't researched a topic in depth. Always consider the possibility that YOU could be the one in error. That goes for everyone, myself included. I have reached the conclusion that Eric is a con man and MANY others have as well. Up to you now if you're willing to take a look at what we have to share.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@terry3002 So the Moon is what, about the size of a dime from Earth (in apparent size by distance). Ok, so Earth would be, maybe the size of a silver dollar by comparison? Maybe slightly bigger? Point is, it doesn’t sound like you’ve really thought about this very well, just leaning hard into bias. It’s not gonna fill the whole sky, like movies always portray it, so I think you’re just wrestling with preconceived expectations, and not really thinking about it much. Here’s a thought, if they were going to fake the Moon landing down to the last detail...why would they fuck up the Earths apparent size? It’s a pretty weak argument I feel, not really thought through very well.
The Suez Canal is a sea level canal, at the same elevation as the rest of the ocean is. The Panama canal is not, it climbs over a mountain range, so it’s not level with the sea, so the locks are required to go over the land mass, to raise its elevation. Though your main trouble here is in thinking the word level has only one definition, that being flat. Your argument here ignores or is not aware of what an equipotential surface is...which is another definition for level, a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre. Gravity keeps the surface of water at equipotential. I understand you don’t agree gravity is real, but you do agree matter is drawn to surface...what do you think it’s going to do if that field of force, whatever you choose to believe it is, builds around a centre point? Point is, you’re not really falsifying anything here, you’re just ignoring variables. It’s an argument from ignorance at its core.
Air bubbles...or ice and material debris? You’re just speculating really, so certain it’s air bubbles, when it could be many other possible things. Though have you ever seen how many bubbles are typically ejected from a breathing apparatus under water? You really think one or two tiny bubbles are all they’re going to produce?
So they train in a pool...so what? They kind of have to know how to do their jobs, before they go and actually do it, and a pool is the closest thing they can get, to simulate the environment, but it’s not perfect. There’s gonna many differences that would be perceivable, even after a post production. It’s just not a practical environment for filming that sort of stuff in, they would just use green screen and wires. Point is, all you can do is really speculate here...do you really like forming conclusions around speculations alone? Doesn’t make for a very strong argument.
So none of these are very good arguments...you’re just speculating, ignoring variables, making up your own science when it suits you, none of which is verified...it’s just a very convoluted mess of nonsense...all so you can rationalize a hoax made up by non experts online.
2
-
Ya…cause engineers don’t use any physics to design anything. 🙄 So how does your phone, tablet or computer access wifi? Is it magic that your remote is using to switch on your TV and adjust volume? 🧐 So the electricity that powers and heats your home was a simple undertaking that didn’t require scientists to figure out?
It’s incredible how privileged and ungrateful people have become…you take advantage of technology created with knowledge of physics, every single day, from your car, to the fridge, to the microwave, computer, phone, radio, etc, etc, etc. Engineers and inventors can’t create any of it, without a working knowledge of physics…that’s a fact, not an opinion.
When did people become so ignorant and ungrateful? 😔
2
-
2
-
@chrisross4898 You’re declaring victory before you’ve even heard the explanation, or bothered to understand it...how is that winning? You’re just denying the opposition any chance to respond, and you’re not even considering the possibility that YOU are the one that’s possibly missing something.
I don’t mind explaining how gravity creates buoyancy, but learning is a two way street, can’t learn anything if you’re not really interested in listening. I’m not asking you to agree with any conclusions outright, only asking that you take the time to actually listen to them and consider them. So I’ll take the time to explain buoyancy physics a little better, I don’t mind. What you do with this info after the fact, that’s up to you. I’ll try and keep it as short and simple as I can, but science is seldom simple.
So first of all, we’re settled on the force of nature that causes matter to fall, correct? We both agree It does occur, we all have experience with it, we can both agree that it’s a force of nature. This force is always orientated down, toward surface. Ok, so we also have buoyancy, you’ve observed this effect as well, bubbles of trapped oxygen under water, always rise up, these are the basic facts I’m sure we agree on. But have you ever wondered why they rise up? I mean, if everything else goes down, why do lighter objects in water rise up instead? Because of density. The water is more dense than the air, so it’s going to occupy lowest point first, so in doing that, it forces air up...causing buoyancy. Buoyancy is just density displacement, that’s all it is, heavier objects occupy lowest point first, forcing lighter objects up, pretty simple. That’s where even FE would agree with modern science.
What you might not be aware of, is that it’s the downward motion of gravity+contact with the surface, that starts this reaction. It’s gravity that is pulling dense matter down, so that’s why dense matter occupies lowest point, so it’s gravity that is basically telling matter in which direction to begin stacking by density. Have you ever seen a density column before? https://youtu.be/-CDkJuo_LYs?t=69 These are all different liquids, of varying densities, ordered by density, heaviest to lightest. It’s the direction you should pay attention too, heavier mass is always down, lighter mass always up. Ok, but have you ever seen a density column in zero g, in free fall? https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=182 Notice how when the inertial force of gravity is removed (that is gravity+contact with surface creating weight inertia), the liquids begin to mix, forming no columns ordered by any density? Everything, no matter its density, falls at the same rate of acceleration 9.8m/s^2, so they’re going to mix rather than order themselves, while in free fall. This test teaches us something about buoyancy, remove gravity inertia, and buoyancy can no longer occur. So buoyancy requires gravity to function, it doesn’t happen without it.
This is well understood in engineering. This here is the basic formula for buoyancy: Fb=Vpg, that little “g” in the formula, that’s the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). Remove that from this equation, and engineers would have a very hard time designing ballasts for ships and submarines. Gravity is a huge part of why buoyancy occurs at all, it doesn’t exist without it. This is knowledge currently used in engineering today, making it an applied science. So there’s no argument here, the downward motion of gravity, directly creates buoyancy. Every engineer knows this.
So a spirit level is basically just a two part density column, liquid and air, pretty simple. But the bubble is created by buoyancy, that’s what separates the liquid from the gas, and that’s also what moves it around within the column. So it’s simple deduction at this point, if gravity is the direct cause of buoyancy, buoyancy being just the opposite direction of gravity, then it shares vectors with gravity. So the bubble is levelling to gravity vectors. A vector is just basically a straight line path, in this case, a line of force, gravity up, buoyancy down, sharing the exact same vector.
On the globe, gravity vectors change angles as you move along the surface, but always point to centre of Earth. So this means, the bubble in the level will not appear to move as you travel along the curved surface, because gravity vectors are shifting, at the same exact rate as the angle shifts for the level. Opposite will occur on a flat Earth, if we assume gravity vectors only have one angle, that being 90 degrees to the flat surface. In either model, the bubble will not move...so if the bubble won’t move in either model, then it doesn’t verify or falsify either model. So this means, the experiment is inconclusive....that’s what we call an experiment that doesn’t verify or falsify anything.
Simply put, It’s just a bad experiment. FE thinks it proves their model...but the moment they conclude that, is the moment it becomes very clear, that they don’t understand gravity and buoyancy physics at all. That’s not really our problem, it’s theirs. Learn buoyancy physics, and you’ll better understand why it’s a bad experiment. I hope this helps a bit, at the very least to get you started into researching more on the subject.
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s a great mental exorcise, some of us enjoy the challenge, we sharpen our debating and logic skills in these chats, and we can often learn more about science we didn’t otherwise know before, so it’s engaging in so many ways. The other benefit, is that we don’t just allow misinformation to go unchecked or unchallenged, we’re falsifying potential lies and keeping others from potentially falling for them. We’re conducting a sort of public peer review, and peer review is a very important step in science, it’s how we weed out errors, bias and lies. Which is needed, because people are free to say almost whatever they want online, and they can reach potentially millions of people...which makes it a con mans paradise. Misinformation spreads just as fast if not faster than actual information, by challenging claims made, we’re making an effort to create some oversight here.
The draw back here can be that we’re just helping spread their message/argument for them. Which is a real concern and is precisely why big televised public debates with big name scientists should never occur, because it would just do more for FE, spreading their ideas by giving them exposure. Stupid people will always exist, and they’re easily dazzled in debates, even if one side is demonstrably wrong, if that side is wittier, funnier, quicker, and charming enough, they can still win a debate in the audience eyes, even while being completely wrong. We all love a good underdog story too, and they’re the ultimate underdog of science...so they already have that edge.
But, videos on YouTube and comments made in chats, really keeps things relatively isolated. We can challenge them here, without really spreading their message very far at all, just provide the information they intentionally overlook, and maybe help keep someone who’s on the fence from falling in the rabbit hole. It’s fun, we learn a lot and we get to snuff out misinformation, it’s win, win, win.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sam-cn9gf Well, I could ask you the same, are you afraid to be wrong? I’m sure it would feel pretty crappy to learn that you fell for an online scam, that successfully conned you to believe bullshit. I’ve seen Frankie around in these comments, and from what I’ve gathered he is an actual sailor, with real first hand knowledge and experience with world navigation. So I very much doubt you know more about it than him. It’s a pretty simple deduction, pilots and sailors require the knowledge of Earth’s shape and scale be accurate, in order to do their jobs at all. We have built all systems of navigation around the knowledge that Earth is spherical, with two equal hemispheres. There’s no getting around that. You want to really learn the true shape of Earth? Learn to navigate…then apply it.
You have questions, but questions are not evidence…just because YOU couldn’t answer those questions, doesn’t mean they can’t be answered.
2
-
@sam-cn9gf For example, you asked why our Earth doesn’t get pulled into the Sun, or why our Moon doesn’t get pulled towards us? It’s actually a great physics question, but it’s easily answered. The answer is because they are also in motion, that’s how an orbit works, their forward velocity keeps them falling around the larger mass. They are being pulled in, but they’re also moving, this keeps them in an orbital trajectory, like coins spiralling around inside a funnel. But unlike the coins that deal with friction and drag, which slows it down, which eventually draws it closer to the centre, celestial bodies in orbit don’t have that problem, because space is a vacuum, meaning no friction and no drag. So they orbit indefinitely. It’s basic orbital mechanics…that’s how we learned how to put satellites in orbit around Earth, by studying the orbits of Moons and Planets.
See, you have questions…but they’re pretty easily answered, if you’d only bother to try. I very much doubt you were a “space nerd”, if you didn’t understand the basic physics of an orbit. 🙄 If you were a real “space nerd”, you wouldn’t even have to ask these kinds of questions, you’d know them already.
I bet we could go through every one of your questions and we could easily answer them. Questions are not evidence, so I hope you didn’t build your conclusion on questions alone.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zigzac1650 Oh I’ve watched plenty of those hours long Flat Earth videos as well…and it’s just empty claim, after empty claim, after empty claim. They make a lot of heavy handed conjectures and expect the watcher to agree to a lot of speculation without question…but very little evidence is presented. In debate, it’s known as a gish gallop, dumping a TON of weaker arguments all at once, in rapid fire, that alone can be shot down and debunked very easily, but all together it seems more impressive, and takes longer for an opponent (or an audience) to sift through. Basically quantity over quality. It’s a disingenuous tactic…the moment I see it, alarm bells start ringing.
The moment I see an 8 hour video, comprised with very little actual evidence, just speculation after speculation…I know it’s not really worth my time. Conmen use tactics like this, endless speculations to seed doubt…it eventually breaks a person down, it’s brainwashing 101.
The difference actual science has, is that it has actual evidence that’s repeatable…science doesn’t build an argument from conjectures alone. It should be a red flag for anyone, when an hours long video just gives you empty claims and speculations…I think people really need to relearn the difference between evidence and speculation. Then pay better attention. It’s not hard to lie online…misinformation spreads faster than ever before these days. I just ask that people slow down, and remember to keep that skeptical lens on, at all times, even for information you’ve come to trust.
2
-
Gravity keeps the gases to our surface. Space does not suck, it creates zero suction, space is quite literally just the absence of matter, nothing more. There is entropy, gas wants to move into lower pressure systems, but entropy of gas is easily contained, if a force is present that can slow or contain that entropy...and there is, we called it gravity. Gas moves up due to displacement (buoyancy) and kinetic energy, but buoyancy no longer happens if there's nothing left to displace anything and kinetic energy of gas molecules becomes less and less the higher it goes and then it just eventually runs out and falls back to Earth. But some gas does escape into space...just not very much, we shed gas VERY slowly and it's generally only the lighter gases like hydrogen or helium that make it out. CO2 builds up because it's a heavier gas...and it's also a denser gas that helps keep and trap heat. So that's the problem we have today, if CO2 keeps building up, then we will grow hotter and hotter...climate change in a nutshell. The Earth will be fine, it will adapt, but we'll be fucked...it's not a good thing for modern society. We'll likely survive too...we're pretty damn hard to kill, but this world you know and understand today will likely be gone...and that sucks.
There is no debate that CO2 is building up, this is occurring right now, we've measured it. The question is what's causing it, that's really the only area for debate...but not really, our transportation and industries do emit CO2...a lot of CO2. The only thing that can really absorb that CO2 is plants and vegetation...but we're clear cutting forests at an alarming rate...which doesn't help. So it's kind of a no brainer that we have something to do with why CO2 is building up in our atmosphere. Either way, it's not good for us and it's going to fuck us if we don't do something about it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think you should look up the difference between a sidereal day and a solar day. All clocks are timed to the solar day (and actually, our second is also timed to the solar day), which adds a few more minutes to a day, to account for a little extra Earth rotation, so that Noon always lines up with the position of the Sun. A sidereal day is one complete Earth rotation (takes about 23 hours 56 minutes), solar day is one complete rotation, then a little extra to account for position of the Sun each day. This ensures the time keeps pace with Earth’s position around the Sun. A sundial of course does this naturally, as it works by sunlight…so it depends on Suns position.
It’s fine if people don’t know these things off hand, but we do live in the information age currently, your questions have answers and they’re just a few short keystrokes away, at any time. Flat Earthers need to stop jumping to rushed conclusions and start doing a bit more research, beyond what their YouTube overlords tell them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@streetsurvivor687 Oh, well good thing rockets bring along their own oxidizer then in the form of liquid oxygen, making combustion within the rockets engine quite doable actually.
"Also what's stopping the vaccum from sucking all the oxygen out of Earth?"
Gravity...the same thing that keeps everything to the surface of Earth in the first place. Space does not suck, that's not what is meant by vacuum in this context. Do me a favor and look up the definition of vacuum. The very first definition you will see will read as follows "a space entirely devoid of matter." That's all space is, an empty void, with nothing in it. It creates no suction force, that's not how it works. Space is not a vacuum cleaner...
There is entropy however, which does occur in our atmosphere, but gravity does a pretty good job of slowing that entropy, enough so that our atmosphere isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
You do not require a physical container to contain atmosphere, only gravity...but Flat Earth seems to think you do...even though, we have NEVER found evidence for this dome. We have not interacted with it in any way, shape, or form. If it is a physical object, as Flat Earth claims it should be to contain our atmosphere, then why have we not interacted with it yet? Why have we not reflected or refracted lasers off of it? Why have we not bounced radar off of it yet? We currently do both with the Moon, that's just couple of the many methods we use to measure its distance to us. So why do you believe in this dome, if we have not found any evidence to support its existence?
There is a difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. Gas pressure is a gas under pressure within a container, which always has a uniform psi throughout the entire container. Atmospheric pressure is produced by our Earths gravity, stacking molecules of gas on top of each other, creating a pressure gradient, going from highest pressure at surface, to lowest pressure the higher you go...until eventually, you run out of matter to stack and then you've reached 0 pressure...which we call space. This is measured, it is well known that pressure decreases the higher you go in atmosphere.
And as mentioned before, the sun can only illuminate matter...and space is dark, which indicates that the space around the Sun...is empty. This is even confirmed by weather balloon footage, that even Flat Earth has provided https://www.brown.edu/sites/g/files/dprerj316/files/inline-images/Cape%20Cod.jpg do ya notice how black and dark it is around the Sun? That tells us there is a vacuum here, a vacuum of empty space...which means the atmosphere is resting directly next to that vacuum. It does that just fine, thanks to gravity...gravity is the container of our atmosphere.
" even in your precious Bible it says God created the firmament to separate the waters from above from the waters below"
My precious Bible? I'm not religious and never have been...sooooo, I don't have a Bible that I follow or read. The Bible is all made up superstition, so I do not believe a word the Bible says...you shouldn't either.
"there's no such thing as an ozone layer or meteors or asteroids."
How do you know that? Have you ever been to a crater site? Are you aware that we've seen meteors many times strike Earth directly and we've found meteors within the crater sites? So what do you want us to conclude exactly? That we didn't witness these things come from space and hit the ground?
I think you should relearn a few things...you clearly have had your head filled with some bullshit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheOricine 99% of the time you say? Citation and evidence required for that claim...sounds like a whole lot of confirmation bias to me.
Refraction index is well understood, and what you’re describing is a mirage effect, caused when the surface air density is warmer than the air above, typically a phenomenon occurring on land as a land surface absorbs and radiates more heat. Over large bodies of water though, or during winter conditions, light will typically refract down, as the air is cooler just above the water surface and warmer as you go higher. This creates a denser gradient of air closer to surface, and refraction is an effect caused by a materials density. Light refracts down when arriving at a denser medium, this is always the case, proven time and again in simple laser tests http://pascals-puppy.blogspot.com/2011/12/thurs-demo-one-with-frickin-laser-beams.html.
Here’s more direct observational experiment, more relevant to our discussion https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. A clear demonstration, of light refraction in the downward direction. Simply because the air is made denser just above the tank surface.
Here’s another good demonstration, again with a laser https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=279. Again, the water is denser closer to the bottom of the tank, so light is refracted downward.
This is how refraction is understood. In most observations over water, light refracts down....not the other way around. Here’s a great observation on the subject of curvature and refraction http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Just scroll down to images 31 and 32, then tell me light refracts up most of the time.
So I feel you’re being quite bias. Of course light can refract up as well, this is what causes the mirage or mirroring effect you commonly see on hot highway roads. But typically over water, where the air is coolest and densest just above the water surface, light refracts down. So your claim there is not scientifically backed I’m afraid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheOricine Forgive me if I’m not swayed easily by empty claims, ad hoc explanations, bad evidence and ad hominem insults, guess I’m not enough of a blind sucker, better luck next time I guess.
It took me several days just to FINALLY get you to share something, then when you do, you pick one of the weakest arguments from FE, presenting the most inconclusive evidence for the conclusion you demand I adhere too. Then you get mad when I call it how it is.
Sorry, I’m afraid it’s just a poor effort, it’s not really my problem if you don’t have anything conclusive and thorough to share. Get a better argument, collect better evidence, stop making empty claims, you might find you’ll accomplish more that way.
2
-
It’s what plants crave!! 💪😎👍
But seriously, you seem to have a lot of misunderstandings of physics. It’s gravity that gives everything weight in the first place. You don’t always have weight, what you have is mass, but mass is directionless. Weight is a consequence of you being squeezed to surface, by gravity…hence why you’re considered weightless, while in free fall. I mean, I’m sure you understand how a scale works? You push down on the surface, generating pressure, it then gives you a weight value…without the downward force though, how do you generate that pressure? Hmmmm….I wonder…🧐
So it’s a bit telling that you think it’s “trillions of tons sticking to a ball”…well there’s your problem, you don’t quite understand how gravity works, or its correlation to weight for that matter. Tell me, how are YOUR own personal misunderstandings an argument? 🤷♂️ You’re just telegraphing how scientifically illiterate you are…not a great start.
It’s not “trillions of tons”, it’s really trillions of litres, stuck at the bottom of a gravity well. That’s a better way to think about it. Pour water into a hole, it falls to lowest position and rests at the bottom…where’s it gonna go from there? Does it have legs, arms, wings? Is it alive? Can it climb out? 😅 No, obviously it’s just gonna rest at lowest point…lowest point is at centre of Earth, that’s where the “bottom” of the gravity well is. Make better sense yet?
Now, you can obviously climb out of a hole with no trouble, correct? You’re alive, you generate energy you can then use to resist gravity. Water doesn’t, so it just conforms to whatever force is acting upon it, falling to lowest potentially energy.
Balloons and dandelions, are very nearly lighter than air, so the air around them displaces them…it’s called buoyancy. Yes, buoyancy occurs in the air as well, air is treated as a fluid in physics, in fact all gases are…feel free to look that up anytime you’d like. Buoyancy displacement is why balloons and dandelions float, the air is more dense, so ot occupies lowest position first, displacing everything lighter, forcing it upwards. Buoyancy is directly caused by gravity, hence the buoyancy equation Fb=Vpg. Notice the little ‘g’ in the equation? That’s gravity.
1000 mph is a linear velocity. Linear velocity means basically nothing, to centrifugal force. So you’re focusing on the wrong figure and not really thinking about it much beyond that. Centrifugal force is dependent on rate of rotation, so a better unit to use would be a rotational unit, like revolutions per minute (RPM). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation, every 24 hours…that’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. Not very fast at all. Rotate anything at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, would you expect much centrifugal force? 🤷♂️ Not likely. So gravity has no trouble at all overcoming this. So the oceans have nowhere else to go, but towards the only force that is present, gravity.
Either way, your misunderstandings of basic physics is your problem…your knowledge of physics is lacking, right across the board! These aren’t arguments or insights you have, they are personal misunderstandings, born from a lack of knowledge in basic physics.
In any case…I thought this was an argument of surface geometry, so shouldn’t it focus on the geometry first? 🤷♂️ You know…the whole point of the argument? Little hard to understand the larger model, if you don’t first know the foundation from which it’s built.
Lots of geometric evidence that Earth is spherical, from the two hemispheres with their own stars and rotations, to sunsets, to lunar eclipses, and I mean nautical navigation is all built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical…so how exactly are millions of pilots and sailor successfully navigating the Earth, if they don’t really know the true surface geometry of the thing they’re navigating? 🤷♂️ Do you really think they’d be able to do that?
We’re not being presumptuous…we know how Flat Earth is wrong, we’re just trying to help you guys wake up and see it as well. Learn some physics please.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@3MTurbo I will just point this out as well, when it comes to the lack of "measured curvature" that Flat Earth keeps ranting about with long distance photos, there is one simple flaw to what they're doing here, bad math. Flat Earth only does about as much research as it takes to confirm their bias and then they never go back and review their work, this has led them to making many errors, one of which is the math they use for long distance observations, the worst offender being the 8 inches per mile squared equation. It is the wrong math for what they use it for. Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, make sure you're using the correct math, or you will reach a false conclusion, it's pretty simple. They use the wrong math, which gives them bigger figures that don't match with their observations in the real world, and then instead of going back to make sure their math was correct, instead they just conclude the Earth is Flat. That's what they're doing wrong here and it's puzzling to me that they never go back and look if the error is actually with their work. But it's confirmation bias, that's how it works, they don't really care, as long as the figures support their bias, they consider the work done for them.
Here's the correct math in case you were wondering. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ This is a handy calculator that does most of the work for you, you just require height of the observer (one of many variables that is missed in the 8 inches per mile squared formula) and distance to the object being viewed. Here's a forum discussion breaking down the math being used here and explaining further why it's accurate. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ If you scroll down in the first metabunk link I shared, you'll even find a handy diagram that shows you what's being calculated. If you scroll down and take a look at the diagram, pay attention to the dotted black line labelled "Surface Level" and then the solid black line going down from there labelled "Drop". That's the 8 inches per mile math, that's all it's calculating, a tangent from surface with a drop from that tangent back down to surface. It does not represent your line of sight, so the figures it gives you are not correct. Now pay attention to the solid green line coming out from the "Eye/Camera", that is what this math is calculating for, you're actual line of sight. You'll notice that it is able to see things under the surface level line...that's why the 8 inches math is wrong. Flat Earth calculates from that tangent, which doesn't represent horizon or line of sight, and then they wonder why their figures are so big and why they don't match with reality...gee, I wonder why. Flat Earth knows most people are not very savvy with math, most people don't know where to even begin checking the math for accuracy, so they use that lack of knowledge against people and then just slot in some bullshit and hope people fall for it. Sadly it works.
The other thing they do here, is lie about the details, so it's very important you get ALL the correct details from them and not just the ones they tell you, cause they will lie about them as often as they can. I've found that as soon as you start digging for the correct details from them, they tend to stop talking to you, but just pay attention to locations and do your best to confirm them, if they have photos then great, you have something to work with. Lots of videos now from people analyzing long distance photos and checking their math, here's some great channels to check out that do this.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNgj9YOmYzAPIMGy-1BQDEw/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCISF_4OoXm5xF8jNsoJle1g/videos
Refraction is another thing they ignore, and I understand why, most people don't realize refraction happens in our atmosphere and even less understand how it works. So they ignore it, cause they don't believe it's real or they haven't been convinced of it yet. That's fine really, can't expect anybody to believe something if they've never seen it demonstrated. So here's a pretty clear demonstration of refraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction happens, especially over large bodies of water, it does cause light to bend which does change what we see, which does make things visible past geometric horizon, so it is a variable that can't be ignored. The math I shared above also includes a standard refraction index, it calculates both a geometric curvature and a refracted curvature, so it's important to know what refraction is and factor it in.
Lastly, I'll just leave you with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU It's a pretty interesting simulation of topography data, taking one of Jtolans infamous infrared long distance photos and showing you what it would actually look like if the Earth were flat. It's a very good piece of evidence that I feel is a final nail in the coffin for Flat Earthers claims about curvature. The whole demo is great, but If you're pressed for time just watch the final 2 minutes where he compares both models.
Anyway, sorry this got a bit long again, I just like to be thorough. Again, I hope the information is at the very least interesting. If you got anymore questions or points to make, feel free to ask.
2
-
2
-
@bensonmofo A gyro remains rigid in space, the sky has absolutely zero effect on it…but if the surface it’s set upon shifts, then you will notice a drift in the angle of its gimbles. The sky sure won’t do that, the surface orientation sure will…even you know this I’m sure. Seriously though, feel free to explain how you feel the sky changes and effects the angle of a gyro, either mechanical or laser. Go right ahead. Meanwhile the rest of us who haven’t lost sight of reality, know that gyros detect shifts in position of the physical body they’re attached too…the sky doesn’t do anything to a gyro.
Look, the core of your argument is Earth’s shape, so this point is very relevant. And even YOU agreed in an earlier comment above that gyros have detected and measured Earth rotation. Deflect my point all you want, it doesn’t change it…and it doesn’t make your ad hoc response of “the sky dit it” any less ridiculous, and deep down you know it, you’re not fooling anyone. :/
But I will agree with you on that one point, there’s so far no optical experiment (at least not that I’m aware of), that measures or detects Earth’s motion around the Sun. But there is a staggering amount of astronomical data, that like it or not, all fits the heliocentric model, both in its geometry and its physics. Can’t say the same for geocentrism…yet you actually think you have the stronger argument here? Since when has this ever been a thing; no evidence and no predictive powers>mountains of evidence and applied science? 🤨You’re just pissing into the wind I’m afraid…and worse you’re proud of it, and expect us to be impressed. :/
2
-
2
-
Nope, have you ever talked to a Flatty? I've talked to hundreds at this point and while SOME of them say they conform to no model, most of them say with confidence that they know the Earth is flat. Just scroll down in these very comments and find some Flatties, your fellow Flatties will prove you wrong on that one pretty quickly.
You're confusing what YOU believe, with what others do. People tend to do that, we tend to see the world how WE ARE, instead of how IT IS.
But that's great, if you feel it's just a hypothesis, then get to work verifying or falsifying it...meanwhile the Globe is verified, so even when you do get past hypothesis (in your mind), you'll still have a long way to go pitting it against the Globe to see which model actually conforms with reality more. Good luck with that.
2
-
@DirtyTalkTv No, he’s actually correct. It’s called the universal law of gravitation, and Einstein’s relativity does not invalidate this law. Laws merely describe WHAT is occurring, relativity is a scientific theory which goes a bit deeper into explaining HOW it works. The law is that mass attracts mass, relativity just explains how, through a bending in space and time. The law itself still holds true, mass does attract mass.
What Einstein invalidated was Newton’s idea that time is a constant…he proved it is not, it’s relative, it depends on the acceleration of the observer. The rest he didn’t falsify, he just improved upon the already existing model that mass attracts mass. The universal law of gravitation still holds true to this day.
He’s also correct that you do sort of forfeit yourself from conversations of science the moment you argue that something is “only a theory”. It’s not that simple, because a scientific theory is not the same as a regular theory. If you’re not aware of how, then that tells us your real problem, scientific illiteracy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zquest42 I have spent the last 4 years looking at flat Earth claims, I’ve chatted with hundreds of flat Earthers at this point, I know their arguments and positions probably better than most flat Earthers even do. I also know where they go wrong and how they’ve been scammed...I’ve seen the same “fake space” and flat Earth docs you probably have, the difference is I’ve successfully been able to falsify all of it. Point is, I’m not new to this discussion. My apologies if I’m coming off as pushy or short, but admittedly my patience for Flat Earth has been worn pretty thin over the years.
I don’t mind shifting gears into a more civil discussion where we respect each other’s opinions and information though, all I’d ask is that you don’t patronize me, and I’ll do my best to do the same. I will listen to what you’d like to share, just know there’s not much I haven’t heard at this point, and I won’t pull any punches. It’s my opinion that Flat a Earth is deeply bias in their conclusions, mostly formed from paranoia and misunderstandings, both of which have been twisted and exploited by conmen to sell a hoax to the average layman. It’s no coincidence to me that people in flat Earth are not experienced experts in any field relevant to the topic.
2
-
@zquest42 For thousands of years sailors have been navigating using the stars, with one very simple geometric constant in mind, that the stars drop to (or raise up from) the horizon at a consistent rate, by latitude. The reason this is a problem for flat Earth, is because the geometry doesn’t work, if the Earth was flat, then the stars would not move from the horizon at a consistent rate, they would vary in their degree shift to horizon due to simple rules of visual perspective, dropping by less and less or rising faster and faster depending on the star and the direction of travel...many would never reach the horizon at all, Polaris for example.
Here’s a great diagram that helps understand this better https://flatearth.ws/polaris-angle. Looking at this diagram, do you honestly believe Polaris could ever drop to 0 degrees at the Equator if Earth is flat? It does not work geometrically, and yet...Polaris does drop to 0 degrees in reality and at a consistent rate. Flat Earth can not account for this observation, but the Globe ticks every box, it fits perfectly with the geometry.
So sailors were actually some of the first to realize the true shape of Earth. It’s true they had no idea it was rotating, that wasn’t realized until Galileo and Kepler came along roughly 500 years ago, but the shape itself was undeniable. Remember, Science didn’t start with the higher physics, they started with the geometry...so I really don’t understand why flat Earthers rush ahead and talk about physics, if they haven’t even worked out the basic shape yet. At its core, flat Earth is a geometry discussion...so start with the geometry.
2
-
2
-
1
-
In my 3 years of researching the Flat Earth topic, I have not come across any mathematical evidence of a Flat Earth (not in the literal sense anyway, hypotheticals sure)...what I have come across though is people using the WRONG math, and then calling their work good, never bothering to check if maybe the math they were using was inaccurate. There's a very simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math for the wrong job and you will reach a false conclusion...it's pretty simple. That's how they fool a lot of people into believing the Earth is flat, because most people are not mathematically literate...and they know that, so most people can easily be fooled with simple math presented with a claim of accuracy. Present them with a half truth, a formula for a basic parabolic arc (8 inches per mile squared), which is an easy formula anyone can understand that can be used for curves (up to a point), and then tell them that this formula is how you discern curvature on Earth and what is hidden from sight by curvature.
What they don't tell people, is that a parabolic arc equation does not represent your line of sight, it does not tell you where horizon is, it does not include a variable for height of the observer, or height of the object being viewed, it does not calculate arc length, and it completely ignores the science of atmospheric refraction. All that math does is calculates a drop from a tangent line at your starting position...that's it. The figures it generates don't even represent eye level...and they also don't represent true circular curvature, it's only good for about 100 miles.
It's basically the equivalent of a slight of hand trick or misdirection, dazzling dumb people with an equation that they focus on...but know NOTHING about, and then convincing them that this is all they need, that the figures it generates are accurate for what they're attempting to solve for. In truth though, it's bogus, it is the wrong math to use...and any real mathematician would tell you this, but they use it anyway. 8 inches per mile squared is the worst offender of this clever misdirection illusion, but it's not the only example of bad math I've seen used in Flat Earth...it's pretty common...it's one of their best tricks, which is exploiting peoples lack of knowledge and using it against them.
There are no scientists or mathematicians finding evidence that suggests flat Earth is in any way possible...not to my immediate knowledge anyway. The only way it's possible, is if all of these people were to ignore gravity...but that's not something any of them are about to do, unless they're willing to put their careers on the line. Mocking up hypotheticals however, sure, mathematicians do this all the time...an example is the simulation theory, that being that we are all just in a simulation. In that context, it could be possible...but this is a hypothetical (currently) that assumes a lot and it ignores a lot of physics to make it work out. If that's what you're referring too, is hypothetical calculations, then you have to understand that these are not evidence...they are hypothetical, the moment you use them as evidence, they only become speculative....meaning still not evidence.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble, in all honestly I don't know what evidence you are referring too, so I shouldn't assume to know what you're talking about. But, in my experience so far, I have not seen any scientists or mathematicians finding mathematical evidence for a flat Earth, quite the opposite in fact. But, feel free to share with me what you are referring too, and I'd be happy to take a look.
1
-
False, one successfully plotted navigation, using the current system of navigation designed on the knowledge Earth is spherical, and you pretty much prove Earth’s shape right there. Considering the millions of successful flights and sea voyages occurring on a daily basis, all using this system, I’d say this discussion is long over.
Those are math simplification models…they’re not making literal statements, or stating conclusions. They are taking complicated equations, and stripping their variables of anything that are not required for what they’ll be used for…it makes the math simpler, which speeds up production. When they remove variables to simplify math in these models, they then have to state VERY CLEARLY what variables are being omitted or changed.
Many of those papers also assume a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass…two variables that are also not reality, that are impossible for any aircraft to obtain. Why doesn’t Flat Earth mention that? Cause it doesn’t support their bias narrative they’re trying to sell. What we have here is classic cherry picking, a form of confirmation bias. Layman, misinterpreting something they do not understand.
1
-
No scientist really focuses on shit that's already proven and verified...and NASA certainly don't waste their time, cause if any organization knows for sure what the shape of the planet is...it's fuckin NASA. They could care less if a few people don't know anything about science and geometry enough to figure this out for themselves.
But here's something Flat Earth fails at here, why don't Flat Earthers keep the camera rolling when the got those ships at full zoom? Here's what happens when you do just that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi23xZmS03Q Here's another one, tell me if you actually think zooming in any more will bring the bottom of this ship back into focus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw&t=20s I'll save you the effort...it won't. That ship has gone over horizon...and it will not be brought back into view by zooming in...he even tries, the ships position doesn't change and no more of the bottom becomes visible.
What Flat Earth demonstrates when it brings ships back with binoculars or zoom lenses of any kind, is vanishing point. Which in perspective and optics is just the physical limit something reaches where your eye can no longer render it visible, so it appears to vanish. Put simply, if you can bring a boat back into focus...then it has not yet gone over curvature, it's as simple as that. The thing about vanishing point, it does not pick and choose what to make disappear first, it converges from all angles equally and at the same rate of instance. It does not make the bottoms disappear first...vanishing point can not explain this...but curvature sure can.
1
-
chazz LUCAS: Science is doing more to shrink the idea of a God, then it is doing to disprove Evolution. You're making a lot of bold claims here, based from what I can only assume was a very poor education and a lot of YouTube videos.
There are transitional fossils, but of course there will always be gaps because fossils are not easy to make. It takes very precise conditions for a fossil to be preserved, so not every single species in existence is going to have a fossil record....which is really to bad, cause it certainly would help to shut you people up.
Animals really only see large changes in their DNA when their environment forces them to adapt or die. It's the environment that determines a species traits and characteristics and if that environment rarely ever changes....then you're not going to see many changes in it's evolution. Furthermore, Evolution is a very slow gradual process...so no, we're not going to see new species popping up every single time we plant a flower, because a completely new species takes thousands to millions of years to create.
How much do you actually know about DNA? DNA does sometimes replicate itself and then mutate on that new duplicate chain, causing additions in it's code. This happens all the time, and scientists know this, because this is something you can actually observe happening, if you're lucky enough to be looking in the right place at the right time, while watching a cell splitting under a microscope. So yes, DNA does sometimes add to itself...of course you're not going to get a cat changing into a dog or a kangaroo...but you will get a cat with longer ears, green eyes, longer claws, etc. Little minute changes like that, that over enough time and enough new generations, can add up and eventually....create a completely new species. DNA never does this duplication on the entire chain of DNA, only in very small chunks at a time. This is why we'll never see a dog give birth to a kangaroo or anything else really...except for maybe a dog with a mutation that could possibly wind up aiding in its survival, thus ensuring the probability of that new trait being passed on for future generations.
Not sure what you're talking about in your third point there...might have just worded it oddly. I'll take a stab in the dark anyway though. I think what you're getting at is that animals are born and created from genes and DNA and without this very precise blueprint of information they cannot form. Yes, that's true....but I'm not sure how that disproves evolution in anyway. These codes are not perfect, there is room for errors and it is those errors that create new traits. I think where people like you get caught up, is that you assume the system is perfect because it works flawlessly without errors....what we KNOW now is that it is perfect because it is flawed. Because these chains of DNA allow for small errors to occur once in awhile without breaking the original design. It is because of these small errors that the system works so well. The flaws are what make it a perfect system. Without random errors and flaws occurring once in awhile, the possibility for a species to adapt to sudden changes in its environment, grinds to a halt, and life would not be able to survive at all.
Evolution never ends, it's life's best survival mechanism so that it can grow, change and adapt to a world that is always shifting and changing as well. Without evolution, life would have died out a very long time ago.
I'd suggest looking into Abiogenesis as well, if you think life can't come from inorganic matter. This relatively new field of research has done many experiments already proving that it is possible for life to create itself through naturally occurring chemical reactions, under the right conditions. Give it a little while, and it'll soon be called the Theory of Abiogenesis, meaning it'll have just as much solid backing as Evolution does today.
1
-
1
-
@n54ll64 Earth does all 3 of those...see you're just ignoring a huge part of the physics, that gravity can not be scaled down,...especially not while INSIDE of a powerful gravity well. You're making up bullshit experiments and ignoring basic physics, it's the equivalent of a slight of hand trick. This is why very few people takes you people seriously...cause they realize right away how stupid it is to ask for what you're asking for. It ignores the key tenants of gravity, and pretends it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, the Earth is doing all of those things, so it's Earth you should put to the test if you wanna see these things....it does all 3.
I have a challenge for you. Explain why the Southern hemisphere has its own stars and its own celestial rotation around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis? This is exactly what we'd expect to see occur on a globe....doesn't make any fucking sense on a Flat Earth.
Just one of several simple observational examples that Flat Earth has you ignoring, while they get you focusing on misunderstood physics that turns you into idiots. It's not our problem you think denial is adequate enough to falsify gravity....the Earth is doing exactly what you're asking for right this second, so make observations of the Earth, and pay attention when you do.
1
-
1
-
@n54ll64 I don't have too recreate them, and neither does anyone else. All you really have to do is realize and point out why your "challenges" are illogical.
1) Any water you put on a tiny ball, while you're on Earth, will be pulled to the stronger gravity well of Earth, and drop off that ball...rendering it impossible to give a conclusive observation of the gravity of that tinier ball. This means it's an impossible experiment to do while on Earth, because you won't be able to get a conclusive result...doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist, just means your experiment is stupid because it ignores how gravity works. The gravity of Earth doesn't just shut off when you put water on a smaller ball...the gravity of Earth is going to pull all that water off your ball. It's incredible some people have trouble understanding this.
2) To produce a vacuum while inside of a pressurized environment (Earths atmosphere, which we live inside), you need something to keep that atmosphere from entering your vacuum you're attempting to create...this requires a barrier, that's why vacuum chambers are made in CHAMBERS. Little hard to create a vacuum, with atmosphere all around you. So what's really the impossibly hard part is creating a vacuum while INSIDE of a pressurized environment. But if you've ever seen what smoke or gas does in a vacuum chamber, you'll know that it falls to the bottom and doesn't disperse into the chamber....basic physics. https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=142 Doesn't mean true vacuum doesn't exist outside of our atmosphere...just means you're focusing on the wrong details and ignoring everything else. It's a fact that pressure decreases the higher you go, it's a gradient. It's also a fact that weather balloons gone up in high atmosphere eventually pop...like they would in a vacuum. So while the vacuum HAS evidence, your dome does not. So the real question is, where is this fucking barrier that you think is up there? Why haven't we discovered it? Where's the evidence that proves it exists? We've measured space, we've been there, it's uneniable, there's a vacuum up there...so all your challenge does is distracts people from looking at things objectively. You're getting people to focus on physics, twisting lies around it to keep them from reazling...there is no evidence of the dome....just a broken argument of the dome. Pretty ironic that a group that demands so much from the Globe, doesn't think the same standard applies to them. You believe in a barrier, that has no evidence for it....pretty funny.
3) Level does not mean flat. If you've been speaking the English language long enough, you'll know that single words take on different definitions, depending on the context. Level in geometry and topography for example, can be defined as "maintaining a 90 degree perpendicular to a point of reference". In the case of topography, that reference point is center of Earth. So first you have to stop forcing words to mean what you want them too, you have to stop thinking in absolutes. Sea level keeps equipotential distance from center of Earth. It works the same for a bubble or a rain drop that forms into a perfect sphere. You could define the surface of both as level from a topographic or geometric standpoint. The surface of those keep equal distance from center (equipotential), so they are level perpendicular to center. Getting it yet? Flat Earth focuses on what they WANT to be true...and ignore everything else, it's bias. You just say level has one definition, saying it just means flat and nothing else matters to you....this is a black and white way of thinking, which is a logical fallacy. Only idiots think in absolutes. It's also ignorant.
It's all just misdirection, keeping people focused on what you want them to be focused on, fabricating illogical conditions that you know can't be met, but when you really look at them you realize that they're inventions to keep people from looking at real evidence.
1
-
@n54ll64 While you're focusing on illogical "challenges" designed to keep people distracted, you're ignoring all the problems of the bullshit you're supporting.
Flat Earth has no working model, no working map for navigation, no pilot or sailor uses Flat Earth for finding their destinations on the daily. Flat Earth can't explain sunsets, phases of the Moon, lunar eclipse, solar eclipse, the entire southern hemisphere, satellites in orbit, 24 hour sun in both hemispheres, star trails, radio communication, earthquakes, how the electromagnetic field is generated, the list goes on and on. So while you have people focused on your slight of hand trick, you're getting them ignoring that Flat Earth is a model of PURE bullshit and there's no denying that.
You are a movement of ignorant and arrogant pieces of shit, who are just angry that they get no say in what gets added to human knowledge. So you've decided to stir the pot, by muddying the waters with misinformation, creating these "challenges" where you get to make the rules, so that you can pretend like you're in control. I know it, you know it, and most people around the world know it. And if you can't tell yet...I'm fed up with people like you. You need to be pointed out for the huxters you are.
1
-
1
-
@opxchaos5757 Ok, I watched your video from P-brane, and let me tell ya, it was difficult, as I really don’t see how anyone can see this as a more logical answer for this observation. To me, it felt like I watched 20 minutes of somebody attempting to ram a square peg into a round hole...I’m just being honest, it was painful to watch. I’ve chatted with P-brane before, and I’ve actually seen this exact explanation for the Southern star trails from Eric Dubay before as well. He even used the same animations...which leaves me to wonder who plagiarized who, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume they shared their visuals under a mutual agreement. I find P-brane sure talks a lot, but doesn’t provide any evidence, just makes claims and expects people to accept it...so I’m sorry, but I do find his content quite frustrating and not very well done, for that reason.
It’s not just him though, it’s very common in FE. A lot of conjecture and empty claims, huge leaps in logic and conclusions made before any attempt is made to actually verify them, but no real science. What I’m curious about, is how you find an explanation like this more plausible?
Let’s clear one thing first, do you honestly believe this explanation of his makes more sense than the globe model? I’m not trying to mock you if you do, I’m actually curious as to why, so perhaps you can help shed some light on why you feel this explanation is better than the globe explanation.
Second, you do realize that he never once sets out to prove this claim of his, with any sort of experiment or data, right? He basically just presented a hypothesis, that’s all he has there, then he skipped over all experimentation, real world observation, simulation and jumped straight to conclusion. Again, I’m curious as to why you feel this is good enough? I find FE does this a lot, slots in an ad hoc answer, then asserts it’s correct before doing any further work to verify the hypothesis they’ve made. Which is one of the reasons why I have a very hard time taking them seriously I’m afraid...and trust me, I’ve tried over the past 4 years.
Third, this in no way falsifies the globe position, so even if I were to accept it as plausible (and that’s unlikely currently, which I’ll explain why in a bit), the globe model still explains this real world phenomenon with absolute ease, it fits the geometry perfectly. It’s what we’d expect to see on a globe. It’s easy to simulate that geometry actually, both digitally https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU, and physically https://youtu.be/jRKMN_dJbmY?t=377. So his explanation in no way falsified the globe model, I feel that’s important to keep in mind.
I’ll continue this in a separate comment (got a bit long), I would like to next attempt to falsify his explanation. So the rest is in part 2 of this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@opxchaos5757 I agree completely with Dirkardo, Eric doesn’t prove anything with his 200 proofs, merely makes 200 empty claims, with no evidence to back them...many of them are even repeated. In debate, it’s a dishonest tactic known as gish gallop, dumping a ton of small weaker arguments on a person in rapid fire, in an attempt to overload their ability to address it all or even process it all in real time, thus making you appear more bolstered in your argument while making your opponent look like a bumbling idiot while he attempts to address every point, but failing from being bogged down in explanation, it’s essentially a trap in debates, and it’s frowned upon...but sadly it works on an audience.
Psychologically, it does two things, overloads your ability to process information (I think the human limit is generally around 8-12 points at a time, before you’re overloaded and begin to get muddled and run off track), and it dazzles you, gets you thinking “wow, 200 proofs! He must know what he’s talking about! You have my attention.” It’s essentially quantity over quality...which some people tend to value more. But, a very similar list could easily be made for the Globe...but the scientific community is typically not in favour of low tactics like gish gallop, they care about the details.
Con men and huxters use that sort of tactic to sway people...which is a red flag for those who recognize it. Slow his presentation down, and actually challenge the claims one at a time, give yourself time to process them and you’ll find they aren’t really proofs, just claims without backing. Claims that can also be falsified, if you look and research well enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They do have the old technology...but the old technology is just that...it's old. Why would you send astronauts back up into space, with old tech? Tech that barely worked in the first place? The answer is you wouldn't, you would want to send them with new tech, more advanced tech...more reliable tech. The problem is...new tech is not as sturdy as the old analog systems, and all of it needs to be tested in the same conditions, before a launch into deep space with passengers can be approved (which is basically a lot of what ISS does). What I mean is, with new technology, comes new hurdles...new engineering problems and bugs that need to be worked out for every new system, so that they function without failure in space. We have computers and micro processors today...but these instruments are greatly effected by things like the van allen radiation belts, and strong electromagnetic fields...in short, they have a tendency to fail in these conditions, to shut down and stop working...so better systems need to be developed to overcome these issues, because that's exactly what you DON'T want to have happen while in space...all your shit breaking down. The problem is...NASA is not as well funded as they used to be...and so they can only do so much these days.
This is the problem with Flat Earth...it's taking interest away from these space programs...convincing people that space isn't real nor important, which is taking even more funding away from them. Here's the reality...going to space is neither cheap nor easy...but the rest of the world seems to think it is for some reason. If everybody was a scientist or engineer or an astronaut even...then they'd understand how hard it is to get funding for these programs and they'd understand how hard it is to get into space at all! But...most people don't care, that's the reality. Most people are happy just reaping the benefits of scientific achievements...but have very little interest in contributing in any way towards making them reality. Not their fault really...as I said, most people don't care...because they don't have first hand experience with any of what's going on and that's not likely to change any time soon, so can't really blame people really. But this whole Flat Earth thing needs to stop...getting off this rock and exploring space, is the single most important thing our Species NEEDS to figure out...or we face some real problems down the line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's nothing wrong with it, but he didn't run a very good experiment. He made ONE observation, that collected ONE data set and then ignored variables like refraction. When the experiment was done again (as you do in science under proper peer review systems), they created a better experiment that was capable of giving them more data. They used several more flag markers, set at varying distances down the canal and they paid attention to more variables. See Rowbotham ONLY did enough experimenting to confirm his bias...then he stopped and concluded Earth was Flat. That's what the Zhetetic method is...a method for conducting bias research. When the experiment was reviewed however, they paid more attention and more data sets revealed a few things.
They discovered that the flags curved, rising up and then dropping down...which is indicative of a curvature. They noticed that the markers were higher then the bridge in the distance...so horizon does not actually rise to eye level, it drops, also indicative of a curve. And they paid attention to refraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs including a variable in their math to account for that refraction at distances. Their numbers fit with a Globe.
Nobody is saying Rowbotham is wrong for attempting to conduct his own experiments, that's perfectly fine and it's encouraged in science, but confirmation bias is a flaw of man that MOST PEOPLE don't seem to think applies to them. It absolutely does...and conducting poor experiments is going to render you a false conclusion. That's why we conduct peer review, to weed out the errors of confirmation bias and sloppy experimentation. Upon peer review of his experiment, it was found that he had ran a SLOPPY experiment, designed only to confirm his bias. Upon further reproduction of that experiment, the same thing is found every single time...the Earth is curving.
Here is an in depth reproduction of this experiment done over a lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This experiment takes it to the next level and it is QUITE thorough. I suggest you give it a look sometime, if you want to see how a REAL experiment is conducted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
world class hacker And I’d rather not reach full conclusions, around nothing but paranoid speculations. Asking questions is perfectly fine, but keep your damn head on your shoulders while you do it. You don’t know it’s bubbles, you’re speculating that it is...but you don’t really know shit for sure, yet you’ve reached a conclusion anyway. See the problem with that? Could be ice debris, space debris, material debris flaking off the exterior, tons of other possible explanations you need to consider if you’re to remain objective. Oh yes, I’ve seen these videos claiming they’re “bubbles”, it’s always one or two little flecks of something...that could be fucking anything! Then you look at a breathing apparatus under water...and notice how many bubbles they’re really dumping out. Sure, they tell you it’s bubbles...and then you suckers eat that shit up. If you’re so all about asking questions......why didn’t you ALSO ask questions about these video’s on YouTube? Did you even bother?
Have you ever edited a film in post? I can tell you right now, editing out bubbles would be a fucking nightmare! If they were going to fake it, they wouldn’t do it under water...that would be a stupid thing to do, any film student could tell you that. They would just use wires and green screen...far less shit getting in the way of the shot. But...for some reason you all are happy to just assume it’s bubbles, no further thought or analysis required. Whatever confirms that bias is good enough, right? :/
You’re not just asking questions....that’s the problem! You’re reaching full conclusions from nothing substantial, just pure speculation and assumption. So save it...you’re not impressing anyone. It’s not hard to lie online, happens all the time, the modern internet is a con artists wet dream! Chop up a video full of speculations, half truths and content taken out of context, then spin whatever tale you want upon it...bound to be some suckers who will eat that up, no questions asked. :/
You need to consider the very real possibility, that the true liars and huxters...are the people making these YouTube docs claiming to be catching space agencies lying. If you don’t also turn that skeptical lens around on them, then you’re not really asking questions, you’re listening blindly to a narrative being fed to you. You’re chasing confirmation bias. Keep that in mind.
But go ahead, bring up any video you feel is substantial evidence, and not just empty claims, assumptions and speculations. Bet I could point out several areas where they straight up lie to you. I’ve reviewed many of them now, so go ahead.
1
-
Well, stop merely listening and start observing yourself. It really doesn't take much effort to confirm the Earth is a sphere, just a few simple observations. Like a sunset for example, how exactly does that work on a Flat Earth? Ram that square peg into that round hole all you want, you'll still have to admit...the Globe makes sense of this occurrence with absolute ease, while the Flat Earth takes quite a few leaps of logic here to make sense of this and it still doesn't really if you remain objective about it.
All you've done here is made an argument from personal incredulity. Just because you don't understand currently how it's possible, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I suggest learning some physics and studying some astronomy. Start with understanding stellar parallax, it answers for why the stars never appear to move...and then travel to the South and observe the second night sky, and the second rotation of stars around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis...and then try again to make sense of that observation on a Flat Earth. Another simple observation, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a Flat Earth, but the Globe sure accounts for it with absolute ease, it's exactly what we'd expect to see occur on a Globe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtx5jVLUaU&lc
It's fine to question what you're told...but don't just look at one side of things. The Flat Earth model has it's holes, don't ignore them.
1
-
1
-
@kaptainkrampus2856 Okay, but due to Earth curvature your position relative to those rays of light are still angled, so it’s still like you’re looking down the tracks, just at a steeper angle. Only the sub solar point experiences a perfectly perpendicular to surface rays of light (which is only ever in one location on Earth at any given time), like you’re suggesting the suns rays are, everywhere else they’re not perpendicular to surface, relative to you, they’re angled. They’re parallel to each other, but not perpendicular. And when do we usually see crepuscular rays the most? Close to sunset or sunrise, when that angle is even steeper, basically arriving at you…like tracks.
I think you’d be interested in this modern recreation of the Eratosthenes experiment https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?si=nP3Zw27oZzk0Ju5Z&t=903. This experiment is pretty good evidence that the Suns rays are in fact arriving parallel to surface, and crepuscular rays are just an optical illusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@findingsolutions198 Enlighten YOU...don’t forget who the minority is here. Learn to navigate, you’ll find out pretty quickly how important it is to know exactly what shape and scale our planet is. Pilots and sailors aren’t getting lost every day and it’s a pretty well known fact that they use a global system of navigation, designed with a 3rd dimension of travel and lines of latitude that are equal in TWO hemispheres. Learn to navigate for yourself and you will know exactly what shape the planet is.
While you’re learning about navigation, put it to use and travel South (assuming you live in the North) and observe the second hemisphere, notice it has its own night sky, its own constellations, with its own celestial rotation of stars around its own pole star...you know, exactly like we’d expect to see occur on a globe. And here’s something that falls under navigation, on your way down, pay attention to the drop of Polaris...and when you get to the Equator, you just let me me know how you think Polaris can drop to 0 degrees, if the Earth is flat. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle.jpg
Or here’s a super easy one, just observe a single sunset...then ask yourself how that’s geometrically possible, if line of sight to the Sun is never blocked? A pretty basic understanding of geometry is all you need for that one. I understand flat Earth likes to use perspective to answer for this...well perspective has some pretty standard rules to it, that don’t exactly fit that explanation, when you really break it down and analyze it, so I’m afraid it’s not that simple.
Just a short sample...Eric Dubay is a con man and you are falling for his scam bud. It’s fine to question things, but you need to be really careful where you’re getting your info from. Just remember that Flat Earth has no working model and it’s not used in the foundation of any applied science today...that’s for a good reason. I’d spend more time questioning Dubay if I were you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just to add as well, the Beatles and Disney made countless copies and reproductions of their videos and songs...because they were selling them. They also restored and reproduced everything, because they could earn further money from that effort. Telemetry data is not the same, it's not a product intended for mass production to be sold, so you are making a false comparison. Besides that, telemetry data is just radio communication between two points to pinpoint a position in 3D space, doing it over several communications to form a sort of mapped path and to gauge a measured distance. We know where the Moon is...we know how far away it is...so this data is not exactly all that important. It's a historical treasure yes, but compared to the rock samples collected, the lunar module itself, the space suits and all other physical objects brought back from the trip...the telemetry data doesn't rank very high on that list of things needed to be preserved.
So look at it from a CEO of a big companies perspective. He will ask these questions "will it cost money to preserve, do we have that funding to spare and is this data valuable enough to keep?" The answer he will receive is likely "Yes, no and no"....what do you think he is going to choose? I'm sure the scientists of the time made a case to save that data, but it's not ultimately up to them...NASA is a company, and the final decisions are made by a board of directors....and all they really care about, is money.
But yes, that's not to say it still isn't odd, but mistakes are made all the time...and once they're done, they're done...not every conclusion has to be a suspicious one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Riptions Well, they’re only dismissed if they can be successfully falsified. Do you think flat Earth is somehow free from burden of proof and peer review? Because I sure don’t. You may not like having the questioning turned on you, but tough titty, the same standards of skepticism and analysis apply to you and FE as well. Don’t pretend like they don’t. It’s never a waste of time to review what you think you know.
Were you aware that you actually have to set a sundial by latitude? The gnomon has to be parallel to the 23.4 degree tilt of Earth’s axis, and so you actually have to angle it by latitude, 1 degree difference every 69 miles, to set a sundial accurately. This requires you angle it pointed South for the Southern Hemisphere. So no…this doesn’t actually work on a flat Earth, you’ve just made an assumption that they work without really knowing much about sundials. The steady adjustment of 1 degree every equal distance is another problem your model faces…that’s not a geometry we’d expect on a flat surface, on a flat surface that angle would be less and less the further away you got from the Suns position moving down the latitudes going South…that’s just basic trig.
Also, it should be noted that Eratosthenes wasn’t trying to prove Earth’s shape with his observation, he was merely measuring the circumference in his version of the experiment. You only require two shadow measurements to calculate a circumference, but take any more than two, take several more measurements from various locations, and you absolutely can determine the surface shape. Even with your lamp example, I can determine if the surface of the road is flat, just by moving equal distances several times, and then checking that angle to see how it’s consistent. Is the angle dropping by equal measures (like 1 degree every 69 miles like we measure on Earth), or does the angle drop less and less by each equal distance (say 1 degree in the first 69 miles, then 0.5 in the next 69 miles, then 0.25 in the next and so on)? If it’s the latter, then I can determine the surface of the street is flat, because a curved surface would cause a consistent drop, as a sphere curves consistently….you can actually do quite a lot with just basic trig and geometry.
So no, I think it’s your points that are easily falsified…and that’s probably why you prefer empty rhetoric, bragging and big talk, rather than sharing actual evidence.
1
-
@Riptions I’ve seen a few examples of sunset videos that are extremely over exposed and blurry, with a lot of haziness and cloud cover at horizon, shot so poorly on purpose to create the illusion that Sun shrinks in angular size throughout a day…but film the Sun with crisp clear resolution, using a solar filter lens, with locked exposure to remove all glare, and every time you do this the Sun is observed to remain the same angular size, throughout a full day, falsifying your perspective argument. This occurs regardless of where you observe it, over water or not…we’ve all seen a sunset, it sinks into horizon every time. This is impossible with your model.
Angular size is a consequence of perspective…you don’t have a vanishing point without angular size shrinking to a point where the object becomes impossible to resolve any further, because it’s angular size has reduced to a point unable to see. So perspective isn’t the explanation for a sunset…you have to ignore a LOT of perspective fundamentals, to think that ad hoc explanation is good enough. Maybe YOU are fine with ignoring the glaring holes in the FE’s perspective argument…but I sure can’t, and neither can most people.
Even you have to realize how flawed and intentionally ignorant that argument is. If not though……then how? 🤷♂️
1
-
@Riptions It only appears larger at horizon because of the Ebbinghaus optical illusion, aka the relative size illusion. Look it up sometime, our eyes are easily tricked by optical illusions such as this. Actually observing the Sun throughout a full day, with a solar filter lens to remove all glare, and you will see it does not change size. A pilot/amateur astronomer that goes by Wolfie6020 on YouTube, has many good clear and crisp observations of this, over water and over land, he’s done many observations, all verifying the Sun and the Moon do not shrink at all throughout a day. Give his channel a look sometime, he’s quite thorough with his observations.
As for your star’s argument, consider this, if the stars were closer, wouldn’t we expect to observe a lot of parallax effect, just by travelling a few hundred miles in any direction and observing the stars again? Shouldn’t the stars drift a lot, if they’re much closer to is on a dome? The fact that they don’t parallax at all from travelling, is a big clue that suggests they must be really really far away…that’s the first bit if evidence that led us to that conclusion in the first place.
You have to put it into the proper scales to understand how this works. The Earth moves roughly 800,000 miles in a single 12 hour night period. That may seem pretty far…to you and me, a couple of microbes living on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who thinks a mile is a measure of significance…but to the galaxy, we might as well have not even moved at all in that 12 hour time frame. Put it into scale that down to understand how this works. Polaris is clocked at about 434 light years away, a single light year is 6 trillion miles away…so that’s 2.604x10^15 miles…that’s a lot of zeroes. 800,000 miles is only 0.00000000003% of that distance. So…scale it down, go out at night and observe a street light from say a mile away, that will represent Polaris. What’s 0.00000000003% of 1 mile? You might as well not move at all, so the street light hasn’t moved from your perspective.
Does that help make sense of this? You have to think in terms of the scales you’re dealing with. Distance has a profound effect on perceived motion, it’s why a passenger jet in the sky moving at 500 mph, only appears to barely crawl across the sky at just 3-5 miles altitude from you. Parallax effect can’t be ignored or understated here.
I’m curious though, why only focus on the Northern sky? Why does every flat Earther only focus on the Northern sky, but complete ignores the South? I find that odd. You are aware by now I’m sure, that Earth has two hemispheres, with two celestial rotations of stars, around two separate polar axis? That for me is one of the best proofs that Earth is not flat, because it’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe…but flat Earth has essentially no answer for this observation. So why ignore the Southern sky? 🤷♂️ I mean if you’re gonna use the stars as evidence.
1
-
1
-
@Riptions I’m not phased because it doesn’t falsify the globe as you seem to think it does. It’s just ignorant of all the evidence and data that verifies the stars are far away, and it ignores parallax effect, which does more than account for why the stars don’t shift in a single night. I’m not phased because your arguments are quite simply, ignorant. You’re asking me to just ignore a valid explanation for your observation of Polaris. Sorry, but I’m not going to do that.
Doesn’t take any appeals from authority to observe the Southern rotation of stars for yourself, you can do it from almost anywhere, on any clear night. It’s best observed from the South hemisphere of course, but you can absolutely observe both rotations from anywhere below the 60 degree latitude line North or South, just point your camera South, you’ll see a second rotation around a second pole, it’s quite clear. And it doesn’t take much knowledge of basic geometry to understand the impossibility of these two rotations on a flat Earth, with one sky, and one rotation. And it gets worse for your model even more, by another fact of Earth’s surface geometry. The stars rise and fall to horizon at a consistent rate, 1 degree every 69 miles, that would not occur on a flat surface. It would however be exactly what we’d expect to observe on the surface of a sphere. So while your model requires a lot of ignorance to accept, the globe fits every observation and measurement…and explains every observation with ease, from sunsets, to the two celestial rotations, to the stellar parallax we observe in stars every 6 months, to every motion of every planet, to lunar eclipse..the list goes on. And it’s applied science, just learn to navigate if you don’t think so…navigation is simply not possible without accurate knowledge of Earth’s surface. So I’m sorry but, you really don’t have much of an argument…just ignorance.
Why are you happy to agree with every one of Robotham’s assumptions (and extreme level of word salad? Appealing to his authority without question is fine, but every other astronomer, scientist, expert in the world you can just ignore? Every other expert is wrong…but one guy, who lied about being a doctor for decades, and had zero actual credentials, heck he dropped out of school around grade 9…but he’s right, and you can appeal to his opinions without question? 🧐 You really don’t see the bias in that, or the hypocrisy?
No, you’re happy to agree with any assumptions and appeals to authority, so long as it agrees with your bias. That’s fine really, we all do that to some degree, we all have our biases. But there are glaring holes in the flat Earth, and that’s why we’re here commenting. You don’t have to agree, and I certainly can’t force you to agree either, but I do feel you’re just another victim of confirmation bias, confirmed through selective ignorance and personal incredulity.
1
-
1
-
@philindeblanc No, it doesn’t, because the article in no way says the Van Allen Belt no longer exists, it of course still does. And it’s not technically atmosphere (it’s officially known as a geocorona), they just found hydrogen molecules out that far, but it’s still basically a vacuum, it’s like 10-100 molecules of hydrogen for every cubic meter…it’s mostly empty space still.
Actually READING the article, instead of just reading the title and then endlessly speculating on it, would really do you some good. :/
Also, the Van Allen Belt is only harmful if you were to spend days inside it, but the Apollo crews Averaged about 45 minutes to an hour inside it…receiving a radiation dose equal to a few X-rays. It’s really not as harmful as you think, it’s actually more harmful to microchips…like the ones found in all modern computer systems, which is why it’s been a challenge to build a new space module that includes our new tech. The old modules were analog systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@motorlocksmith You're making a lot of arguments from incredulity, but not a whole lot of valid points. Just saying something can't be millions of miles away is an incredulous claim, just saying things are fake before actually verifying that they are, that is a speculation, not evidence. These aren't arguments...they're just empty claims, why should anyone listen to ignorance and incredulity? In what institution of science do you expect arguments like this should stand up? Do you have any actual evidence that falsify's the conclusion of the Sun being 93 million miles away? You seem to think not seeing Mercury or Venus is evidence of this, but you do realize that Mercury and Venus are much MUCH smaller than the Sun, right? Not nearly as bright either, not even close. These planets are about as bright as a star seen from our planet. How many stars do you see during the day? What makes you assume that Mercury or Venus has the luminosity to be seen, while your eye (or camera lens) is adjusting to the intense light of the Sun? Are you aware of what an exposure setting is on a camera? I suggest you learn, because this matters towards your question. Have you ever considered the possibility that our eyes can only process so much light at once and it becomes VERY hard to process much dimmer light sources, while currently looking at something as bright as our Sun? Do you ever consider the possibility that maybe there are valid answers to your questions? Or do you just assume you're always right?
Tell me, what are you famous for inventing, innovating or discovering again? What successes in life have you had, that make you so confident that you're somehow smarter than all of modern science?
It's fine to have questions, but you seem to think your questions are your proofs...as if they are air tight and can't be answered. They can be answered, with ease in fact, the trouble is you'd likely never listen to those answers. Just because you don't understand or know a lot about modern physics (or a cameras exposure setting), is also not an argument against modern physics...it's just personal ignorance and misunderstandings that you have, that have led you to a great many false conclusions. It's not our problem if you don't understand these things, it's also not our problem if you won't listen. We can explain some science for you, even show you evidence that supports those conclusions, but judging by your manner of engaging with people here, it's very unlikely you'll even bother to take a look at any information we share, so it's rather pointless to even try.
But if you're willing to drop that ego for even a moment, some of us probably wouldn't mind sharing. Up to you really. We're not your enemy...maybe try opening up and having a civil discussion sometime, you might be surprised with what you could learn.
1
-
@OSUBucknado Earth has always been classified as an oblate spheroid…it is slightly larger at the Equator, slightly below it, this is measured. But the difference is so tiny, that from the naked eye observed from space, it looks perfectly spherical…this is because our eyes are not very good measuring tools, in fact they’re pretty terrible. You wanna see how slight the difference is? Here’s a great video that can help https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ. It’s only about 2 mins long, so doesn’t take long to learn just how slight the difference is and why you can’t notice it with the naked eye.
It may look perfectly spherical, but it’s not. Science cares about accuracy…Earth is slightly wider at the Equator, so it’s technically not a perfect sphere.
Only one scientist has ever used “pear shaped” to describe the Earth…and if you bothered to watch the rest of that interview of NDT, you’d know that even he realized it was a poor comparison, because he later redacted the comment, clarifying that the official classification for Earth is an oblate spheroid. But Flat Earth doesn’t care about context, they just cherry pick what they need to help push their narrative…that’s how I know they’re not to be taken seriously, because honest researchers don’t require disingenuous tactics like cherry picking. He was just trying to help others understand…he wasn’t literally trying to say the Earth is a pear. You gotta pay attention to the nuance in the wording educators use, they’re not often speaking literally. It was a poor comparison, but his point was just that Earth isn’t a perfect sphere, it’s measured to be wider at the Equator, a pear was the best comparison he could think of on the fly.
1
-
1
-
@OSUBucknado It’s fine really, I wouldn’t have responded if I didn’t also still enjoy the discussion. Apologies for my attitude, I’ve just been chatting with Flat Earthers for a lot of years now, and I have lost a lot of patience is all. I admire their skepticism, I do, but I do feel they’re spreading misinformation, so just doing what I can to counter it…but it gets difficult to just share information, they’re not exactly the friendliest of groups…but who can blame them really, they truly believe that we’ve been deceived in a huge way, so I get it, I’d probably be pretty pissed too if I was in their shoes. But still…frustrating group is all.
Just keep in mind, it wasn’t NASA who solved Earth’s geometry, mankind reached that conclusion centuries before NASA ever came around and that knowledge is still as true and accessible today, as it was back then.
If it truly interests you, here’s a good tip. The best way I feel to verify Earth’s shape for yourself, just learn to navigate. It’s really not difficult to learn and acquire this skill, plenty of information and simple tutorials online, you’d probably be surprised how easy it actually is. It’s useful knowledge to have here, because it’s an entire system, designed around the knowledge that Earth is spherical. Millions of pilots and sailors are using that system right this second, to help them find destinations around the planet, with extreme precision. If Earth was not spherical, then this system simply would not work. So I feel that’s a great place to start, if NASA is no longer an organization you feel you can trust.
It is a discussion of Earth’s geometry after all, so might as well start there, with the surface geometry. Anyway, take care, and thank you for being so civil.
1
-
1
-
@Poweruser75 Technology didn’t bite NASA in the ass…con men just exploited a few peoples general lack of knowledge in basic things, like the difference between vanishing point and horizon. It’s akin to a slight of hand trick, not a hard con to run, just keep your eye on the claim and don’t question it, and it works because you already distrust, hate, or resent authority and are looking for anything to hit them with. The con is simple, zoom a boat back into focus, then tell people it was horizon you zoomed them back from, when it was really just a demonstration of the vanishing point effect. Your desire to confirm your biases does the rest.
You didn’t “strike a nerve”, as much as you’d wish, I’m just trying to explain how you’ve been conned here. There’s plenty of examples online of people using the p900 on objects that are actually past the horizon…no amount of zoom brings them back, because they are being obscured by surface. Look up the turning torso tower observation sometime.
1
-
1
-
@ap6584 Rockets don't push off of the air for propulsion, they push off of the fuel being expelled from their exhaust tanks. It's Newtons 3rd Law of Motion in action, any action has an equal and opposite reaction. The gas pushes off the tank and the tank pushes off the gas...it works just fine in a vacuum. In fact it works even better in a vacuum, no air to create a drag force. And before you say the rockets wouldn't be able to combust in the vacuum of space, they are chemical reaction rockets...that use many different propellant combinations that don't require the oxygen in our atmosphere to continue burning. They even have today nuclear powered rockets, which use fission reactions to generate thrust...so there are many different ways they can keep their rockets burning without the oxygen of our atmosphere as an oxidizer.
I think a lot of the claims against NASA faking things with green screen and harnesses, is largely conjecture. You watch a few videos cut together from people making these claims but then don't really question the people who make those conspiracy videos. There are plenty of videos online that also debunk those claims of faked space and they make a lot of very good counter arguments against those claims...so who's right? I think it depends on your level of hatred in authority, NASA is a government funded agency, you don't trust the government, so you are more likely to believe anything that is said against them. That's not an argument though...that's psychology. I don't trust the government either...but when I watch those faked space docs on YouTube, all I see are very paranoid people, making blind claims, without any REAL evidence. Have they talked to an astronaut who can confirm these harnesses? Do they have the harnesses? Have they demonstrated and recreated how they work? No...time and time again they just point little things out that could possibly be a green screened harness...and then claim that it 100% is, without further evidence to prove it. That is very poor detective work...and would not hold up in any court of law, for good reason. Is it enough to form a hypothesis from? Sure, but then you guys are all well beyond that now aren't you...you believe the claims made with absolute certainty!
Yes, we live in a time now where things can be faked visually...but just because they CAN fake something, does not mean that they HAVE faked something by default. Personally, I don't trust the people who create those conspiracy videos online, they use a lot of deceitful tactics, smoke and mirrors to convince you that space is being faked, only showing you what they want you to see. Spend some time away from those docs for a moment and take a look at the videos debunking them for a little while...and learn that the people making those conspiracy videos are not being very honest with how they present their information. Just empty claim after empty claim...and you buy it all without question, because you already don't trust the government.
1
-
Hubble is not designed to take photos of objects in such close proximity, it’d be like using a telescope in your bedroom to focus a picture on the wall...it’s not gonna work very well. Besides that, there are already hundreds of other satellites in orbit currently doing the job you’re asking for...but flat Earthers just call their photos and video fake, so what makes you think they’d treat the Hubble any differently, even if it could photograph the Earth? So your first “debate ending” point is moot, they would just say it’s fake, like they already do.
As for the rocket cams, they already do this as well. The falcon 9 launch that happened recently had at least 3 exterior cameras on it, filming the whole launch. There’s tons of video footage from rocket launches already...guess what flat Earthers say about this footage? If you guessed “fake”, then you betcha.
No, they simply don’t accept footage from NASA or any other space agency, so that’s not gonna convince any of them. It’s a movement of paranoia and distrust, if they didn’t see it for themselves, then it didn’t happen according to them. Luckily, you don’t have to go to space to verify the Earth is a globe, you can do it easily with a few quick observations. Just observe one sunset and then try your damndest to make that observation fit...on an Earth where line of sight to the Sun is never blocked. Pretty basic geometry at work there...doesn’t take a whole lot of effort. Just one of many simple observations.
1
-
@nickmerix2900 Ok, but you’re demanding a consistent answer, from a group comprised of many individuals, all with many different minds and manners of thinking, with many different ways to answer a single question. Then you think because they all answer slightly differently, that this is somehow fishy...it’s thinking in absolutes and not allowing for any nuance. You’re treating a group as if it’s a single individual, who can’t keeps its story straight...as if they all think and respond the same.
The Earth is classified as an oblate spheroid, that has always been its scientific distinction. It is slightly wider at the Equator by a few miles, but a few miles to an object thousands of miles in circumference, isn’t going to be noticeable to the naked eye. Here’s a great video that demonstrates just how slight the deviation really is. https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ It’s such a small difference, that Earth will appear perfectly spherical to us still. But it’s technically not, so scientists just like to be accurate...but with so many different thinkers and so many different ways to describe the little details, you’re going to get a mix of answers.
The general public doesn’t typically know this kind of stuff, because usually scientists don’t care to bore them with little details that don’t really matter, so Earth is just a sphere as far as they knew before. But, the Internet has allowed us a better access to the scientific world, so now they take the time to share more details. Trouble is...it’s easy to get lost in the little details...which is why scientists typically don’t bother.
But hey, you all want to be scientists now, for some reason, which is great and all...but could you learn to stop thinking in black and whites and allow for a little nuance? That’d be great.
1
-
@nickmerix2900 Going back to your satellite problem though. It’s not that simple either. See there’s a few problems here with what you’re asking for. First is that there are two types of satellites, low Earth orbit (which is the large majority of satellites) and geostationary. Low Earth orbit satellites are too close to Earth and thus can’t see all of it at once, but these are typically the satellites designed with cameras that can zoom in and out to great capacity. The satellites in geostationary orbit (thousands if miles from Earth), are not equipped with cameras designed for this, as these are typically communication satellites just bouncing signals, or they are weather satellites monitoring the entire Earths cloud systems. They have cameras for multiple spectrums of light and some zoom capacity, but none to my knowledge are equipped with a camera that can zoom in to the capacity you’re asking for, they usually design the low Earth orbit satellites for these functions, cause it’s easier and therefore costs less.
So it’s not as simple as you seem to think it should be. But here’s something that might help convince you these satellites are actually up there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t This is a group of hobbyists, who build their own radio telescopes out of scrap material. They then use these powerful radio receivers to pull image data from various weather satellites in geostationary orbit. The images they pull should be interesting to you. These are regular people, not associated with this flat Earth discussion in any form, who are regularly pulling images from weather satellites. If satellites are not in orbit right now, then how are these guys able to do this? A geostationary orbit would not be possible to achieve, if the Earth were flat.
Anyway, give it a look sometime, you might find it interesting.
1
-
@nickmerix2900 Did you watch that video I shared that shows you how tiny the difference is? Best you go watch it, then see just how oblate it is. It’s almost perfectly spherical, but technically it is not, so science does not classify it as such. It’s really that simple...I don’t get how this is an issue for you. The pear comment was a bad comparison, even Neil realized that in the very interview he said it in, because if you cared to watch the whole thing, he later redacts that comment and clarifies that it is an oblate spheroid...that is the official scientific distinction.
Boy you guys just hear what you want don’t you. There are several different blue marble images, some are full images taken by a single frame shot, others are composites stitched together by thousands of smaller images. So not sure where you got the notion there was only one image of Earth...there’s probably millions of images currently. Here’s a great archive showcasing the hundreds of photos taken during the various Apollo missions https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 these are some from the Apollo 16 mission, just click the “back to folder” tab at top left to find many more.
You’re thinking in absolutes man, demanding black and white answers from a group mind that is full of nuance. That’s the reality, if we distill the details and look at them objectively, you’re just being bias, looking at only the details that confirm your suspicions and not the whole picture.
1
-
@nickmerix2900 A direct line is always going to be more stable and faster than a signal sent by microwave or radio to a receiver, that can be interrupted by all kinds of different interference along the way. So they will likely always use cables to connect the global network, because it’s faster and a lot more stable. I’m not to familiar with project loon, but I don’t see a problem with a people finding cheaper options to get their internet to remote locations...seriously, do you know how much it costs to get a single satellite into orbit? If we have the technology and it’s cheaper, why wouldn’t we use it? Why does innovation have to become conspiracy? You’re aware we’re an industrial species that invents all kinds of technology to give us options, right?
Very few satellites in orbit are designed and dedicated for wifi...the question is why would you assume satellites are the best way to send and receive internet? You’re forming a conspiracy from your own assumptions and not really considering the logistics, cost and engineering here. Satellites are great and all, but people kind of like their internet faster and uninterrupted. Sending tv data is a lot easier than sending internet bandwidth, satellites are just not the most efficient way to keep internet stable. But, research the Starlink program sometime, cause SpaceX is currently working to make this global network of satellites for internet everywhere. It’s not going to be very good internet though...I’ve been hearing once it’s fully operational, it’s only going to be able to network a couple hundred million customers before it’s at capacity...and that’s between thousands of new satellites they planning on putting up there.
So satellites for internet is a challenge...that’s why it’s never been done. You really should learn more about how things work, before you go running with paranoia and making up conspiracy.
1
-
@nickmerix2900 Yes, there are lots of factors to what keeps a plane curving with the Earth, atmosphere and gravity play there part as well, so nobody is wrong if they’re saying these are also involved. A plane is always contending with gravity, which has shifting gravity vectors and atmosphere is required to generate lift, air gets thinner and thinner the higher you go, so a plane can only fly so high before its reached its limits. The pilot adjusts to keep the plane level with the artificial horizon and the altimeter, which measures the air pressure to indicate altitude. A pilot is constantly adjusting, the adjustments are just so gradual and tiny that it’s never noticed.
Your gyroscope question is a great question, yes, the gyroscopes used in artificial indicators would fall out of alignment, if they weren’t designed with certain extra features that correct them in flight. All artificial indicators are designed with what’s known as pendulous vanes, this is a hinge system that uses gravity to correct the gyro, applying a torque to the gyro that pitches it back to level with the current gravity vector. The fact that these gyros even have this feature, is a pretty good indication that the Earth has curvature. Though to be fair, the pendulous vanes are also on the gyro to correct for gyroscopic precession, which is present in all mechanical gyros, there is no way to stop precession completely in any mechanical gyro, cause there will always exist friction in the gimbles, so pendulous vanes also help correct for this as well.
You can learn more about pendulous vanes with a quick search, to my knowledge all mechanical gyros used for navigation include this extra bit of clever engineering.
1
-
@nickmerix2900 Well, because Earth only rotates at 1000 mph linear velocity, but the Moon orbits at twice that rate, so it’s shadow easily out paces the rotation. Here’s a great simulation of that very eclipse, that I found pretty interesting and useful back when I was first learning about the eclipse https://youtu.be/QFKx4AB3AlQ?t=215. Just watch from where I’ve qued it up for a few minutes. This simulation is to scale, testing various rotation speeds to see if the shadow still outpaces rotation, it does it with ease in every ratio.
See, the trouble I find is that misinformation is rampant today and easy to find, while the actual science is much harder to search and find. When you do find the science, they’re often just quick and sloppy media reports on the basics of the science, and sadly they’re so lacking in information that they’re just not very helpful, in fact they seem to do more harm than good. I think they do more to just insult people’s intelligence and frustrate them...so it’s a problem with the media, creating this growing gap between scientists and the general public.
Anyway, hope you find that model interesting, that content creator is actually pretty great as well, he’s created a lot of simulation models testing various claims presented by flat Earth. He can be a tad condescending, but the effort he puts in is quite extensive, so definitely worth checking out.
1
-
1
-
@nickmerix2900 Ok, but the Earth has a rotational circumference of 25,000 miles...while the Moon has an orbital circumference of millions of miles. So do the math, 1.5 million miles at the orbital rate of 2000 mph...28 days, it’s not difficult stuff. Sure it’s 0.5 degrees, but 0.5 degrees of 1.5 million miles circumference...lot more ground covered than the Earths rotation, even at 15 degrees, cause it’s 15 degrees of only 25,000 miles. The animation is pretty clear, it works out pretty simply.
You are aware the animation is sped up as well, right? It’s too scale only in distances and rates of relative rotation, but the rest is sped up for observation purposes. The shadow easily traces west to east, the animation clearly demonstrates it.
Your counter argument is a poor attempt at trying to ignore and confuddle some pretty basic geometry. Yes the Moon is in a rotational, but the shadow it creates moves in a straight path across, its fastest point where it’s in sync with the Moons linear speed, being at apogee and perogee...the points where eclipse is most likely to occur. So the shadow is moving at the Moons linear speed during eclipse, it is 2x’s faster than Earths rotational rate...hence the shadow, from west to east.
I do appreciate the attempts at falsification here, that’s how science works...but you’re clearly not stupid, so these things I’ve brought up YOU should have easily picked up on. So why are you trying so hard to ignore some pretty easy geometry? You know he also models this for the Flat Earth...do you want to see how badly that model fails at accounting for the west to east shadow? https://youtu.be/wiVyR_uYN2U
So the globe model works, while flat Earth fails...so why would you fight so hard for a model that is so clearly broken? It can’t account for the solar eclipse and we both know flat Earth has ZERO clue how a lunar eclipse is possible. So I’m sorry, but why defend a model that does not fit reality?
I feel you have a strong bias leading you, you’re not stupid, you just really want flat Earth to be true...even though it’s completely nonsensical. I think your bias is a deep distrust of authority and you want this to be true, because if it is, then all your anger and hatred for world government is justified in one go. Makes your life easier, having a clear enemy. The trouble is this desire to be right here, is currently blinding you a bit from objective reasoning.
It’s fine though really, science is all about the process of falsification, so asking questions and digging deeper is absolutely commendable and it does keep us actively searching for answers, which is a good thing, it’s actually the part I admire about flat Earth. I just think confirmation bias is running a bit rampant in the movement, this is not good and it’s the part I do my best to challenge.
1
-
1
-
@amcclenny6 I’m also curious, I’ve yet to come across any flat Earther, with scientific credentials. There’s always a lot of claims made that many are scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc, but I’ve yet to have that claim confirmed. In 6 years of chatting with Flat Earthers on a pretty regular basis in my spare time, you’d think I’d meet or hear about at least one by now…but so far, nothing. So if you are aware of any, I’d be happy to learn of them.
More towards your first comment though, you do touch on the one thing I do admire about Flat Earthers. They’re not afraid to ask questions, and that’s great! That’s how discoveries are made, questions are how we learn, and how we move forward in science. When questions stop being asked, we tend to stagnate. But the problem I see is that questions are often used as more of a weapon, rather than asking the questions to seek an answer for them, they are instead held up as the evidence. Questions alone are not evidence though…flat Earth asks a lot of questions, but they sure don’t try very hard at answering them. That’s the trouble…the questions are assumed unanswerable and then they are held up as the foundation for arguments. Then whatever answers are provided, are simply ignored, in many cases.
It’s sad in some instances, because many of the questions are great physics questions! They’re often the very same types of questions that great scientists of old would have once asked. So it’s a bit conflicting for me, because I’m all for asking such great questions of science! But…when the true intention for asking those questions is not to learn, or too really disprove, but to smoke screen, blind side, or gaslight an opposition…then it’s just a waste of a good question.
Flat Earth I feel suffers from both an inferiority complex and confirmation bias. It’s a bad combination…because it keeps an individual sifting through information with blinders on, while at the same time making them to stubborn and sure of themselves, to listen to any counter positions or questioning of their conclusions. Science learned a long time ago that confirmation bias was a real problem, and it realized that we all tend to fall victim too it. The only real way to combat it…first admit that you’re not infallible, that everyone has bias…it’s why they eventually included peer review to the scientific method. Flat Earthers adhere to no system of peer review…they just assume themselves infallible. It’s pretty typical of minds thinking themselves superior, with a deep desire to prove that they are…an inferiority complex.
Anyway, it’s a point of contention for me, because on one hand I would certainly never want to rob people of their drive to ask questions. But…confirmation bias is very real, and I am seeing a lot of it in the conclusions of Flat Earthers. So that’s why these conversations are important I feel, it’s not always easy to know for sure which side is really falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias, but open civil discussion is a great way to examine things a little closer, in way it’s a form of public peer review, that I think Flat Earth desperately needs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Retrocaus Well, I would think it was a lot easier to make ground breaking discoveries, back in the time when we still knew very little about physical reality. There were a lot of Laws and theories that were pretty obvious, but they still needed to be recorded by somebody...so a lot of those scientists of old were pretty lucky for being first to the party. The deeper we go, the harder it's going to get for anyone to stand out and make new discoveries. We're not dumber then we used to be, it's just that all the easier science and physics has been worked out...and there's so much of it now, that it's getting harder for scientists to be a jack of all trades, because there is just so much to learn that no single person has the time to learn and retain all that knowledge and experience. That's only going to get harder the further we go and the more we learn.
There is also a lot more competition then there was. For example In Newtons time, there was probably only a few hundred scholars, networking and sharing information (thanks in large part to the printing press). Today, there are millions of scientists and experts around the world...good luck standing out when you're just a drop in the ocean.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, it would be nice if more scientists and engineers got their hands dirty and it'd be nice if the builders were learning a lot more science and physics in a laboratory setting, so they knew what they did all day...but they're just different minds. Very few feel comfortable or are capable of being all 3. A modern day renaissance would be nice though...and you'd think it'd have been easier thanks to the internet, but there's just so much misinformation spreading online, it's kind of made it easier for scammers and pseudo intellectuals to thrive then anything else...and that's kinda sad.
1
-
We did not verify gravity first, that came much later. All evidence pointed to the shape of the Earth being a globe, that's where we started, with Earths geometry, it's important not to forget that. They didn't have a concept of gravity back then and they didn't require it, because all observation and experimentation was already pointing to the conclusion of a Globe. Observe any sunset and then try and make sense of that on a Flat Earth, with a Sun that rotates above. Your common sense will tell you, that you would never expect to see the Sun set or rise, if the Earth were flat like this, with a Sun that spirals above. Just one of many simple observations, that don't add up for a flat Earth hypothesis. Here's a couple simple experiments anyone can repeat to help you realize this as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I&t=4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84&t=41s
1
-
@taciupryk EVERYTHING in science that describes HOW something works at the mechanical level, is a theory. Electromagnatism is also a theory, and you currently use it to send signals over wifi connections. You basically forfeit yourself from conversation the moment you say something is "just a theory". By saying that, you are declaring your lack of understanding of science and how it operates. Learn the language of science, a scientific theory is completely different from the regular use of the word theory. Scientific theories are the highest pinnacle a concept in science can achieve, that describes HOW something works. NOTHING graduates past hypothesis and into theory, until it has been verified and peer reviewed. There is nothing higher then a theory in science...they CHOSE that word, for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and will likely never will. So because we don't know everything, as we acquire new information, old information always has the potential to change. That is the real truth of any information gathering of any kind.
Science does not think in absolutes, because it can't...because we will never know everything. But we don't need too...but we do know enough, to be pretty damn certain about many things...we call those things we're certain about theories. That will never change and it works. That's how we get shit done...your computer is proof of that. So stop being so damn ignorant.
1
-
@taciupryk That's exactly what we'd expect to see occur under gravity...a force that effects everything the same, with the same rate of acceleration. I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to argue here? Do you think gravity effects everything differently? Because if you do, then that's where your misunderstanding is and so that's where your error is. So the problem then is not with the theory of gravity, the problem lies with your ability to understand it. You have misunderstood how gravity works...and that misunderstanding is what is now leading you to make false assumptions and claims.
Gravity effects all things equally, at the same rate of acceleration, that's exactly what two objects of varying mass dropped in a vacuum verifies...it's actually a proof of gravity, because that's what gravity predicts under its main tenants. This is how gravity works, that is exactly what it predicts would occur, if the theory is true, so that's what gravity has to say about that observation. Things fall at the same rate regardless of their weight...this means there is a constant force there that effects all things equally. This is a proof of gravity, not a proof against it.
A better question to ask is, how do things fall in the first place, if no force is being applied that puts them into motion? In physics, we know that nothing is put into motion without a force being applied too it, that is a law of motion, the first law in fact. So how do things drop, if there is no force present to put objects into that downward vector path towards Earth? That's a far better question to ask. Density can't do it by itself, because density is just a property of matter...it is not a force. Buoyancy can't do it by itself, because buoyancy is directly caused by the downward force that begins the displacement of matter by its density, it only exists BECAUSE of gravity. So what force is telling matter to fall towards Earth? If not gravity, then WHAT is causing matter to always fall to Earth? WHY do things fall and WHY is it always towards Earth? The best answer I've heard so far from Flat Earth is "it just does"...great...but here's a little wake up call for you if that's the answer you're happy to go with...if science was to conclude everything with "it just does", then we'd still be in the bush trying to figure out how fire works. :/ Do you see how fucking stupid that answer is now? Science knows better...science is looking for ANSWERS, not "it just does". We can't do anything with an answer like that...that's not how invention, innovation and further discovery is achieved.
Do you ever consider the possibility, that MAYBE the error is not with the globe model, but with YOUR own personal ability to understand it? Does that possibility ever cross your mind? Stop listening to huxters on the internet, blindly and without question. All they're doing is teaching you how to more ignorant and incredulous.
1
-
@taciupryk You likely already can deduce that I'm not an astronaut, so of course I do not have my own personal photos of Earth, but you do not require personal photos of Earth to verify it is a Globe for yourself. Anyone can verify the shape of the Earth, with a few simple observations and experiments. Start with a sunset, how does a sunset work on the Flat Earth exactly? I've seen Flat Earth do a lot of jumping through hoops to try and stretch logic here as best they can to make this work, in the end it just amounts to ramming a square peg into a round hole, but at the end of the day, try as they will...it still does not work. Neither does the Southern hemisphere...there are TONS of observations that can be made in the South, that do not make any sense on any flat model of Earth proposed so far. It does not work. The Globe however, answers these all perfectly.
On top of that, modern technology already confirms a globe as well. I've already mentioned this, but every single international network of navigation and communication and infrastructure, uses our current knowledge of spherical shape and scale to make it all possible. We don't put satellites into orbit with Flat Earth geometry and science, we don't navigate the world with flat Earth scale and distance in mind, we don't send communications over a system designed for a Flat Earth. NOBODY is using flat Earth geometry to make the world tick...that should be your first clue.
The only people who think there is a debate about the shape of the Earth...are under educated layman, who have ZERO experience with the broader world and who really don't know much about much. That shouldn't be a coincidence to you.
But here, if you'd like some photos of Earth, here is a great archive of the Apollo missions, one of many you can find online. There are hundreds of photos of the Earth here, taken long before the days of CGI. I especially like the photos from Apollo 13 and 16, they're pretty clear and in high resolution. Feel free to let me know the methods they use to fake these and feel free to point me towards any source that has verified that. I don't mind taking a look.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
If you don't believe satellites are put into orbit, well, here's a group of hobbyists who have build there own radio telescope, using scraps they had lying around. They then use they radio receivers to lock onto geostationary satellites in orbit right now, focusing on the GOES satellites 15-17, which are weather satellites that take high resolution pictures of the Earth in varying filters of the electromagnetic spectrum, to track weather patterns. Just watch some of data they pull from these satellites...then tell me there are no satellites in orbit currently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=280s
Here's a man that tracks several low orbit satellites with his telescope from the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC8g3gj4CAE
I can keep going if you'd like, I don't mind sharing the information that I have uncovered pertaining to this particular argument. I think it's fine to question what you're told, quite logical in fact, but in the 3 years I've been looking at Flat Earth, I have concluded that it is a con job, that spreads among the under educated, who are paranoid about the world around them, because they don't really have much experience with the world around them.
1
-
@taciupryk Ya, mass attracting mass, that's how we understand gravity to work currently. If you're making an argument that because a bowling ball has more mass, it should drop faster, you're forgetting...that the Earth is the larger source of attraction...and it trumps both the bowling ball and feather by a LOT. So if there is any slight variance between the ball and the feather, the Earths gravity will render that difference virtually undetectable.
Yes, but there is a difference between a vacuum and atmosphere, air. In a vacuum you remove the air that would otherwise cause a drag force, air resistance. In atmosphere, there is still molecules of air in the way, so there is air resistance. The object with more mass is going to have an easier time displacing the air and getting it out of the way as it falls, the object with less mass will have a harder time, which slows it down...hence why a bowling ball falls faster than a feather, while not in vacuum. There's also more surface area to a feather, which also makes it harder to displace the air, a better comparison would probably be a plastic ball compared to bowling ball, something with generally the same surface area. But either way, removing the air in a chamber, removes the air resistance, so you can test the acceleration of gravity directly...with nothing else getting in the way. Things fall at the same rate when tested, this confirms a tenant of gravity.
Feel free to point out what I'm misunderstanding exactly. I don't mind challenging what I think I know.
Well good, you believe in satellites, that's a start. Do you know HOW they maintain an orbit? Do you know what keeps them in orbit? Gravity...gravity keeps them in orbit. Without gravity, an orbit is not even achievable...it's very important we know how gravity works and how strong it is here on Earth, or else we could NEVER accurately achieve an orbit with satellites.
"You mentioned sunset. Wouldn't it be earth set on a moving spinning round ball?"
No, it's the Sun that you see rise and set, that would be the case whether you're on a spinning ball or a stationary ball with a moving Sun. That's how relative motion works...you can't tell the difference between stationary and moving...but either way, this occurrence requires the Earth be round, in order for the observation to fit and make sense with reality...and it's the shape of the planet we're arguing here, not its motion. A sunset does not verify the motion of the planet, just it's geometry. The fact is simple, a flat Earth can not account for what we observe the Sun doing in reality. A Globe can, and very easily in fact. Only half the Earth would be able to see the Sun at any given time, the Earth rotates moving the observe from day to night...causing a sunset and sunrise, done, explanation over, no mental gymnastics required. What's sick is that you people know this...you know a Flat Earth can't account for a sunset, while the Globe does it with ease...yet you'll argue tooth and nail anyway.
It's fine though...the true krux to science is falsification, not verification, so at the end of the day, at least SOMEBODY is still trying to falsify things the rest of us have moved on from. But the shape of the Earth is probably the most verified science we have today...so you're just gonna be wasting your time in the end.
1
-
@taciupryk Alright, lets look into that a bit further. If gravity were to work on a Flat Earth, then where exactly is the source? Wouldn't there be gravity vectors all over the place then, going in all sorts of conflicting directions? It's not just that gravity pulls us to the surface, it's also that gravity is consistent and we feel it's pull in a steady vector we call the center of gravity...it's a point at which we can balance anything from. Gravity Vectors and the center of gravity make sense...on a ball with a source of gravity at center of mass, but how does that work on a Flat Earth with no direct singular source of gravity's pull? How would we be able to balance anything, without a center of gravity? Which brings up another great question, one that Einstein was also very curious about, how does mass attract mass exactly? How does that attraction occur and what causes it? These are some questions that are left unanswered by a Flat Earth....maybe gravity could exist on a Flat Earth, but you'd have to account for these questions...but even still, the Earth is observed to be a sphere, it's not just gravity at the end of the day, we have measured and observed it...and that's where we started, we didn't start with gravity, gravity just helps make sense of what we observe.
From what we understand today, mass bends the fabric of space time, which creates a central point of gravity's attraction, which is the source of where all mass is drawn towards. Which makes sense of why the Earth would then be a sphere...if mass collects around that center, then the only shape that could form from a center expanding in all directions outward from that center, is a sphere. Bubbles are doing something similar, as do water droplets, spheres are actually quite common in nature and it makes sense why and how.
The Sun, the Moon, the other planets, all observably spheres as well...and thanks to what we know about gravity today, it helps makes sense of that shape for all of these objects. The Sun is especially interesting, because we now know how the Sun burns, through nuclear fusion reactions of Hydrogen molecules, which is caused by it's own intense gravity, forcing molecules of Hydrogen together until they fuse, which creates Helium and then sheds a massive amount of energy in the process as well. We know we're on the right path there, because we've now created fusion reactions of our own in labs. We learned how to do that, from studying gravity and the Sun...yet another accomplishment we can thank Einstein and his theory of General Relativity for.
So Idk, maybe gravity could work on a Flat model, but it's got a lot of questions to answer for...questions that the Globe model has already answered and that make sense of what we observe in reality even further. So much so that we now use that knowledge in a great many applied sciences, from orbital mechanics that put satellites into orbit, to nuclear fusion reactions, to calculating the escape velocity of rockets, to calculating parabolic arc paths for hitting targets at distances, to knowing exactly where to point the telescopes to capture gravitational events like super nova and black holes, the list goes on and on. Our knowledge of gravity right now goes a lot deeper then most care to look into. Flat Earth has a lot of catching up to do.
1
-
@taciupryk Do I know why the stars remain the same night after night, for seemingly our entire life times? Sure, the heliocentric cosmology explains this pretty simply. There are trillions of miles between each star, while in comparison to those distances, they are just not moving fast enough to close that distance in any noticeable way within our lifetimes.
Allow me to put it into better perspective. The Sun is calculated to be moving around the galactic center at the rate of roughly 500,000 mph. That may seem like a lot to you and me...the microscopic life that sees a mile as a distance of significance, but to the Sun...understand that in one hours time, it has only moved HALF of its diameter in distance. To put that into perspective even more, if you were to pretend like you were the Sun, move your body about half a foot forward in front of you, over the course of 1 hour. That's how slow the Sun moves through the vastness of space...it might as well be crawling. Speed is relative, to something as massive as the Sun, 500k mph, is nothing, it's slower then a snails pace.
Now realize that all the stars are traveling at a similar pace, in the same direction, like cars on a wide lane highway, all going at the same steady speed in the same direction, with trillions of miles separating each one. If even one of those stars were to stop moving to allow us to catch up to it, lets say our closest star Alpha Centauri, which is 4 light years away, which is about 25 trillion miles. Going at just 500k mph, it would take about 5700 years to catch up and close the distance and reach that star at that pace...IF it stood still.
So when you really think on it and start thinking about those vast distances, the heliocentric model again makes perfect sense of why the stars don't appear to move in our lifetime...and I didn't even once mention parallax in that explanation, that effects what we see as well.
If you'd like to know more about the science that verifies the distances to the stars, I can point ya towards that information too if you'd like.
However, the truth is the stars are moving, and any astronomer would tell you that. We have been tracking the stars for hundreds, if not thousands of years now. It is confirmed, the stars are moving...it just takes a VERY long time to notice any shift occur and it varies per star. Generally, the closer the stars are, the more they shift relative to us, this causes a parallax in stars over time, that we can measure...which is one of the methods they use to measure the stars distances to us, the parallax method. So the stars do shift, it is measured and recorded...but unless you're out there each and every night watching the stars and recording them...you will never notice. So it's just more ignorance to say "the stars never move"...are you an astronomer? No? Then how do you know for sure?
But anyway, none of that proves the heliocentric cosmology, it just explains it. But while you're focusing on why the stars don't appear to shift...you're ignoring that there are TWO celestial rotations in each hemisphere, and TWO equal hemispheres, each with their own constellations and stars. Which is another thing the Flat Earth model can't account for...the ENTIRE southern hemisphere.
We observe two different night sky's, one for each hemisphere...this doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a Flat Earth, but it's exactly what we'd expect to see again, on a Globe, with TWO equal hemispheres. Here'a a great video that illustrates this point further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtx5jVLUaU&t=1s
Anyway, hope you find all this information at the very least interesting. I don't take issue with people questioning what they're told, it's quite logical to do that in fact, that's what science is, asking questions...I take issue with them being so ignorant and arrogant and ungrateful towards science...especially while they USE the fruits of science (computers, laptops, wifi, internet, phones), to tell the rest of us...how science is somehow false. :/ At some point, you have to consider the possibility, that maybe you're being a tad bias and maybe even paranoid in your conclusions.
1
-
1
-
Yeesh, chill dude, she’s just offering her opinion. There’s no cited sources or information here, because it’s mostly just meant as an opinion piece, that’s all. She’s an accredited Theoretical Physicist with a doctorates degree, she’s not a flat Earther...so she’s not arguing in their favour, she’s just presenting a case for why academia shouldn’t be so quick to ignore the broader issue here. That being, maybe the current system is doing more to alienate some people, than it is educating them. Perhaps the Flat Earth movement is a warning sign of a greater problem, the current gap that exists between modern science and the general public. I’d say she knows what she’s talking about, she is an actual scientist.
1
-
@digbiffer7672 Consensus through what system? White suburban soccer moms pushing crystal therapy? Con men create the illusion that their science is peer reviewed on consensus...but it's pretty easy to sniff out when they're lying...and the white soccer mom society is not making any BIG decisions on science for a very good reason. That's why we have official peer reviewed systems, to weed out this sort of bullshit. It's not perfect either, but it has a safe guard...in the fact that junk science simply doesn't work. If something doesn't work, there is no objective system of consensus that it would ever survive in. If something doesn't work, it becomes pretty apparent after awhile...and it's in nobody's best interest to cling to concepts that are not working, because we can't engineer, invent, innovate anything with science that just does not work. So at the higher levels, there really is no point for bullshitting, cause it gets us nowhere.
Our current science works, the proof is in the technology we currently have, it got there on peer review and consensus. But don't get me wrong, I do agree a little, sometimes it takes bold steps to look outside of established norms, to think outside the box of consensus, it's the only way to find the cracks really. But you seem to think that doesn't occur in the current system, but I assure you that does happen with the current system. Almost every time we hit a wall in science, people then take a look at what we might have missed. It happens a lot in science, so they do think outside the box quite often actually.
For example, only just 100 years ago the Aether was the agreed upon consensus of the scientific community, they all believed that it existed and to argue otherwise was shot down pretty quickly. That was until Michelson and Morley, conducted an experiment that pretty much falsified the concept of Aether in one go...what should have been a pretty clear cut experiment to verify the Aether drag of light propagation, came back with a null result...it was inconclusive. This was a problem, now there was a very apparent hole in the current established model of science and it was glaringly apparent. It meant we were missing something, and it couldn't be ignored, so this now gave those outside the box thinkers a chance to examine those cracks and find the issues. It rattled the current consensus of the time, but science did what it had too and it looked at the problem objectively until it could be solved.
So yes, I do agree that consensus can make our thinking a bit rigid, which slows its progress down at times, but I do feel it's the best way to solve problems, because otherwise it would just be chaos and we wouldn't be sure about much of anything. Peer review is the most crucial step in science, people lie, cheat, follow bias, mess up and get things wrong all the time, if we didn't have a filter for all that...nothing would be established because everything would be. But when things don't work, it means we're wrong about something, that's the counter to the rigid system of peer review...eventually, we will hit a wall in innovation if we are wrong about something. That gives the inner community of science an opportunity to be bolder and to look at alternatives, so it may be stubborn and rigid but it's not a perfectly rigid system, it does require that it bend on occasion and it does.
My main point is this, what would you prefer they did instead? No system we currently have is perfect, but that doesn't mean we discard it completely for that reason. But we can tweak it and fix the cracks, so by all means, what would you prefer we did instead?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doesn’t take millions of dollars of equipment to verify refraction...with just a pencil and a glass of water, you can verify refraction. https://www.ck12.org/physics/refraction/lesson/Refraction-of-Light-PHYS/ It’s a fact of reality...you see it happen all the time, you’re just not paying attention. Here’s another super easy refraction experiment, this time more relevant to this particular discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t
Refraction is very real, it happens in atmosphere where humidity is greater, namely really close to the surface, and especially over large bodies of water. People need to stop assuming they know everything...if you’re not a physicist or expert in any field relevant to this discussion, then there’s probably a lot you don’t actually know. Stop assuming and start learning.
Here’s another great observation http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment, scroll down to the section on refraction, images 31 and 32 are what you should see, if you honestly believe refraction is a variable we can just ignore. Proof enough for you?
1
-
You’re assuming the air is stationary relative to the Earth, but it actually rotates with it, this is called relative motion, and occurs thanks to the law of inertia and conservation of momentum…the laws of motion, basic physics. It’s not a perfect system mind you, the air is sloshing about quite a lot…what do you think causes the winds in the first place? But for the most part, our atmosphere rotates with the Earth, so this is why we don’t have 1000 mph head winds. All things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force, first law of motion, law of inertia.
There’s also fluid dynamics to factor here. Air is classified as a fluid in physics, so it behaves very similar to any other fluid, sharing similar characteristics like buoyancy and flow currents. Spin a bowl of water, the water will begin to rotate with it at the same rate, because of friction. Gravity creates a similar friction upon atmosphere, which further helps it adhere to Earths rotation.
So there’s physics here you’re not considering. Very simple physics that’s easy to learn and verify for yourself, whenever you choose to do that research.
I hope this information is helpful or at the very least interesting, take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What has it brought us? 🤨An advanced society where food is plentiful and doesn’t rot because of fridges, water and electricity is brought right to our heated homes, we can travel thousands of miles in just a few hours, where the majority of society can read, write, do at least basic math, doctors are at the ready, and population numbers are higher than ever before in recorded history….Ya, seems to me we’re thriving, rather than just surviving.
But go ahead…explain to me how freezing in a cave, running from predators, and chasing down smaller animals on an empty stomach is somehow better. Think I’ll play some guitar and forget about your dumbass opinion. 😄
1
-
@lukaskoblovsky1503 What are you talking about? We have successfully created fusion reactions here on Earth...the reason we can't maintain fusion, is because it requires a lot of GRAVITY, which is something we can not scale down. But Fusion reaction has been accomplished using other methods and here's the thing, we wouldn't have known HOW to create fusion reactions, if we didn't know a thing or two about the Sun and gravity. We know the Sun is made of mostly Hydrogen and Helium...and wouldn't ya know it, the main ingredient in fusion reactions is Hydrogen and when you fuse these atoms together, they become Helium. Isn't that interesting...what a coincidence, I wonder how we knew Hydrogen was the main ingredient in fusion reaction...almost like we know what we're talking about.
You're paying attention to some pretty dumb things and ignoring everything else. Water clings to the surface of Earth using gravity, gravity is real...if it wasn't, then nothing would exist...gravity quite literally binds our planets and our stars together. Vacuums don't suck and the atmosphere is again contained by gravity, going from 14 psi to 0 psi over a gradient...which is exactly what we'd expect to see occur with gravity, matter stacking on top of matter to create pressure until there is no more matter left to stack....then you get space, which is all space is...emptiness. Have you ever seen what smoke does in a vacuum chamber? Or any gas for that matter? It falls to the bottom of the tank, rather than dispersing evenly due to entropy. The bottom of the tank then creates a layer of gas or smoke, while the top...you guessed it, is a vacuum. Which demonstrates atmosphere next to a vacuum...try it some time. Gravity is the container...you block head.
Now, here's just a few things your model ignores. Star Trails for 2 hemispheres, 24 hours sun in 2 hemispheres, path of the Sun in the South rises from a southern orientation, Moon phases that make sense with an orbiting satellite reflecting light back to us from angles, Moon phases would not be the same all around the Earth on a Flat Earth. Lunar eclipses that have yet to be explained on a Flat Earth, Solar eclipses that don't match with what we see when modeled on a Flat Earth, the fact that we use the Globe model to predict solar and lunar eclipses years in advance down to the second and square mile. Flight paths in the south that do not match with a flat Earth, global navigation that uses lines of longitude and latitude designed for two EQUAL hemispheres, the South sees the same stars at the same time...all 3 points (South America, South Africa and Australia/NZ), all see the same constellations at the same time during their winter, the fact that we have detected motion with pendulums, ring laser gyros, gyro compasses and tests done for Coriolis, THE FACT THAT THE SUN AND MOON SET UNDER HORIZON! This is just a small sample of some of the basic things the Flat Earth model can not account for. Many people have tried, but they really have to stretch logic, jump through hoops, misdirect, mislead, lie and bullshit to make these things go away. I can provide links to observations and experiments that support all of these and links to observations and experiments that refute the bullshit Flat Earth claims about these things on their model.
Flat Earth does not work...it can account for a few small variables, but that's it...once you actually model it and compile everything together, it falls apart. This is a fact. You have to ignore a LOT to actually believe it to be reality...while the Globe accounts for every observation. From what we can gather, the only thing that keeps some people from understanding it, is gravity. You can't see how gravity would contain our oceans and our atmosphere...and somehow, people have successfully convinced you that gravity isn't real. And yet...we have created fusion reactions, the same processes that the Sun uses to burn. The Sun does it effortlessly, because of gravity...WE can not scale down gravity, which is why we're having trouble maintaining fusion long enough to make it viable. Currently we're putting more energy into the system, then we're able to produce...THAT is why we don't have fusion reactors right now...BECAUSE gravity is a key ingredient and we can not scale it down. So we're having trouble, because we have to find alternatives to gravity.
Anyway, point is, the Flat Earth model does not work, the Globe Earth does. What people think are holes in our model, are not actually holes in the model...they're holes in their understanding of that model. Personal incredulity and ignorance, nothing more.
1
-
Summary sections of those papers and manuals are not for making statements or for stating conclusions, what they're doing is simplifying the math and letting the reader know exactly what variables will not be included in the math to follow. That's why they'll often read like this "for this next section we will ASSUME we're flying over a flat non-rotating surface". This lets the reader know exactly what variables will not be factored. You will find this a LOT in aeronautics manuals, because they will always include a section for the plane/rockets wind resistance capabilities. They do not need to factor the Earths shape and motion when discussing direct drag force across the body/frame of these vehicles, they're not working on solving problems for Coriolis effect in those sections, so they let the reader know in the summary, what variables won't be included in the math to follow. That's how they're structured...most people don't know this though, because you're not scientists, mathematicians or engineers.
What Flat Earth is doing here is cherry picking information they have no idea how to interpret, because they are not trained in how to read, write or interpret research papers or engineering manuals...but they sure know how to take things out of context and spin a bias narrative on it. Don't just listen to these people blindly and without question...they do this across the board, with every single argument. It's confirmation bias and it's how they con people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jayne Nord Well, your first problem is the math, that’s not the correct formula for making long distance observations. The reason why it’s incorrect is because it’s missing variables. As it is in that form, it’s just a basic parabolic arc equation, it doesn’t calculate a figure that represents an observers line of sight, doesn’t tell you where horizon is and it doesn’t tell you what is hidden from your line of sight due to horizon. It just calculates a drop from a tangent line at your feet...which is going to shoot way over horizon and line of sight, giving you inaccurate figures.
Here’s a blog that can help you with the correct math for these observations. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ And here’s a handy calculator that puts the formula found here to use. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Plenty of observations of curvature actually...the trouble is, Flat Earth has convinced some people to use the wrong math, so now you have some people making
observations, then wondering why the numbers don’t fit. Pretty simple, the math is wrong...and it’s tricky now, cause the moment you try to point out the math is just incorrect, people tend to take it as a direct attack on their intelligence, rather than take the time to see if it’s true. Well, truth is most people are not very math literate...so not hard to feed them half truths and make false claims of accuracy.
Here’s a few great observations of curvature. I can provide many more if you’d like.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3178
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU&t
1
-
Jayne Nord I’m not changing the equation, I’m just telling you that it’s the wrong math to use for the observation you’re making...that’s all. It is missing variables and so it does not give you accurate figures, that is a fact, not an opinion. And you’re not very consistent with your argument, you seem to only accept numbers and mathematics when they suit your purpose and support your bias...and then make excuses for when they don’t. That’s pretty text book confirmation bias...ignoring any facts or information that refutes what you want to believe, rather than remaining objective. Do you see the problem in that? Bias is not how you find truth...it’s how you remain in a lie.
Whether you like it or not we live in a reality that has geometric and physical rules that never change, and that can be measured and quantified. You may not like math, but the modern world wouldn’t exist without it. Just like your computer which is made possible through mathematics, our Earth can be measured and calculated as well...so near as I can tell, you’re just rejecting what I’m saying rather than listening, because you don’t want to accept that I might be right, that Earth is not really flat and you’ve just be conned by an Internet hoax.
I don’t really care about what you want to believe, I’m just sharing the information I feel you’re overlooking. If you’re honest with yourself you won’t just hand wave it aside and ignore it so easily, you’ll learn it and consider it. You’re always free to disagree, can’t force you to do anything...but the only people who make arguments like in your last comment to me, are people who are mathematically illiterate and don’t really know much about it, so they tend to make a lot of ignorant assumptions and excuses.
You are correct about one thing though, numbers can be manipulated to sell an agenda...what do you think Flat Earth is doing when they lie to people and sell them on a parabola equation like 8 inches per mile squared? That wouldn’t happen if you learned some mathematics...the manipulation only works on those that don’t really have much of a clue about what’s being said to them. If you learned even some basic mathematics, you’d recognize pretty quickly that a parabolic equation isn’t going to represent a spherical surface, and it certainly does not calculate a line of sight. So, up to you if you’re willing to learn some basic math, and then see who the real manipulators are.
1
-
1
-
@anymonkey70 People are already allowed to go to Antarctica, they get roughly 100k new visitors every year…yet this conspiracy still persists. I think you should try actually reading the treaty, it’s not a long read, would take you maybe 10 mins…nowhere does it say people aren’t allowed to go there.
The treaty was a peace treaty, signed during a time of global tensions (the Cold War). The US was already scouting it for potential military bases (project High Jump) and the other nations weren’t very happy about it. So the UN stepped in to solve a growing conflict…and it worked. It became one less thing to worry about during a very scary time in history, it helped avoid another war…and nobody wanted WW3 so soon after WW2. The nations of the world were tired, so ya…they were happy to solve a conflict peacefully, in a way that benefitted all.
You can spin paranoid speculations around that all you like, but it won’t change the fact that people can still go there. Filming the midnight Sun in Antarctica is a regular tourist attraction every year, if you live in locations in the far South hemisphere, it’s big business for their tourism industry.
1
-
1
-
Well maybe stop watching videos made by other paranoid, bias researchers that keep you in an echo chamber of information...it's very likely Flat Earth is currently demonstrating the dangers of confirmation bias. A perfect example of WHY science was wise to implement the peer review system.
Have a little more trust in the rest of humanity, to even dabble in the notion that the Earth is Flat, you'd have to believe a lot of people are intentionally lying to you. Teachers, engineers, scientists, pilots, ship captains, military men, surveyors, rescue crews, experts of any kind that rely on our information of the Earth to be accurate...in order to do their jobs at all.
Here's a good proof of a Globe for you, it is pretty common sense that you can not hope to reach a destination, if you do not have a map that is accurate. You think it's hard finding a street address sometimes...try navigating over open ocean, with nothing but lines of longitude and latitude and the stars. Millions of people navigate the world every single day and they all arrive at their destinations like clock work...the fact of the matter is, if we did not know the shape and scale of our planet, then we wouldn't be able to do this....period. It's that simple and pretty common sense. We would not be able to create accurate maps, we wouldn't be able to plot accurate distances, we wouldn't be able to estimate accurate travel times...and so world navigation would fall apart pretty damn quickly. People would be getting lost every single day and almost nothing would ever arrive...but this doesn't happen does it? No, of course not, world navigation is pretty solid. So it's of no benefit to us for one thing, to lie about the shape of our planet, but mostly it throws a wrench in world navigation and you can bet your ass, it would be noticed and it would be corrected. Have a little more faith in your fellow man...none of us trust our government, but it's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
1
-
I’ve talked to hundreds of Flat Earthers now, over a 4 year period. I’ve shared probably hundreds of different experiments and observations that all help to verify a spherical Earth surface, or that help explain the physics and mathematics of the model…and despite my best efforts, it still has not changed anyone’s mind so far. I still like to be optimistic and so I’d really like to agree with you, but my experience so far says otherwise. I don’t feel they’re very interested in seeing evidence, they’re more interested in being right. I feel most conspiracy movements are too invested to turn back, they’d much rather have their biases confirmed. I do my best to be as civil and respectful as I can be, but people really don’t like being corrected…it’s pretty standard human psychology.
I think we all tend to react negatively to counter information to some degree, some more than others, preferring to double down on our positions to save face, rather than consider the possibility of being in error. The sharing of information is often interpreted as either an attack on their intelligence, or a challenge to be overcome, it’s very rare I find a good rational conversation, where the information I share is considered.
So I don’t feel it’s as simple as you’re saying it is. Doesn’t seem to matter what I share or how respectful I am, I think they’d still prefer to ignore me in favour of confirmation bias.
That all said, I do still enjoy the conversation regardless of my lack of success. Regardless of whether I change any minds directly, I do still feel strongly that it’s important to provide counter evidence and information, if at the very least just so potential misinformation doesn’t fly by the radar unchecked and unchallenged. For a group that asks that we question everything, I find they do seem to think that doesn’t include them, so I make an effort to remind them they’re not free from peer review, not in the slightest. I admire their stubborn tenacity and willingness to question things most of us have moved on from, I just feel they could do better in remembering to turn that skeptical lens around on themselves sometime.
Anyway, is there anything in particular you’d like some good evidence for? I don’t mind sharing if you’re actually interested and open enough to actually take a look. So feel free to ask.
1
-
1
-
@Rachie-nj3oi I don’t mean to pester or pry, but going over a few of your videos now, and reading the comments there, you’ve peaked my interest a little more. I see you’re actually quite well acquainted with general relativity physics and physics in general. Even deriving a few of your own equations for an alternative theory of gravity, with the relative density disequilibrium theory, which is a step above most Flat Earthers I encounter (assuming you count yourself as one), so that’s quite refreshing. Sadly, I do encounter so many, not just exclusively FE, that strongly believe mathematics and equations are just a fake system, created by scientists to fool the rest of us peons. So I just wanted to say, it’s refreshing to see that it’s not a shared opinion with everyone within FE. Mathematics are very crucial to the development of the modern world we all inhabit, I feel that’s undeniable considering all that we’ve achieved today with that tool in our belt, so I’m glad to see you would likely agree on that.
I hope I didn’t patronize you with my response, focusing on the basic surface geometry, I just wasn’t well aware on your background at the time. Though I will say, this is a discussion of Earth’s geometry at the end of the day, so rushing ahead to the higher physics has always kind of puzzled me with many of Flat Earth. The way I look at it, is that you can’t build a house without a foundation, so you can’t really expect to build an accurate mathematical model of reality, without a foundational geometry for the model, either. I know you lean to the flat model, so you do have your chosen foundation, but I just feel it is very shaky, not well established, could use a lot more attention. Your videos really do not seem to spend much time on the physical geometry of the model, seems you tend to focus on the higher physics, without really giving much thought to the basic geometry. So I do get the impression you’re rushing ahead a bit, or perhaps you just see it as trivial? Just curious is all.
I just see a lot more effort and thought going into your breakdowns of physics, which I found quite interesting and thought provoking, but you do have a few videos discussing the geometry, which are generally quite short and not nearly as thorough. It’s fine really, if physics is more your avenue of interest, by all means stick to what interests you more. Geometry is more my area of interest and expertise, and I do feel you may be overlooking the geometry, not giving it as much thought. As you know, that’s where science started, they didn’t start with gravity physics (or much of any physics at all), gravity was pondered and worked out long after the geometry had been settled. I’m mostly referring to one video in particular where you discuss the two celestial poles. In it you explain how you feel the opposite rotations work on FE, by describing a model of the sky where both poles rest at 0 degrees to horizon for the entire Flat Earth, and overlooked the fact that in reality both poles only rest at 0 degrees at the Equator, not everywhere at once. There’s more to that point, there’s many more variables overlooked concerning your breakdown of the celestial poles, but my main point here is that I do feel the foundational geometry of your model is quite shaky. I worry you’re a bit too focused on one aspect (the gravity physics) and not very focused on the foundation for your theory (the surface geometry). I feel you’ve just taken Earth being flat as a given, and now focus on just the physics. I find that odd, considering Flat Earth is a discussion of surface geometry at its core…so wouldn’t it be better to start there first?
Gravity physics was helped along, simply by the fact that Earth’s geometry couldn’t be denied any longer, too much mounting evidence all pointed to that conclusion. But then it became pretty apparent that something must be drawing us to that surface, otherwise how do we stay upon a curving surface? So gravity was realized after the fact, expanded from the foundation of the geometry. That’s also what you’re doing for your model, but I just feel you may have skipped ahead, skipping over the part where you verify the geometry for certain first.
It’s no secret that something is missing within our understanding of gravity physics, so I for one am all for people challenging established models, and exploring alternatives. Who knows what we may stumble upon by thinking outside the box, that’s how Einstein did it, by going against the grain. So if physics is more your interest, by all means, I just wanted to remind you that science builds upon itself. You should make sure your foundation is sturdy, before you move onto the finer details. As an artist for a living, I can tell you this is a fundamental error some first time artists make, skipping over the base sketch and rushing to the finer details, before the base is anatomically accurate. They end up wasting a lot more time, wondering why the image isn’t working or looking right, without realizing it’s because their base foundation was sloppy and rushed. Had they put more focus there first, and not rushed ahead, they’d have saved themselves a lot of headache. I feel science isn’t much different. I can only judge by the videos you’ve made, I don’t really know your full background or knowledge, but that’s the impression I got.
On a side note, I also see what you mean now by all the ridicule, yikes! You sure do seem to attract a lot of vile opponents. A lot of the same people really, bit sad that they would devote so much time and effort to piling up on you. Don’t worry, I won’t become one of them, I just found your presentations interesting, wanted to let you know I found them intriguing. I love to learn and general relativity I admit is a part of current physics that perplexes and puzzles me still, so it is interesting to see it challenged and questioned.
Anyway, I’ll leave it at that for now. I hope this is seen as more of a positive criticism, than a negative. I generally prefer offering neutral information rather than critiquing, just found your information interesting. Stay curious and stay safe out there. Have a good rest of your day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay…but that does absolutely nothing to explain what causes the motion of falling, and everything you just mentioned is already included in gravity physics. They’re basically just taking established physics, and cutting out gravity…where’s the sense in that? 🤷♂️ it’s just intentional ignorance, to confirm a bias…it’s pretty obvious. It’s plain ol’ denial, Gravity is not very convenient for their arguments…so they made it go away, by simply denying it exists. How can anyone agree that’s a logical argument? 🤷♂️
The whole point of science is to figure out HOW physical phenomenon of reality works. How exactly can we do that…if we’re just gonna skip the whole process? Falling motion occurs, right? It’s something that our physical reality does, free from our control, so that makes it a physical phenomenon of nature. So it’s the job of science to figure out how it works…can’t really do that if we’re not even gonna try. The relative density argument basically boils down too “things fall…because they do”, great…the heck we gonna do with that information? :/
Here’s the basics; falling is a motion, any change in state of motion requires a force to cause it…nothing moves without a force, it’s pretty simple, that’s physics 101. So, a very obvious force is present…they just gave it a name, because it’s pretty handy to label things, so we’re all on the same page when discussing it. They named the upward motion buoyancy…why can the upward motion have a name and be rightly classified as a force, but the downward motion can’t? You really don’t see how illogical that is? 🧐 Doesn’t seem intentionally ignorant and biased too you?
Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it’s a ratio of mass to volume…that’s it. It has no means of causing motion, in any vector direction. And buoyancy actually doesn’t occur without gravity, proven in countless different drop tests and zero G experiments. That’s also why gravity is included as a key variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. Without that downward motion, density displacement does not occur, gravity quite literally starts the motion, that starts the chain reaction of events, that leads to buoyancy force due to density displacement.
So whether Flat Earth’s argument is relative density or the upward acceleration (which actually is an old argument of theirs), it’s pretty irrelevant…they’re both very stupid arguments. There’s no other way too put it…it’s a very dumb argument, that is very obviously intentional ignorance to confirm a bias. It’s shocking to me that it actually works on people…but that’s what happens when a large portion of society is scientifically illiterate…they’re easily taken advantage of by huxters and pseudo intellectuals. 😔
1
-
@davidsandall Every map is flat, because it’s easier to carry around a 2 dimensional sheet of paper, than it is to carry around a globe. But every flat map is inaccurate, with distortions, because it’s impossible to interpret 3 dimensions on a flat 2 dimensional surface.
No, they do not teach pilots to fly flat geometry, quite the opposite. You’re misreading the simplification being done in the mathematics, of aeronautics flight manuals. These are summary sections, running hypotheticals or removing variables in the math to simplify it, variables that are not required in the section they’re solving. Again, you’re just demonstrating your lack of understanding. You’re taking the summary literally, and that’s not how you interpret a research paper or scientific manual.
Just layman getting confused with things, they do not understand. That’s all that you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@airisming9 If I'm angry at all, it's because people use the technology created by scientists, made possible with their efforts and hard work...to tell the rest of us that science is bullshit...meanwhile you reap all the benefits of their efforts anyway. It's like spitting in the face of a chef, who personally brings you the food and then you eat it anyway and love every bit of the meal he's given you. You're ungrateful and that's what pisses me off. Didn't anyone teach you to have some respect for your fellow man? Maybe your religion perhaps?
I get why you attack science though, you feel it has treated your God poorly, something that brings you purpose and joy. So I get it. But science itself, is not trying to destroy your god...science is just a tool, it has no more agenda than a hammer. It's people who have agendas...people who attack your religion, science just cares about objective truth, how reality operates at the mechanical level...that's it. It will likely never replace God...it can't. I wasn't attacking your faith (originally)...I was pointing out errors I felt you were making, because I feel misinformation shouldn't fly by the radar unchecked...I could care less about what faith you adhere too, it has no place in a discussion of science. It is your bias...and that bias keeps you from learning, just like any bias does.
Here's a fact, most people throughout history, who helped build our current understandings of science, were and are still theists...not the other way around. Deeply religious people, who put that bias aside for a moment, so they could focus on figuring out how reality works. For many of them, it just made them MORE devoted to their God, knowing how powerful and amazing he truly is. What's more impressive, a God that created a small little flat terrarium, or a God that created an endless universe the depths of which we will never fully explore or understand?
Either way, all I did was share information that I feel you overlooked in your conclusions. I don't care what you WANT to believe, evidence is all that matters in a discussion of science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TJ Callaway No, you’re all over the place, I’m not here to discuss the Moon landings and you’re dumping several points all at once, burying me in gish gallop. It’s a disingenuous form of argument, and you’d be dispelled from any actual debate for employing it. Sticking to a single point at a time, would be for instance discussing the atmosphere next to a vacuum question and focusing on just that point. Space is a topic, a big one with many thousands of points within, but you’ll notice when I addressed the point of atmosphere and vacuum, I didn’t stray from that point, I went into great detail on that point and only that point...while you’re asking a bunch of different questions all at once, from various topics and jumping all over the place.
Now, let’s get back on track. Another point you keep bringing up is the equations involving the Suns rays, so let’s focus on that for a moment. You’re claiming that they also work on a flat plain. Ok, show me your math that supports your claim here. Surely you have evidence that supports this claim, right? You’re not just making an empty claim I hope...so show me the evidence that led you to your conclusion here. In the meantime, I mentioned in a prior comment that this only works if you take only two Sun shadow angle measurements...you wanna see what happens when you plot more than 2 angles mathematically upon a flat Earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEw0Fw1qio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=422
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
So you’re lying...or you’ve never actually done the math or examined it yourself. Everything from the Suns path, to its shadow angles, to the eclipses both solar and lunar, to even the simple rising and setting of the sun, the math does not support a flat Earth conclusion, not even in the slightest...but easy for people to lie about the math, when they’re mathematically illiterate and don’t bother to actually do the math. Here’s a couple more simple mathematical observations of the Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t
The Sun is not local, none of the math and observations point to that conclusion.
1
-
1
-
TJ Callaway You wanna talk about working backwards? Let’s focus on the gas next to a vacuum argument again. You started at the end, with the physics of gases and then worked backwards...so it’s not science that is working backwards, it’s flat Earth. Do you think science started with the physics of thermodynamics? No, that’s a very recent discovery in the grand scheme of things. All your arguments so far have started at the end, attempting to work backwards from the physics. Well, here’s a brief history lesson for you, on how science reached its current conclusions. Then we’ll see who’s really working backwards.
First, they started with a Flat Earth, which was largely assumed from one observation, it looks flat. But simple spherical geometry and perspective, makes it very clear that this is a rushed conclusion. The closer you are to a sphere, the flatter it will appear, so the geometry was eventually questioned. The Greeks and other ancient cultures, then verified Earths spherical geometry beyond reasonable doubt, observations of the Sun, stars, planetary motions, as well as mapping the Earths surface and discovering it was curved with two hemispheres (navigation relies heavily on our knowledge of the globe being accurate, and that was true even in the time of the Greeks), these and many more observations led to mankind realizing Earths geometry being undeniably a sphere.
Then, once that was settled, came time to figure out more of the astronomy and physics, we started with a geostationary model, but it was still undeniably spherical. Studying the stars, planets, Sun and Moon a little closer, it was found to be impossible for everything to be revolving around Earth and repeating these observations and doing the math is very basic stuff astronomers learn today. The math of geocentric Earth does not add up, so it was discovered that Earth revolves around the Sun, at this point it is also undeniably true. Just learn some basic navigation sometime, using stars, sextants and geodetic conversions...then you’ll learn that.
So the geometry was settled first, but this did create a lot of further questions pertaining to physics, like for instance the motions, how are we moving? How does everything stay to the surface? Stuff like this, was still relatively unknown 400 years ago, but the shape of our planet and it’s path around the Sun, was settled science, all from pure observation and recorded data.
See...they weren’t working backwards, they were working forwards, slowly improving upon prior knowledge. Flat Earth is where they started, it was quickly falsified after it was demonstrated that it did not fit with observations...as they still don’t today, which is why I’m trying to bring you back down to Earth, to start with the geometry. Don’t know why you people jump immediately to the physics, when this is a discussion of geometry, but whatever. So Flat Earth was discarded for the model that could explain observations, a Globe shape. From there it was geocentric, but even this was soon falsified after the motions of the other planets were found to orbit the Sun, which also helped explain our orbit.
Now to the physics. It’s clear that there were many things that were certain within physical reality, that motion is relative and things fall when you drop them, so the laws of motion and the law of gravity were penned. Now, understand that nothing becomes a law in science until it has been adequately tested beyond reasonable doubt. These two laws in particular helped explain the motions of our planet, and helped explain how everything stays to our planet. Though gravity did more than that, it explains planetary orbits, it explains planetary and star formation, galaxy formation, how stars burn...gravity was one of the most pivotal discoveries in all of science, because when gravity was realized, hundreds of mysteries of physics and astronomy began to fall like dominos. So it’s not just some theory...it explains almost everything, it gives us answers, where flat Earth science just created questions (and still does). It’s also an observed fact, things fall when you drop them, always towards Earth.
Thermodynamics was also penned around the same time, but it’s never contended with our atmosphere, because physicists understood that it had to do with energy transfer, not matter transfer (which is what Flat Earthers misunderstand about entropy). Then the gradient pressure of our atmosphere was measured and it pretty much sealed the science, it all fits. Gravity holds atmosphere to surface, it creates this pressure gradient, no barrier is required, no laws of thermodynamics are broken. Science has gone on to verify that further with all our space exploration...though I get that you ignore and deny all of that, though again, weather balloons have been sent up many times...and they always pop once they’ve reached vacuum conditions. So empty space confirmed, while still no dome barrier found.
So, that’s a history lesson...now tell me, where exactly did science work backwards? This is a forward progression...not a backwards recession. Science started with a flat Earth, it was soon falsified...that’s where they started, with the geometry.
It’s YOU who are now trying to work backwards. You’re starting in space, with things like the Moon landing and atmosphere next to a vacuum...and that’s not where science started. You’re working backwards...and it’s incredible to me you actually believe it’s the other way around. By your logic, if the Moon landing is fake, then space is also fake...and no, that’s a huge leap in logic. Even if the Moon landing was faked, it doesn’t mean space is fake and it certainly doesn’t mean Earth is flat either. You’d still have to prove both of those conclusions, you’re work isn’t just magically done, because you’re convinced of these and other conspiracies, built mostly from paranoia and endless speculation.
Simpletons think in absolutes like that...working backwards, thinking that if even one flaw can be found it means we start over...so don’t confuse your method of thinking for how science reached its conclusions. No, that’s not how science works I’m afraid, we don’t just throw the baby out with the bath water. And you haven’t found any flaws either, just a great many misunderstandings of basic physics. These “flaws” you think you’ve found, aren’t really flaws at all...they’re just YOUR own personal misunderstandings.
So I think you really need to reanalyze your argument, cause YOU are the one starting at the end, and working backwards. It’s not our problem if you skipped science history and are not aware of how science reached its current conclusions, but they didn’t start with the physics, they started with the geometry and worked from there.
1
-
TJ Callaway Ok, you can’t just make empty statements like “the Moon and all other planets are their own luminaries” and then be expected not to prove that claim. This is why nobody takes you people seriously, you just blast off a bunch of empty claims in rapid fire, speaking as if they’re facts, and then provide zero evidence to support those assertions. When you make a claim, doesn’t matter what it is, you then have a burden of proof...but you clearly don’t give a shit, just saying whatever fits your bias, no work needed to prove any of it, skip the hypothesis and testing and go straight to conclusions. And then you honestly expect anyone to believe you?
Now, I’m sure you’ve “tested” these things or at least done third party research on these topics...but don’t you think it’d be nice if during a debate with someone, when you make a claim, you also share some links to some information that led you to that conclusion? Do you think people should just listen to you blindly or something? Would you?
Luckily for you, I’ve researched the same stuff you have, so you don’t have to share...I’m just pointing out how pointless it is to debate with a person, who doesn’t feel they have any burden of proof for their claims. Have you noticed, whenever I made a claim, I then also shared some information that led me to that conclusion? Sure would be nice if Flat Earthers could do the same sometime. :/
Now, on to those claims. No, the Moon does not have a cold light, this is a perfect example of layman conducting sloppy experiments and then reaching bias conclusions. I’ve seen these “cold Moon light” experiments you’re speaking of...and I’ve never seen any Flat Earther conduct a control experiment along side their main experiment. If you’re not familiar with a control experiment and why it’s relevant, it’s basically an extra experiment you run to help control for any hidden variables that might also render you the same results as your main experiment. In any experiment, you’re trying to isolate the independent variable, control experiments are often crucial for helping you do that.
So, what’s a good control experiment we can do for the Cold Moon Light experiment? Well, a good one would be to run the experiment again, on a night when the Moon isn’t out, like during a New Moon phase. Because the claim is that the Moon light is cold...but what happens if you get the same results, on a night when the Moon isn’t out? Well, it’s pretty simple, if you get the same results regardless of whether there is moonlight or not, then you really can’t conclude that it’s moonlight causing this effect, it’s likely from something else.
So here’s an example of this experiment done with proper controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t The result is pretty clear, the same cooling effect occurs on a night when the Moon isn’t out...so I’m afraid you really can’t conclude that it’s the Moon causing this effect.
This is why we have peer review in science...because people can and will make mistakes in experimentation. Flat Earth merely demonstrated how bad they are at conducting experiments...doing only so much as to confirm a bias they have and then doing nothing further to question and review their own work. Upon peer review of this experiment though, it’s not the moonlight causing this effect, it’s more than likely radiative cooling. More experimentation can be done of course, to truly isolate that conclusion, but one thing is clear, the Moon does not produce a cold light.
Even if it did though...how exactly would that prove it is its own luminary? Still a bit of a leap in logic to me...like you’re just slotting in the answer that you like. You barely have enough after that conclusion to form a hypothesis around for further testing...but you’re just skipping right to the conclusion that the Moon is it’s own luminary, from one poorly conducted experiment. Skipping peer review, skipping the proper protocols of recording your findings...it’s just incredible how lazy the Cold Moon Light experiment truly is. Not to mention the laws of physics this would break. Seriously, what light do you know of that makes things colder? Light is basically a bundle of energy, and energy is what creates all the heat in the universe. Cold is just the absence of thermal energy...cold isn’t something you create, cold occurs when you take energy away. So how would that even be logical, that light (which is basically energy) could remove energy and make things colder? Kinda breaks physics a wee bit, so it’s really not logical at all.
You guys are really stretching logic on that one I’m afraid. In truth, it’s just another sloppy experiment from flat Earth, designed to confirm bias, nothing more.
As for the planets...what you said is probably the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard. The planets are not like the other stars...not even in the slightest. If you focus the planets properly through a telescope, they will have recognizable features, that none of the stars have. Planets have there own shadow phases, their own distinct surface features, some have rings, some have Moons...like, you’re completely out to lunch, if you honestly think a few out of focus images of planets is going to falsify what we know about these celestial bodies. Learn to focus the planets, then you’ll notice they’re not anything like the other stars. Here’s a couple videos that can help you out.
https://youtu.be/fj-P031VlbU?t=349
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQYbtzsnQ3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICIKYn5w4w&t
I’m sorry man, but you have to be an absolute idiot to fall for those out of focus planet videos, that claim they’re the real photos. Focus the planets correctly and you will capture their many features. Learn some basic Astrophotography...you’re just gonna make yourself look like a fool if you argue that planets are just blurry lights like all the others.
I think we’re done here...you’ve got nothing new to show me, and your arguments are empty and just sad. Just another sucker who fell for a hoax on the internet, so I don’t see any reason to continue further.
1
-
@tjcallaway7524 Learn to navigate, just using the stars, lines of latitude and longitude and geodetic conversions...and you can prove the Earth is a sphere for yourself. Travel to the South and observe the different night sky, and the second celestial rotation of stars, and you will verify Earths spherical geometry. Run a controlled test of curvature like the Bedford Level experiment, using proper geometric calculations, and then you will verify the Earths true shape. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Actually pay attention to the world around you and you’ll find proof of the Globe everywhere, no third party research or information required. Just takes a little time, effort and travel and a few simple observations. The experiment I shared above is easily repeatable, and there are many others that are even easier.
I can share tons of evidence for the Globe with you, but you didn’t shut up long enough for me to do so...just kept dumping claim after claim, so that’s where I focused. You made claims, so I pointed out the errors in those claims. Flat Earth makes lots of empty claims, it has filled the gaps in people’s knowledge with bullshit, so I was focusing on dispelling that bullshit, but if you want me to shift gears and offer evidence for the Globe, I’m more than happy too do so. Science didn’t just reach that conclusion from nothing...as you’ve been led to believe.
I won’t drown you in gish gallop though, start with that link above, it’s more than enough for now. What I’ve shared above is an actual research paper experiment, notice how thorough it is? Controlling every known variable, isolating the independent variable (in this case surface curvature). The conclusion is quite conclusive...Earth is curving and at the rate that it should be given our scale. I’ll share much much more if you’re interested...you won’t see this kind of evidence from any flat Earth channels on YouTube, so if you’re interested, I don’t mind sharing. That one has been repeated many times over the years, and it is fairly simple, though does require more effort. I’ll share a few simpler observations and experiments next time...if you’re interested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@diannehogan7605 Actually you are correct, I'm Aquarius, best times to view my constellation are in October, but I'm born in February. Thanks for pointing that out, good to correct these things if they're wrong. However, my main point still stands. The Zodiac constellations are classified as seasonal constellations, as they're only view able during certain times of the year. The point is, seasonal stars are a great bit of evidence that supports the heliocentric model, because it's what we'd expect the night sky to do if our Planet orbited the Sun. But thanks again, I did research this awhile ago...but obviously I didn't go deep enough and I should have. Aquarius can still be seen in my region during February, but it's not the best time of year to view it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marquism2920 Well, no, a scientific theory is very different from a regular theory. Nothing becomes a scientific theory without first being verified with evidence…lots of it actually. But no…fluid dynamics is not really theory, it’s actually more rooted in the laws of science, in the conservation laws. Wind is just fluid motion, molecules of atmospheric gas, caught in a current like motion. It’s proven science…you can verify it at anytime you choose to do the research, and learn what everyone else already knows.
As for Big Bang, it’s a lot more complex, but it absolutely does have evidence….but if you’re not even well read enough on something as simple as how the wind works, then I don’t expect you’ll understand more advanced physics like Big Bang cosmology. But look up the 4 pillars of the Big Bang sometime anyway, if it really interests you.
I’m just saying, there’s a lot you don’t currently understand. I hope this information is helpful though.
1
-
The United Nations represents all nations of the world...and not surprisingly, you can not represent all nations of the world with ONE side of a Globe. So instead, they use a flat map of the Globe, so that all nations are included on the map. As an artist who has spent several years designing things such as logos, I can tell you that they used the AE projection of the Globe because it uses a triad symmetry, which is a VERY appealing symmetry and is quite common in logo design. So, the map is a clever design, it includes all the nations of the world AND it is well balanced and pleasing to the eye. If I was designing a flag for the UN, I would probably think to use a similar layout. So if you think this is some kind of evidence for a Flat Earth...I would say that you are just chasing patterns that are not there...which is quite common for us humans to do, we are very good at seeing patterns, even if there are no reasons for them. I believe there is even a term for that in psychology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CalsTube Why would you think space should be lit up? Space is an empty vacuum…and light requires physical matter to be reflected off of for it to illuminate an area. This isn’t difficult…I’m sorry, but every argument you make is just terrible, always lacking some detail…most of the time details that are pretty common sense.
What’s worse is that there’s no tangible evidence for this firmament you believe is up there. Meanwhile there’s actual evidence of space…we’ve been there, physically, several times. Even if you don’t agree we have, I’m sure you’re aware of the pressure gradient in our atmosphere…which is exactly what we’d expect to measure with an atmosphere created and contained by a field of force such as gravity. And I’m sure you’ve by now seen some of the videos of weather balloons, some launched even by Flat Earthers. Did you ever happen to pay attention to the end of these videos…where the balloons eventually pop, as they’re designed to do once reaching vacuum conditions. So even flat Earthers have detected the vacuum of space, but you know what they’ve never found? A container.
It’s no secret why you fell into believing the Earth is flat, because it helps confirm your religious bias. Makes it very difficult to take any of you seriously, when it’s painfully obvious why you lean towards such nonsensical conclusions, that defy common sense, and ignore reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
NASA gets pennies compared to the military...maybe look up their annual budget sometime, you’ll shit yourself. NASA has thousands of research facilities all around the world, you think it’s cheap to staff and power these facilities? Not to mention every rocket they launch is upwards of half a billion to pull off, have you been to a rocket launch...they’re very real alright. So not a very good money making scheme I’d say, with what they earn from the annual budget, they’d likely be struggling every year. Meanwhile...real scientists and engineers are working at NASA, real people, who you can talk to at almost anytime and learn about the things they’ve created for the benefit of society...but I see you’d rather jump on the online speculation train instead, so I doubt you’ll ever take the time to actually contact any of these people.
NASA is a research and development organization...any country that hopes to thrive, HAS to fund the sciences, in some form or another...or they’ll be left in the dust by the country’s that do put resources into science and R&D. It’s necessary, for any nation that wants to be at the top.
How do you know they don’t allow companies to map Antarctica? Have you tried? Is this something you have actual experience with? Lots of scientists and research bases there right now...you can even work at these bases as a labourer, so maybe actually go there before speculating endlessly again?
Stars do change, any amateur astronomer will tell you that, it’s common knowledge among those who actually spend there nights tracking the stars. The reason they take so long to shift, is because of parallax, which has to do with scale. Understand that these massive speeds everything is flying around at in space, are only great speeds to you and me, the microscopic life living on a spec of dust in the vast cosmos, that thinks a mile is a great distance. For example, the Sun is travelling at roughly 500k mph, but please realize that its diameter is twice that, so in 1 hours time, it has only moved half of its own diameter. To put that into perspective, over the span of 1 hour, move your body half a foot forward...wow, really moving fast aren’t you. It takes 230 million years for our solar system to make one complete orbit around galactic center...I hope you can agree, that’s a long time. In the grand scheme of things, the stars and planets are barely moving. Learn a little about the scale you’re dealing with here, it matters.
Maybe take your own advice and use that grey matter, and stop falling for every con and hoax on the internet...at the very least, learn the difference between speculation and evidence. You have some good questions, but questions are not proof...don’t assume that just because you don’t know the answers right away, that it must mean they can’t be answered.
1
-
@bane3991 The trouble is that conmen do exist, and they understand that you don’t have to win a debate to push pseudoscience and bullshit, you just have to get yourself an audience. Debating a celebrity scientist like Tyson, is damn good publicity, and it’s basically free advertising. So scientists, especially celebrity scientists, actually have to be careful not to be baited by potential conmen.
They have a sort of unspoken policy for that reason, where debates should only occur between other accredited professionals, people who have earned the right to debate science, by earning a degree in science, and having years of actual field/lab experience, in their chosen field. Debating science with layman is greatly frowned upon actually…and Dubay is no scientist, he’s just a Yoga teacher on a beach somewhere, who learned the tricks of hypnotic suggestion, and raps about his love of Hitler.
Tyson could probably easily win a debate with him, if he prepped enough to know his opponents arguments (and yes, he would have too prep first, because flat Earthers do fabricate their own science, so it’s not always clear what they’re talking about) but Dubay’s goal wouldn’t be to win the discussion, he wins just by obtaining the free exposure…he’s already won just by getting the millions of listeners he couldn’t achieve otherwise. Don’t have to convince everyone, just a few…that’s all a conman needs. For that reason, scientists must be very careful who they engage with.
1
-
They’re good questions sure, because they are the same sort of questions pretty much all scientists and experts ask when first learning their craft. But most people don’t ask these questions...cause most people aren’t scientists, most people aren’t engineers, mathematicians, astronomers, etc, so most people generally live life with no experience or interest in these things...until some conspiracy nut comes around looking to exploit the gaps in people’s knowledge and fill them with half truths and misinterpretations.
It’s fine to question things, but it really doesn’t seem like you’ve been attempting to find the answers to these questions. A lot of them are just basic physics knowledge, physics that’s pretty easy to learn and demonstrate, answers to these and more are just a quick google search away. So have you really bothered to try, or have you just been watching flat Earth conspiracy videos from people who also are not experts in any relevant field, and who also couldn’t answer these questions? If you really think scientists and experts can build everything around you...but they couldn’t figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet, then you might be a little delusional.
Someone has already answered your questions here, but if you’d like a little more info, feel free to ask. You should always consider the possibility that you could be getting roped in by a clever online hoax, so don’t forget to turn that lens around and take the time to question the flat Earth model as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Except they’re not the oldest writings on Earth, we have writings from cultures all around the world that predates the Bible, some by thousands of years. Your religion isn’t the oldest religion, Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion (roughly 4000 years)…but there’s been plenty more before that even, the Egyptians, Sumerians, Mayans, all had their own spiritual and religious beliefs, all predating Abrahamic religions, by thousands of years. And a lot of what you just said isn’t even mentioned in the Bible. Point me to the Bible verse that says Moonlight is cold. Speaking of testing things, here’s an experiment that falsifies that claim btw https://youtu.be/zLsZwp4RWWg.
You continue to dodge the real point here; where’s the Bible verse or verses that explains why things are attracted down towards Earth and why it’s a consistent rate of 9.8m/s^2 for all matter? Is there a Bible verse going into great detail on buoyancy force and what causes it? Did God ever mention the electromagnetic spectrum…that you’re probably using right now to send and receive your wifi data, to read this message? Any mention of the atom and how to split it? Any mention on bacteria and the cellular life that comprises all living things? Nope…not a word of it…just a bunch of false claims, that have since been proven wrong.
You just don’t seem to get it…God didn’t create your computer, man did, and we achieved this technology (as well as many others), by doing the work ourselves, acquiring knowledge of physical reality ourselves. God was certainly no help…if anything, you people have slowed us down, and you continue too to this day. That’s the reality…you blindly believe a fiction, without proper evidence…then you expect the rest of us to just nod and agree, no questions asked. :/
Where’s the tangible empirical evidence for this dome you believe is up there? Feel free to share some, cause while you may blindly believe words in a book without evidence supporting it, the rest of us require evidence. What evidence is there of geocentrism? Cause I could share mountains of evidence for the heliocentric model.
This is why there’s really no point talking to biblical literalists…you’re not here to have an open minded discussion, you’re not interested in the actual evidence or facts, your mind was shut long ago and doesn’t matter what evidence anyone provides you.
Sorry bud, but it’s pretty clear your religion has blinded you from the real world…and that’s the problem. You’re not really looking with any intellectual honesty, you’re filtering all information through your Bible first, and it’s given you tunnel vision. You’re chasing confirmation bias towards the conclusion you want to be true, it’s no secret, it’s painfully obvious.
You are wasting your time here.
1
-
1
-
@eddiezweifel3652 Alright, enough dick waving then, personally I'd rather not talk down to people, I'm just human and I have an ego I need to feed, so ya, it did feel good...but I know it's just perpetuating the problem by alienating you further...so honestly I'd really rather not. It's not worth it in the end, so I apologize. There's nothing wrong with questioning what you're told, in fact it's quite logical...I just personally feel you're reaching some false conclusions currently and I would like to point out where I feel those errors are. I'm not new to this discussion and I have a lot of information I can share that might be interesting to you, at the very least.
So let's just focus on the science and leave our dicks at the door if you want. I'm more than willing to shift gears into a more civil tone if you'd prefer and just discuss the information. I'll drop my shield if you do. Currently I feel you have reached a false conclusion, but feel free to prove me wrong, I don't mind putting what I think I know to question, so long as you don't mind doing the same.
So you seem to think the spinning of the planet is a problem, so why do you feel this is a problem? Let's start there, if you want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ramonortiz7462 Okay, I’ll try one more time to help ya out, with a different approach. Let’s take two latitudes, the equator and the 60th North parallel, which is roughly half the circumference of the Equator. We’ll round everything up to make it simpler; so Equator at 25,000 miles, 60th N latitude 12,500 miles. Equator with a linear velocity of 1042 mph, 60th N at 521 mph.
So, 521 miles is 4.168% of 12,500 miles. Now just convert that to a decimal to find degrees; multiply 0.04168 by 360 degrees to find how many degrees 4.168% of 360 degrees is, you get 15 degrees. Oh…would you look at that, the same 15 degrees per hour as the Equator…and it’s not difficult to understand why, because they’re on the same surface, rotating at the same rate of rotation, 1 revolution every 24 hours. Pretty simple. 😄
You are wrong, time to realize that and accept it.
1
-
Who do you think you’re fooling, seriously? YOU are the flat Earther, it’s pretty obvious…question is why hide it? 🧐 Gotta lie to flerf I suppose.
The independent variable in most experiments involving observations of celestial objects such as planets, is time. Look it up sometime, time is a very common independent variable used for many experiments. So if you weren’t aware, now you are.
No, the Cavendish experiment is not debated by scientists today, it’s long been settled and it’s very easily recreated today. The only people who contest it today are not scientists, they’re layman who pretend they know what they’re talking about.
The oscillation occurs because of the tension in the string, it’s impossible to remove that tension entirely and it easily trumps gravitational attraction at a point, hence the oscillation…but you measure the average angle of the oscillation, and the rate at which it occurs, to find the constant. Electromagnetic forces are easily ruled out, by simply changing the objects used in the attraction (every material reacts differently to static and electromagnetic attractions, but the oscillation in the cavendish is consistent regardless of materials used, and there is no repelling, only attraction, which rules out electromagnetism), and by using a faraday cage/screen which negates static and electromagnetic attractions. So you’re lying again…electromagnetism is controlled in the experiment. You must have a very low opinion of science if you honestly think they never thought to control for other attractive forces. 😑
Buoyancy is caused by gravity…this is basic physics, proven in countless drop tests. That’s also why gravity is included in the formula for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, a ratio of mass to volume…it can not cause motion. So again…just more bullshit.
The fact that you have to lie to hide what you are…only points out and solidifies the deceitful nature of Flat Earthers. Quite ironic for a group that often considers themselves “truth seekers”.
1
-
Just to add to that as well, Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not an experimental physicist. It wasn't his job to prove his theories correct, that was the job of experimental physicists. His job was to draw up the blueprints for what could be possible...that's all a theoretical physicist does, they are the sketch artists of science. I don't think I need to explain to you how important a blueprint is for building a house...it's the same thing in science, we have to start somewhere, that was Einsteins job.
But several of his theories were proven correct during his lifetime, by other scientists, starting with the Eddington experiment of 1919 that shot Einstein to fame. He was also alive to see the atom successfully split using his famous equation E=mc2, he was alive when they proved red shift in stars and time dilation in upper atmosphere that all satellite technology now uses...and since his passing they've proven many of his other theories correct time and time again. In fact almost every time they set out to falsify his theories...they just verify them more and more each time, which is rare in science for someone to achieve that level of work that stands the test of peer review for this long.
Point is, we don't just blindly embrace what he said...it's just that he's been proven right over and over so far, we have not found any reason yet to doubt his work. That's not from lack of trying.
1
-
The Earth is photographed, in its entirety, around the clock daily, by geostationary weather satellites in orbit…so not sure what you’re talking about, there’s probably millions of photos at this point. Look up the Himawari, GOES, EPIC and many other satellites currently photographing Earth.
We haven’t been back to the Moon in 50 years because we really had no reason too and it was far too expensive. So it’s a simple matter of interest vs cost. It costs too much, and there wasn’t as much interest, so no new missions…it’s not a difficult thing to understand.
But now that private industries like SpaceX have helped in the development of reusable rockets, dropping the average cost of a single launch from half a billion to about 60 million (a massive decrease in costs), it’s now become FAR cheaper to do missions like this. So guess what, they are going back soon, just look up the Artemis program sometime. The plan is to build a refuelling base for future missions in deeper space. It’s always been something they’ve wanted to do, but until recently they really didn’t have the technology to do it, too costly and dangerous, so funding was cut and placed elsewhere until the tech could catch up with ambitions.
It’s fine to wonder, but jeez…why does everything have to be a conspiracy with people? Questions and speculations aren’t evidence, especially when there’s logical answers to those questions and actual evidence against speculations.
1
-
@trendynow1369 No, the satellites I shared are all geostationary…meaning not in low Earth orbit, meaning they’re not composite satellites. They’re far enough out in orbit, that they take full shots of Earth in a single shot.
They didn’t lose the technology, they destroyed the old modules, cause they were old, obsolete and not safe for use anymore. And since no funding was going into any new moon missions, they were not actively developing new modules, so they didn’t have any around the time that interview you pulled that quote from was released. But now they do, again, look up the Artemis program, they have new missions planned for as early as 2024.
YOU need to wake up, and stop listening blindly to every conspiracy YouTube documentary that pops into your feed.
1
-
1
-
@trendynow1369 They’re not lying, you’re just grossly taking quotes out of context, and taking them far too literally. You’re acting as though ONE scientist, who maybe chose his words a bit poorly, somehow speaks for ALL of NASA. It’s called confirmation bias, you’re not really looking at the nuance of what’s being said, just focusing on what confirms your bias and then ignoring all other inquiry. He’s not lying, they did destroy all the old modules and they did not put funding towards building any more (at that time). So where’s the lie in what he said? 🤷♂️
Here’s the truth, you WANT there to be something fishy in what he said, so you choose to see it that, over exaggerating the words, spinning it into conspiratorial nonsense. That’s the reality, YOU are creating the conspiracy from your delusions. That’s the reality here. At that point, it doesn’t matter what I say, I’m not speaking to a rational person, just a paranoid delusional.
1
-
1
-
@trendynow1369 Yes, and I see your logic and I entertained it (though all you did was make claims and ask questions, which is not evidence, so wasn’t really much to entertain) but I found many reasons to see it as nonsensical, so now I’m sharing those insights. Do you think I should just listen blindly to a stranger online and never question what’s said? Would you?
I absolutely see why conspiracy’s like this are so alluring for many, it’s within that sweet spot of; governments lie + very few people have actually been to space = endless room to speculate. I personally prefer to not chase speculations and paranoid hop scotch. I prefer actual evidence, speculations and empty claims are not evidence, so I do not follow them to conclusions. I can entertain them and listen to them, but I will not chalk them up as evidence until they are verifiable. It’s that simple.
I’ve shared many sources that verify satellites are in orbit now, sharing actual evidence…and all you’ve done is ignored them speculated on them further, so who’s really not entertaining a position? It’s a very real possibility that flat Earth is an online hoax, pushed by con artists, that knows how easy it is to push misinformation online, because they have no oversight or peer review system. Do YOU, in all your superior intelligence, ever entertain that possibility?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ITpanda Uncloak the Bigfoot species...wow...now I’ve heard it all. Really gonna throw out the batshit arguments right outta the gate huh. Now I know you’re joking.
But, again, in case you’re not, If you understand the psychology of object permanence...then I assume you’ll have no trouble understanding my calling bullshit, on that one. Never seen a Bigfoot...so there certainly isn’t any permanence in my mind for that object. 😅 So shouldn’t be very surprising to you, that I have effectively NO reason at all to believe you, so I’m not going too. But I do know how microwave transmissions work...and I’ve seen no studies or science, that show cell towers can control our minds. Meanwhile, I’ve seen plenty of evidence suggesting that the claims for brain manipulation through these towers, is just made up paranoid bullshit. Because it seems people are losing their fucking minds these days.
If you really do believe that nonsense, then wow. But feel free to try and convince me, but you’ll have have to do better than just dumping empty claims on me, cause it ain’t gonna do much I’m afraid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gravity…there, that wasn’t so hard. Gravity contains our atmosphere, just as it contains you and me to the surface. Gas has mass, so it’s not free from gravity, nothing with mass is. We know this, because we measure a pressure gradient, going from most pressure at surface to least pressure at higher altitudes, which is exactly what we’d expect to measure, with gravity. It’s the same reason the ocean pressure increases as you go deeper, because the weight from all the water above, is pressing down on the water below…because of gravity, which creates a pressure gradient. With no other forces of attraction present in space around Earth, everything is drawn to the only force that is present, the gravity of Earth.
“Most intelligent scientist”…what are you talking about though? 🤷♂️ Intelligence is a spectrum…there’s really no such thing as a singular individual who knows everything and is good at understanding everything. You ask a biologist or a zoologist questions about the atmosphere…and odds are pretty good they’re not going to know much about it, it’s not their field of expertise. Ask an astrophysicist, or a meteorologist, and they would know, that’s part of their field of study. So what kind of scientist was it, and where exactly are you getting this from? 🤷♂️ If there’s one thing that’s prevalent amongst Flat Earthers, you all sure love to lie a lot…so pretty hard to take you at your word. Got a video link or something that backs up what you’re claiming?
Some people have this strange notion, that anyone with the title of scientist, knows everything or claims too…which is a pretty damn stupid assumption.
1
-
@hellothere3250 No, idiots deny gravity, while providing zero falsification against any of the evidence that verifies it, all so they can confirm a bias belief they developed, from being conned by huxters online, who exploited your lack of basic scientific knowledge. Denial is not an argument, it’s just plain ol’ ignorance. :/
Where’d you get this conclusion you require 6 feet of concrete to pass through the belts? 🤷♂️ In reality, the Van Allen Belt really isn’t as harmful as you assume it is, so long as you don’t spend too much time inside it, as in several days. Astronauts on each Apollo mission were only exposed to the belts for a few hours, receiving the same dose of radiation you’d receive from a few x-rays. It’s not ideal, but it’s not going to kill you either. You can also navigate around it…it’s a belt, so an orbital trajectory can be plotted around it. Today, it’s actually more harmful towards our small microchips and micro processors, which is why they hadn’t built any modern lunar modules (until recently, look up the Artemis mission sometime), because this presented an engineering hurtle, getting our modern technology to function without failure, in deeper space. The old modules were analog systems, which don’t have to worry about electromagnetic fields…but they’re very limited in what they can do. People have this odd misconception, that newer means better…in reality, there’s often pros and cons to new technology. For example, a land line is far more stable of a phone connection, but it can’t connect to you on the go, but cellular signals are less stable. So there’s pros and cons for each, newer does not imply better in every application.
The tiny microwave receiver on your phone can’t pick up on faint electromagnetic frequencies that become more and more spread out and dispersed by distance because of the inverse square law, but a massive network of receiver dishes sure can…like the radio telescope receiver dishes NASA has had for decades. Electromagnetic frequencies travel indefinitely, they don’t stop, they just get weaker but never do they reach absolute 0 frequency. So if you have a strong enough receiver dish, you can pick up on electromagnetic signals from pretty much any distance…unless the signal is obstructed by something physical, which is the other problem your cell phone faces, Earth curvature, hills, buildings, physical obstructions.
You have questions…but questions are not evidence, no matter how many you have. You live in the information age, you could find answers for these questions at any time, but you won’t, because you’d rather argue from ignorance. It’s much easier to assume your conclusions, when you don’t have the pesky facts getting in the way of whatever you choose to believe. It’s fine to ask questions…but have you tried actually answering them, instead of holding them up as your evidence? Learn the difference between questions and evidence, please…they are not the same thing, and that should be pretty common sense. You people want to believe you’re the first people to ever ask these kinds of questions…sorry to burst that bubble, but they’re pretty standard questions most scientists and other experts ask, when learning this stuff for the first time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... I'm just saying, your argument is a logical fallacy...you're ignoring the pictures of Earth that do exist https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 that shows a perfectly spherical Earth...which is what the argument is all about, the Earths shape, and then paying attention to only what YOU assume is how things should work. It's a fallacy of logic, because it doesn't take any consideration into account that YOUR assumptions here, could be COMPLETELY false assumptions. It's Dunning Krueger effect in action really, overconfident in your abilities and intelligence, to the point where you are blinded by how stupid you really are.
Either way, doesn't matter what video or picture I show you, even if I did get you exactly what you wanted to see, you'd just say it's fake anyway and then move on...so it's a bit pointless to ask for photos and videos, if you're just gonna say they're fake right out of the gate. So stop asking....it's pointless if you're not really looking for any, you're just looking to be an arrogant dick.
1
-
1
-
@ienjoyapples Well, perhaps dangerous is the incorrect word for it, as I actually do agree that the skeptical spirit is a good thing, it’s actually the one thing I admire about flat Earth as well to be honest. I feel it is a warning sign of a deeper issue though, that I do worry could eventually become dangerous. It’s a loss of trust in most people, a growing paranoia that’s wedging its way into the group mind of society as a whole, that if left to fester could lead to a mob mentality reaction where real people get hurt. Flat Earth convinces a lot of people and these people are angry...for good reason really, they feel they’ve been lied too their whole lives. They’re convinced of a great evil in the world...it’s not just as simple as the Earths geometry for a lot of them, if it’s correct (and they strongly feel it is), then it confirms one of their worst fears...how long before they’re tired of trying to pinpoint or prove it and just start taking action?
That’s what I worry about, it’s great to question things...but I fear too many people lose their heads and allow too much speculation and misinformation to make up their thought processes...reaching false conclusions, from quicker easier to process information, rather than keeping their head on their shoulders, slowing their roll and tackling the information with more patience and unbiased analysis. And they do it this way, simply because they’re starting from scratch, skipping over the best methods for processing information and deducing objective truths, that science has refined over the years and is proven to work.
Distrusting institutions of science is perfectly fine and should be allowed, maybe even encouraged...but the method of science itself, I feel is the best method for discerning objective truth, and so I don’t think it should be skipped over. It’s just another tool in the belt, it has just as much agenda as a hammer does, but just like a hammer, it has to be used properly for best and most positive effect. Most times you have to be taught how to use a tool properly, the scientific method is no exception.
I talk to a lot of flat Earthers, and bias always seems to be their larger issue...science learned this was a problem a long time ago and now it actively practices and teaches students how to best keep bias in check. Flat Earth could benefit I feel, from acknowledging that it has bias, then learn how best to combat it. It may not seem dangerous now, but “just asking questions” has been shown in history to become “demanding answers” pretty quickly...then people get hurt. I’m all for revolutions, but I’d prefer to know for sure they weren’t just sure, they were right...in my experience talking with them so far, they’re just bias.
Anyway, some good points though, I hope I didn’t come off as condescending, it’s a slippery slope really, of course freedom of speech and information should be preserved, so I do agree with you on much of your point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedayhayfilms I’ll give you an example; I disagreed with mandatory vaccines, and vaccine passports, and still do. I think we should never be forced to put something into our system, that we do not know much or anything about personally. And I don’t think we should be barred from access to daily luxuries or services, or fired from our jobs, because we chose to not be vaccinated…that to me is simply wrong. I’m not an antivaxxer, I got the vaccine twice, but I did it because I chose too after much research, and I didn’t want to risk getting my parents sick, who are elderly. I believe that choice should belong to everyone…regardless of whether it causes an influx in the sick or not. The government would strongly disagree with me…and I don’t care, they can get fucked. You treat your people like cattle, you’ll be reminded pretty quickly that they’re not. I live in Canada, and currently we have convoy protests going to the capital (for a second time), to protest that shit, and I’m all for it.
But…I’ve seen the world, I’ve been to overpopulated countries, I’ve seen countries with a billion in them alone….so I very much agree there’s billions of people on Earth.
Point is, you can still agree with a source you don’t trust, in some ways. It doesn’t automatically mean you agree with everything they say.
Stop thinking in absolutes. :/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jondular7423 And yet, that is the agreed upon consensus of EVERYONE who invents, innovates and makes further discoveries in the world, that YOU then take for granted and will never understand how they work. Have you ever considered the possibility, that maybe it is YOU who are misunderstanding how something works, not everyone else? Does that ever cross your mind? Or do you honestly think you're smarter than the people who made your computer, internet and wifi connections possible for you...that you now ironically use to tell the rest of us we're wrong? I'm not lying to you, there is no established up or down in 3D space. The only thing that gives you a feeling of down here on Earth, is gravity, which creates inertia upon your body, that you are designed to withstand best from head to toe, feet upon the ground, center of gravity running through you, towards the ground, towards center of Earth...no matter where you are. When you say things like the comment above...we're all face palming really hard at you. I'd rather not, I'd rather try and explain it to you as best I can, but I can only do so much, the rest is up to you and your ability to grasp what I'm saying.
Lots of people now have verified and measured the rotation of the Earth. Even Flat Earthers have done it now, just ask ol' Bob "not a pilot" Knodel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=13s
But long before him we verified it with Foucault pendulum experiments, Coriolis experiments, our own ring laser gyro experiments, gyro compasses, measuring Earth's Centrifugal force at the equator and taking video from space. Lots of different ways we have verified rotation, so stop being ignorant and stop being misled by con men. If you'd like to see those experiments in action and if you'd like some further information on how to recreate them for yourself, I can share more with you, so feel free to ask.
1
-
1
-
@jondular7423 Well that's a long way to say you don't know much about how Gravity works, but we already knew that, no need for the gish gallop dump of info.
"HOW CAN A RIVER FLOW NORTH ON A SPINNING WATER-BALL EARTH? "
Rivers flow by going from High elevation, to LOW elevation, that is in line with how gravity works, because towards center is lowest point. Water seeks the lowest point, the head of the Nile is roughly 3000 feet above sea level, which makes it a higher elevation, then it's lowest point which where it empty's out into the ocean. You're still thinking about this in terms of "North is up and South is down" THAT'S why you don't understand what we're saying to you! North is not up, South is not down...get that through your head and understand how the model works, or you will keep misunderstanding it.
If things are drawn to the center of mass, then the lowest point is TOWARDS that center. So low elevation is closer to center, high elevation is further from center. Water seeks lowest point, so it really seeks to be closest to center of mass...cause that's the lowest point. Get it yet? Can't state it much clearer then that. Your error here is in your misunderstanding of gravity and how it works. You are stuck here https://ibb.co/dQKmNbk, when it actually works like here https://ibb.co/47dcT6b.
1
-
1
-
@bferfolja Here's something you don't consider. Nikola Tesla was not a flat Earther. He would likely be rolling in his grave right now, if he knew you numpty's were holding him up as some hero of your movement. I've read some of his research, and he often sites the Global geometry of the Earth into his work. He disagreed with Einstein, but understand that back in his time, Relativity was new and had not been well researched yet. They only had ONE experiment back then verifying it (the Eddington experiment of 1919 that shot Einstein to fame). Today we have a LOT more science backing Einstein, so Imagine if Tesla were alive today and he saw these other experiments and all the data and research that exists today that verify Relativity, he would be singing a different tune entirely. Just because someone is a Genius, does not mean they are right about everything. That includes Einstein, he's likely wrong about a lot of things...but in all our efforts to falsify his work, he has not been proven wrong yet. That's pretty damn impressive, given how many people are currently working to find the error in his work...they would be famous over night if they could, just like he was, when he successfully falsified Newton and replaced much of his work.
Also...Tesla did not give us electricity you numpty...he gave us AC power which was a much needed improvement on the old DC generators. He's also responsible for figuring out how to make use of the electromagnetic spectrum, which now sends you your wifi. He is recognized for these discoveries...but he DID NOT discover electricty! That discovery is credited to Benjamin Franklin and many of his peers of his day. A good 100 years before Tesla was even born. So maybe get your facts straight and stop letting your bias lead you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Smhallways If someone learns something they didn’t know prior to the question, then it’s always worth it. Flat Earth has been asking a lot of questions out of resentment I feel, but it’s had a positive effect in that it’s actually caused a lot of people to take more of an interest in science again. Myself for example, I’ve always dabbled but I never really thought about Earth science all that deeply to want to understand how we came to the conclusion the Earth is a Globe, now I have. Now I have that knowledge, so even if their intent was to spread doubt and destroy a system they hate, it got many of us curious enough to take a look and learn things we had either forgotten or never knew. Questions, even asked with poor intentions, can keep us on our toes, keep us sharp, which is good in the long run, so it’s not all bad I suppose.
My point is though, resentment can form bias...and bias often will not lead to any actual truth, so I really don’t think it’s a great place for an individual to start from. I think it does more to close a mind off, then it does to open it, cause then your goal isn’t to learn the truth, it’s to confirm your bias...which will just lead you astray. Questions are great, no such thing as a stupid question, but they can be used as a weapon too, so it really depends on the intent, how deep does the resentment run? I think it’s a bad thing for the individual, I don’t personally feel it’s a good way to learn, but it does happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Couple problems here though concerning the physics of gyros and the mechanics of the ones used in airplane equipment. There isn’t a single mechanical gyro in existence, that is free from friction precession. So over time, gyros will tilt out of alignment no matter what. So thanks to the friction in the gimbles, caused by gravity and material contact, that creates a torque that causes precession, it’s really hard to discern if the gyro is tilting due to curvature or precession....which is why you rarely hear of flat Earthers use gyros in experimentation, because it never gives them the results they’re looking for, the gyro will always eventually tilt out of alignment. So they usually avoid these experiments I’ve noticed. Which is typical of bias researchers, they only share the experiments that confirm their bias and gyro precession messes that up for them.
But, airplanes and jets still use mechanical gyros in their artificial indicators. So how do they overcome curvature and precession? They do it with what are know as pendulous veins. These are basically hinges on the gimbles of the gyro, that drop open anytime the gyro dips out of alignment with centre of gravity. Once the hinges are open, they allow air into a chamber that triggers a sensor, which kicks on a motor, which torques the gyro back into alignment until the hinges are centred with gravity again, which closes off the air chambers. You’ll find these pendulous veins are included in all artificial horizon indicators, as well as many other equipment used for navigation. They can and do overcome the issues of both precession and Earth curvature.
So gyros on planes make use of gravity to keep them from tilting out of alignment, it also helps them maintain level perpendicular to the surface of curvature.
So it’s not as simple as you’re saying it is I’m afraid. There is physics and mechanics here that can’t be ignored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Both sides find their position to be absolutely true. So when the arguments drag on and no ground is gained for either position (in terms of convincing either side), both sides then start trying to rationalize in their own ways why and how that could be occurring.
As best I can tell, Flat Earth rationalizes things by assuming we're all just brainwashed, that we can't understand their positions because our pre-programmed indoctrination won't allow us too. This fits into their narrative of a big bad conspiracy that is occurring, led by an evil entity, that is trying to enslave humanity. So this rationalization fits for them and makes sense, so no need to listen to the Globe counter arguments, they're just brainwashed and can not see it. They feel they're special, by resisting the mainstream science and the heliocentric model, they feel they are free from that systems control, which frees them from that enslavement. Meanwhile however...they're not innovating, inventing, engineering, discovering, or navigating anything...which should be a red flag for anyone, but it doesn't seem to do much good pointing this out to them, everyone arguing against Flat Earth is just brainwashed, so no need to listen to them.
On the flip side, heliocentrists feel that Flat Earthers just do not understand modern science and they have reached a great many false conclusions because of that. Try as they might to teach them, Flat Earthers either don't understand it or they don't want to understand it, for the reasons mentioned above. So when met with people who don't seem to understand the physics and who ignore all attempts to teach them, the Globe position also rationalizes how that's possible, and their best conclusion is that these people are just stupid and/or willfully ignorant. Symptoms of paranoid delusion, falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias, which science has worked to overcome in humanity as best it can, through peer review systems and objective falsification.
So both sides are just trying to rationalize why each side can't see the others perspective, which is normal to do in any debate. The thing is, this is not an argument on opinion, it's an argument of physical reality and it's a little hard to argue against the reality we all inhabit, something that can be observed and tested directly, at any time. Physical reality doesn't lie, it's quite rigid in what it is and how it operates, and so if we are wrong about what we understand about physical reality, then anything we try to build just will not work. It's pretty simple, junk science does not work, this is great for us, because it keeps things objective whether we like it or not. No matter how many pseudo intellectuals try to muddy the waters of information, if their science doesn't work, it becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly.
Our technology works, the proof is in the pudding and the reality is that scientists make this possible...whether Flat Earth is willing to listen or not, this fact remains true. The people they claim to be indoctrinated, are currently building EVERYTHING...and they're achieving that, using the very science that Flat Earth argues is not real.
Anyway, it is interesting to step back and look at the whole debate from a neutral outsider perspective from time to time. It's a really good study on human psychology and pretty interesting to examine both sides. Inside the debate, I myself am on the side of the heliocentric position, I feel they hold the far more rational position with far more objective truths and evidence supporting that conclusion. I feel Flat Earth is currently falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias and paranoid delusion, which robs people of objective thought. That's where I stand currently, after 3 years of looking at this mess...though it really only took a few minutes to reach that conclusion, and it's never changed.
Looking at things from a neutral position gives me the chance to entertain the idea that perhaps I overlooked something, but every time I do, I still can't deny that my computer exists and it is working for a reason....because modern science knows what it's doing. The plus side is that I have also learned for myself how it all works, it's not hidden knowledge by any stretch. Anyone can learn this science at any time, and build these things for themselves after enough study and practice (limited only by their own cognitive ability of course). It's simple for me, if modern science were lying, then nothing would work as it does. Those who choose to remain ignorant, will continue to live in fear and paranoia and will continue to achieve nothing. It's really that simple for me, but to each their own.
It's not wrong to question reality, so in that regard, I appreciate the reminder that we should remain skeptical at all times and never be afraid to question anything. Einstein didn't become successful for agreeing with modern consensus of his time, he is a household name today because he challenged the work of Newton...the difference between him and Flat Earth however, is that he was successful in proving his hypothesis correct and his work is still doing that even today. So science is built on asking questions...the difference is staying out of the pitfalls of confirmation bias and paranoia.
Anyway, I'm really rambling now...I hope I was able to give you some further insight to your main question. Sorry if I strayed from the main point and got a little derogatory with my opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 I just didn't want to jump to conclusions and assume your position, without proper context is all. So I didn't want to bombard you with information on gravity right away, until I knew for sure the point you were trying to make, so I could better isolate exactly what it is you're misunderstanding here. So now that I know more, I'll see what I can do to help you out.
Well, alright so lets isolate what it is that your body actually feels. What you feel as the airplane is rising is inertia upon your body, that's what your body is designed to feel. Inertia is felt in several different ways, you feel it every day in the form of weight upon your body, that is directly caused by gravity, the constant downward accelerating force that is always pulling on your body every single day, that you feel and we measure as weight. Another way you can feel inertia is by sudden changes in forward or angular velocity. This is the inertia you feel while moving, we call it G force in forward velocities and Centrifugal or Centripetal force in angular velocities. What's important to note here though, is that you don't really feel motion itself, what you feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, that creates inertia, inertia is what you feel...not motion itself.
So yes, gravity is something your body feels, it is a force that puts your body into motion, that motion is always down. The part about gravity that Flat Earth ignores, is why down? Why that direction? Why not any other direction? From what we understand about motion, nothing is put into motion unless a force is applied to it to put it into motion. So density can't cause that downward vector, density is not a force, it is just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a certain area of space, it has no means at all to put things into motion. So the density argument makes no sense, because HOW does density put objects into motion in the first place? It can't, only a force can do that. So the other explanation Flat Earth gives is Buoyancy. Buoyancy is a force, but what Flat Earth doesn't understand is that it's not a fundamental force and technically it's not even a real force at all. What it actually is, is an observed left over effect CAUSED by a downward force, forcing the displacement of less matter upwards as more dense matter must occupy the lower position first...we called that downward force that starts that displacement gravity. Without a downward forcing telling matter which direction to begin displacing it by density, there is no buoyancy. This is proven in simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI The moment you remove gravity from the equation, buoyancy disappears and nothing orders by density anymore. So without gravity, there is no buoyancy force, buoyancy is directly caused by gravity...that's the part Flat Earth ignores about buoyancy.
Some other explanations are that it's just electromagnetism or even static attraction...but if you know anything about the physics of either, you realize pretty quickly there are probably hundreds of reasons why neither of these can accurately explain why things fall on Earth when you drop them. The most obvious reason being that all matter is attracted by electromagnetic and static attractions differently...and well, everything still falls at the same rate when dropped in a vacuum chamber. So that's just one of many things that quickly debunks those explanations. Another is that everything is dipolar, magnets and static attractions have a negative and positive attraction that attracts but also repels, depending on the alignment of the positive and negative poles...so basically, we would too...and so if electromagnetism or static attraction caused the downward force, then we would have polar attraction and polar repel...meaning we could essentially stand on our head and the Earth would shoot us up, essentially now repelling us rather then attracting us. This does not happen and it does not happen with anything else on Earth either, everything just falls, nothing falls and aligns the same way every time...except for cats of course...but they're not of this world. All jokes aside though, there are many reasons why we can't conclude electromagnetism or static attraction, as the answer for why things fall, that's a small sample of some reasons why.
So I have yet to receive an answer from Flat Earth, that adequately answers the question, WHY and HOW does matter fall down when dropped? Why that direction? The best answer I have received so far from Flat Earth is "it just does"...well, I'm sorry, but if science concluded everything with "it just does", then we'd still be in the bush trying to figure out how fire works. We can't do anything with "it just does" that is not an answer, it's a cop out when you don't have any answers. Things fall when you drop them, which means they are put into motion when you drop them. Nothing is put into motion without a force, so there is a force present acting upon that matter causing it to fall down. It's very simple stuff...and Flat Earth is just in stark denial when they argue against gravity pretending it doesn't exist. It is probably the easiest force to verify...drop something, now why did it fall? Logically, Flat Earth has no answer...just desperate ramblings that are more akin to ramming a square peg into a round hole.
Anyway, that gets into Flat Earths flawed argument for gravity itself. Feel free to let me know if you feel I've missed anything here, next comment I'll get back to your airplane observation and questions and answer that question a little further.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 Alright, back to your main question with the plane.
So yes, as you rise up you are resisting gravity. Your body is always accelerating down, so that force is increased as you rise up and away from it, which creates inertia on your body as you rise up, which you feel. It doesn't go straight up though, you rise at an angle in planes, and not a very steep one for most the flight either. The steepest angle is during take off and landing, but I digress.
So you're trying to make an argument, that because a plane has to arc with the Earth, it's technically dropping down relative from a starting position...and you seem to feel that it's as considerable of a drop as when the plane is rising to elevation, so why don't we feel that? It's a good question, but again, it tells me that you're misunderstanding how gravity works.
What you're saying would only be true, if you actually were falling, while the plane arced downward with curvature of the Earth...and you're not. Gravity always pulls you to center, so what this means is that elevation is measured from that center. The closer you are to center, the lower your elevation, the further from center, the higher you are. So long as your distance from center of Earth remains the same, then your elevation from center of mass remains the same as well. So you're not really falling at all as you arc with the curvature, and that's what you're misunderstanding.
Gravity is the same everywhere, always pointing towards center, so this creates what is called an equipotential surface, that is the same all around the Earth. Here is a great description I've found from the Walter Bislin blog on exuipotential gravity, explaining it a bit further; "Each equipotential surface on earth is a sphere (or more accurate an ellipsoid) around the center of the planet, because on such a sphere the distance to the center of the earth is the same everywhere and thus the gravitational potential (attraction) on this sphere is the same everywhere. The equipotential spheres build layers of spheres with decreasing potential (attraction) with increasing distance from the center of the earth. So every equipotential surface is a sphere around the earth." You can find that quote here at the Walter Bislin "finding the curvature" blog http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth#H_How_Gravity_bends_Water_around_the_Earth. Which is also a great resource that has documented many examples of observations and experiments done to find curvature on our Earth, so definitely worth checking out if this discussion truly interests you that much.
So you're not really falling as a plane dips or rises to meet curvature, because distance from the Earth is what defines falling and also how gravity works. If gravity is always pulling down to center, then the gravity vector direction shifts with you as you travel across the surface of Earth.
So when Flat Earth makes an argument like that...all you're doing is misunderstanding how gravity works. Your argument fails to realize the direction gravity is really pulling you on a sphere. I realize for some to wrap there heads around a gravity vector paths on a sphere...but if you want to argue against the model, then I'm afraid you have to understand it better.
Aside from that, it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of angular change on our Earth. So a plane is only really arcing 1 degree of inclination...every 70 miles. That is SUPER gradual, which means even if I were to agree they were falling, it's certainly not fast enough for your body feel any G force inertia.
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 "You didn't want to jump to conclusions but you did anyway.
"
Sigh...typical Flat Earther, thinking in absolutes. I knew you were misunderstanding gravity, so I could conclude that much, that you were misunderstanding something about gravity. That much was clear from your original comment, what wasn't clear right away and why I didn't want to go any further at first, was exactly WHAT you were misunderstanding. Your original comment was a bit garbled and honestly a bit hard to follow, because of the way you worded things. So I didn't want to jump to any further conclusions about WHAT exactly you were misunderstanding about Gravity. One of the biggest problems with this whole argument, is miscommunication, I prefer knowing all the details and getting to the core of your arguments, before I assume to much and misrepresent your arguments, that's how strawmans are made unintentionally...and I try my best to avoid that if possible.
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 There aren't a million satellites in orbit right now...there's only about 2200 currently in orbit at the present time. Far from a million I'd hope you'd agree. There hasn't even been a million satellites launched yet in total...that number is still only about 9000, maybe 10,000 at the most. 2200 are all that's currently operational and that hasn't fallen back to Earth yet. So...maybe get your facts straight.
"we don't ever see one viewing the planet outter space no matter how many times THEY CLAIM TO CIRCLE IT"
Not true, we have several in orbit right now that are currently taking live video and pictures every few minutes around the clock. Himawari 8, DSCOVRY, GOES 15-17, just to name a few. You can search any of those satellites at any time, to see some of the many photos they have taken already, Himawari 8 even has a live feed website, so just give them a search sometime. Here's a neat trick you can do with these weather satellites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q
Most satellites are not built for that purpose and most are only in low Earth orbit. It requires they be in geostationary orbit to take full images of Earth, which is about 25,000 miles from surface and currently only a few hundred of those satellites occupy these regions. I can share many videos and pictures from these satellites if you'd like, but here's one video I will share for now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=348s This is a group of hobbyists that build their own radio telescopes out of cheap materials, which they then use to track these geostationary weather satellites in orbit and pull data from. They have pulled several of their own images from these satellites, so it's worth taking a look if you are not convinced as of yet that satellites exist. I can provide further resources that help to verify them even further if you'd like, so feel free to ask anytime. I find these guys quite interesting though and most convincing, just because of how much they understand about this technology...it's quite impressive what they're capable of and it really shows you what REAL experts can tell you about these things, shining a real light on something that Flat Earth approaches with nothing but pure ignorance.
The day YOU can build your own radio telescopes from scratch AND use them to track and pull data from satellites...is the day we will MAYBE take the words of a conspiracy nut seriously. You are a layman, that has generated shallow conclusions, from a lack of knowledge. Jumping to conclusions based on assumptions and misunderstandings...but not from actual knowledge and experience. You're just doing what Layman do best, chase bias, over react and GROSSLY over estimate yourselves...with no real reason too.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 I really don't care about a persons associations, only that they have evidence I can verify for myself. Maybe YOU prefer speculating endlessly about a persons associations, putting more value on the source of information rather then the information itself, but I'd rather examine the science and information itself and see if it holds up upon my own review. You can babble on all day about some evil "they" that you can speculate about endlessly and blame all your problems on, but I really don't give a shit. If the science is good and it's accurate, and if it's now graduated to applied sciences we can use for innovation, invention and engineering...then I really don't care where that knowledge came from, we have it now and it works. The proof is in the pudding, you're currently making use of that science with pretty much every modern technology you take for granted today....so whine about where it came from all you'd like and speculate about some evil entity you believe exists, all I care about is whether the science makes sense to me or not. And it does, I understand a lot of it perfectly well and I reached those understandings on my own, through my own research and reproduction of certain experiments.
1
-
1
-
@tyshonjackson783 Why just one? I'll share several.
Here is a simple recreation of the Eratosthenes experiment, except this is expanded to include many more data sets, from several different locations all around the world, during the Equinox. The original Eratosthenes experiment was only designed to measure the Circumference of the Earth, but it is true that with only 2 data sets taken, it does not actually prove a Globe. But taking several more shadow angle measurements can help to not just measure curvature, but also verify it as well. The hypothesis is simple, do shadow angles support a local Sun with angled sunlight over a Flat surface, or a large far away Sun with angles of sunlight that arrive parallel over a Globe Earth? If the shadow angles when plotted on a Flat Earth by latitude pin point a local Sun, then the data will support the Flat Earth hypothesis. If they do not pin point a local Sun but do line up parallel when the data is plotted by latitude on the Globe, then the data supports a Globe Earth hypothesis. Pretty simple stuff. So here is two times, during two different years that this experiment was conducted by this user.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno - mostly just data recording and a further break down of the test being done, so if you're pressed for time, just start watching at the 6 minute mark where they share the results of the experiment. The shadow angles did not pin point a local sun, but they did line up parallel when plotted on the Globe. Conclusion, the experiment supports the Globe Earth hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=317s - this time they plotted the data over several different proposed versions of the Flat Earth. Again, none of the angles line up and pointed to a local Sun, but they did again line up parallel over a Globe Earth. Conclusion, the experiment supports the Globe Earth hypothesis.
Now here's a version of this same experiment done by a different user, this time using time and date dot com data, and plotting the data over a 3D version of the AE Flat Earth projection, to help you see with a little more clarity, that the shadow angles do not intersect and point to any local Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
These are all repeatable experiments, taking real world PHYSICAL measurements of Sun shadow angles. Each time this experiment is repeated, it verifies curvature AND a distant Sun, with parallel sunlight. I have yet to see Flat Earth recreate this experiment...for good reason, much easier to just stay ignorant.
Here's another great experiment that helps to measure and observe curvature. A recreation of the simple Bedford Level experiment, recreated over a frozen lake surface. This time done MUCH more in depth, taking physical measurements, photos and video, as well calculating predictions before hand. This is how a REAL scientific experiment is conducted and this is generally what actual published scientific papers look like...so it's quite thorough, so pay attention.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
The Beford Level experiment has been repeated many times and upon every recreation of the experiment, the conclusion is the same, the Earth is curving. The original experiment conducted by Rowbotham is now confirmed to have been an example of a sloppy experiment to confirm a bias. The Flat Earth conclusion he reached fails upon all peer review of his experiment, falsifying his conclusion and confirming that he reached his conclusion due to an experiment that was poorly done and designed to confirm his bias.
Now for an easy one that even YOU could recreate. A common claim of Flat Earth is that horizon always rises to eye level. They say this because if the Earth were Flat, then it would rise to eye level. If the Earth were a Globe, then it would actually drop from eye level as you go higher in elevation. But in all the years I've been researching this topic (3 years at this point) I have NEVER seen them actually bother to TEST or MEASURE their conclusion. Which makes their claim here...an empty claim with no backing.
So can you measure horizon drop? Of course you can, here are two ways you can do it. Two VERY simple experiments that confirm horizon drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI - a simple leveling rig you can build with basic supplies anyone can find around they're home. The video isn't long and it's pretty simple to understand, so give it a look. As you'll see in this video, as he climbs higher, the horizon begins to drop below the rigging level...which means, as he goes higher, horizon is actually dropping from eye level, which does further support Earth curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc - The other method used to measure horizon drop is with a surveyors tool known as a theodolite. It's pretty simple equipment to use, calibrate the theodolite at sea level by lining the cross hairs up with the visible horizon line. Then it can be used to help measure horizon drop as you climb higher, because it is now calibrated for eye level at sea level. As you see in this video above, he has used his theodolite while flying at several thousand feet elevation. The theodolite reading indicates that horizon has dropped, therefore further verifying Earth curvature and horizon drop.
There are more ways to confirm horizon drop...what you should learn from this though, is that Flat Earth makes empty claims like this all the time. Never once have they provided evidence for the claim that horizon always rises to eye level...yet people believe that statement blindly and without question. WHY exactly? For a group who claims to be more skeptical, claiming to never take information at face value...you sure eat up a lot of bullshit empty claims made from Flat Earth gurus online who feed you this garbage information.
So by how much should we expect to see horizon drop on an Earth at the scales we know it to be? Here's a great simulator that can help you out. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click the first yellow tab labelled "Curve" and watch the demo from there. What this simulator does is calculates the drop from eye level for you, using a to scale representation of the Globe. It's pretty handy and you can actually use this simulator to help further confirm the two videos I shared pertaining to horizon drop due to curvature.
Alright, so that's a big dump of information, I have more I can share of course...but I think you'll be ok with just these...I think you get the point...if you even bother to take a look that is. That last link also provides several more observations of curvature, so just go through the yellow tabs and watch the demos sometime, they provide EVEN MORE physical experiments and observations done to verify curvature, so feel free to check em out sometime. My favorite observation in that simulator is the Soundly observations of the Lake Pontchartrain causway bridge in New Orleans. It's a great visual demonstration of curvature, if you want to see it with VISUAL evidence, so I highly recommend you click and watch the Soundly tab in that last link above.
1
-
Ya...you've figured it out alright, we'll let ALL the worlds scientists know that you've found the one thing that doesn't work, time to throw the baby out with bath water and start over I guess, good work. Or MAYBE consider the possibility that YOU are missing something! Do you people EVER consider that?
What you're not getting or mentioning, is the tilt of the Earth is in relation to the Sun and the ecliptic plane...but our Earth is ALWAYS tilted towards Polaris. That's where it is locked, so that is why Polaris never appears to move. The sun moves, because the tilt remains pointed at Polaris, while we orbit around the Sun, which changes our latitude angle in relation to the Sun...not Polaris.
"In the real world, the angle from the horizon to the sun will be the inverse of your globe latitude on both Equinox’s, from everywhere on earth.
Also not possible on a ball."
Alright, but have you bothered to model the Equinox Sun angles on a Globe by latitude to see if this does fit with reality or not? Or are you maybe just assuming it doesn't, before going out and actually testing it? Have you maybe considered that you are just misunderstanding something again? If the Earth were Flat, then ya, what you're saying would be true...so you're assuming the Earth is Flat with this argument...before you've even measured the angles to see which model fits with reality. Here's a great experiment that was done not to long ago, recording the Sun angles during the Equinox from latitudes all over the Earth, North and South of the Equator, and then the data was plotted onto a Globe model to scale in 3D. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=465s The whole experiment is pretty interesting, but if you're pressed for time, just take a look at the last 2 minutes of the video, where they share the results. You'll notice that the Sun angles line up perfectly on the Globe, arriving parallel, 90 degrees no matter where you are...but they don't pin point a local Sun over a Flat Earth. If you'd like to see that data plotted on multiple different versions of a Flat Earth that have been proposed, here's another year they did the same experiment, but this time plotted the data on even more 3D simulated models. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=7s Again, the Globe is the only model that fits with what was measured in reality.
You know what TRULY doesn't work? A sunset on a flat Earth. :/ That doesn't fucking work. Want more? Why are there TWO celestial rotations? If Earth is flat, wouldn't there just be one? Why are there TWO hemispheres in reality? Both with different stars, constellations, rotations? Why are the latitude distances the same in both the North and South? Shouldn't the lines of latitude get longer and longer the further South you get? How does Polaris drop to the Equator at 0 degrees on a Flat Earth? Do you honestly think the Flat Earth makes more sense in this image here? https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle.jpg
Stop kidding yourself, a Flat Earth does not match with reality at all...and deep down you know it. You have to ignore the Southern hemisphere entirely and you have to ignore something as basic as a sunset, in order for you to believe in a Flat Earth. So why are you fucking with people? Why are you kidding yourself? It's fine to question what you're told, but jumping to conclusions based from assumptions you have, is not a great way to go about finding answers.
1
-
@billrichards7987 First of all, Polaris is not actually directly at the north celestial center and it does shift a tiny little bit over a 6 month time frame. Lets see if I can help you understand why distance will effect stellar parallax. Lets do your experiment more to scale...cause scale matters. The Earth spans an orbital diameter of roughly 182 million miles (distance to the Sun times 2), that's the average rough difference in distance it spans from Equinox to Equinox during its orbit. Polaris is estimated to be about 323 light years from Earth, every 4 light years is about 25 trillion miles, so that's about 2 quadrillion miles distance from us. So if we're gonna use your little laser globe, understand that 182 million miles is only 0.0000091% of 2 quadrillion miles by comparison. So if you want to run your experiment to scale, your ball wouldn't actually move at all...unless you can make an orbit that's 0.0000091% of the distance from your ball to the ceiling...good luck with that.
To put it a bit simpler, it means your little experiment assumes the stars are close and thus is not an accurate depiction of the true scales of the model, which makes it a flawed experiment for what you're attempting to falsify. Sad thing is though, It will fool impatient, untrained, bias, layman, that don't want to ponder things very deep, only seeking simple answers that support a particular bias...but it's not going to do much for those of us who would prefer remaining objective.
That's the problem with you Flat Earthers...you don't know how to do things to scale it seems...and you don't even seem to realize why that's important either. Maybe you're fine with making strawman experiments that misrepresent how things work at the proper scales, but we measure stars in arc seconds for a reason...they are REALLY far away. This will absolutely effect it's apparent movement and position relative to us....distance effects parallax...the farther away something is, the less it appears to shift position to an observer. The farther away it is, the farther you have to travel to make any noticeable shift...and stars are SUPER far away, distances we can't even fathom. Our axis does span a wide circumference during Earths orbit, that is true, but it's angle relative to Polaris is always parallel to it. And because it's distance to us is so vast...our piddly little orbit, is not going to shift it very much...but it does, and we do measure that, we can use stellar parallax to accurately give us the distance to stars for up to about 400 light years. If you were gonna shift your simple laser globe experiment in an orbit relative to your ceiling...then the Earth has just moved a few quadrillion miles in your experiment, and no shit you're gonna see a lot more shift occur at that scale. Are you getting this yet? Scale is important.
Listen, it's not like we don't get your gripes with the heliocentric model, it's not lost on us. Flat Earth asks some great questions (sometimes), but they're not new questions...scientists asked the exact same questions once, they've since answered them. The trouble is you hold your questions up as your proof and then never bother to seek the answers to those questions. Meanwhile, you focus so hard on the proposed "holes" of our model (which always just turn out to be your own personal misunderstandings), you completely forget to check up on your own model to see how it's holding up...many of you even believing you don't require a working model...it's madness. How quick the misinformation rabbit holes of the internet has made you people forget, that Flat Earth is not used today for anything out in the real world...and that's for a good reason...it can't even explain something as simple as a Sunset. It falls apart right from the word go.
We have an answer for why the North star never appears to move in our lifetime (even though it does, and any actual astronomer will tell you that). DO YOU have answers for why there are TWO hemispheres, with TWO very different night sky's and TWO celestial rotations? No? Well then maybe you should pay a bit more attention to your own model sometime...cause it doesn't work at all.
1
-
@billrichards7987 Yes actually it does, distance will effect the amount of parallax and it's very well known and understood. And it's not really your laser pointer you should pay attention too, it's the light coming to you and it's what YOU see, another little thing that's not accurate about your test. You're measuring the angles of the light coming to you, not a laser pointer going out from your perspective...though a laser would still converge at a point due to perspective (if it's perfectly parallel to itself at two points), but here's an experiment you can try. Find yourself a method of raising a light higher and higher so that it's always 90 degrees above you from a central point as it rises higher. Now at the bottom below the light you're raising, trace out a radius from that central point that you will span an orbit with, lets say 3 feet. Plant a pole in the center that is 90 degrees to your light that you're raising up, tethered to that with a 3 foot rope is your camera, that you'll rest on something that can keep it parallel to your light source upon each measure. Now start raising the light up, go in stories. At 1 story, photograph the light from 2 points, the opposite end of your circumference, we'll say east and west. Now you just keep doing that, raising the light up a story, then photographing it from your same two points adjacent to each other, going up and up and up, taking several photos as you go for each story raised. Now analyse the footage and notice that the measured angle of noticeable parallax of that light shrinks more and more as it goes higher and higher. You're still tracing the same circumference, the same orbit and measuring it at the same two points, but the further away that light gets, the less it appears to shift relative to those two points, the measured angle decreases the further from you the light gets, converging more and more and more to a central point, thanks to perspective.
Yes, the Earth has a tilted axis, but that axis is always parallel to Polaris, so you run this test parallel to your light and you'll get the same results. Pretty simple stuff, so give it a try sometime, distance matters. So no, saying it doesn't, just tells me you haven't really thought this through, you stopped at your bias.
"I wonder how you measure 93,000,000 miles with a sextant?"
They don't measure the distance of Polaris with a sextant...they measure its angle from horizon with a sextant, which tells them what latitude they're at. Tell me which of these photos do you REALLY think is more likely. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle.jpg How the fuck does Polaris drop to 0 degrees at the Equator, on your model? That takes some real delusional thinking to believe this I'm afraid. Go ahead, look over the image I just shared, then tell me honestly which model you feel makes more sense...and be honest with yourself. If you think Polaris stays right in the center, but its angle can drop to 0 degrees relative to an observer...then you're crazy.
You want to learn how they measure those distances? Here you go, one of many methods we use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwlMmJs1f5o. I swear, is your search bar broken or something? You can learn this stuff at ANY TIME! There are TONS of videos teaching you how this stuff works. Fuck you people. SMH. :/
"any thinking person can understand that when something gets 90 degrees away from you, you can no longer see it."
Well first of all it's actually 0 degrees where you can't see it anymore...but ya...exactly, guess what never reaches 0 degrees on a Flat Earth. The fucking sun...you numpty. The stars as well...as demonstrated with that Polaris photo above. That's what we're trying to tell you...you'd see the Sun forever on your Earth. Here's what it would look like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM It's pretty simple...your sun doesn't work. It never gets to 0 degrees relative to you....that's what we're trying to tell you people and it's incredible that you think this actually makes sense....fuck man, your brains are scrambled.
"There are not two Rotations and you can see stars in both hemispheres"
False and false. I've been to the Southern hemisphere several times now myself, and I have seen the different stars and constellations for myself. Guess what I couldn't see while I was there? Polaris and the Big Dipper...and it wasn't from lack of trying. I have also seen the second rotation of stars for myself...so you REALLY gotta stop lying to yourself bud. These rotations are recorded all over the internet...just do a search for both rotations sometime, they do in fact exist and it is a REAL PROBLEM for the Flat Earth model, for the reasons illustrated in this demo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtx5jVLUaU
Give my test a try sometime and let me know how it goes. The parallax from when the light is closer, to the further it gets, will be smaller and smaller and smaller. Still tracing the same orbit, the star will begin to converge closer and closer together due to perspective...which is why we measure stars in arc seconds of angle...because they are super far away.
Wake up man...Flat Earth is not reality...and you are ramming a square peg into a round hole upon every observation. You're calling us stupid....and then completely denying there's 2 celestial rotations, within the same breath? Like holy fuck man....ANYONE can verify the double rotations, you don't even need to go anywhere, you can see both of them from almost anywhere...fucking incredible what you people will tell yourselves.
1
-
@billrichards7987 Listen man, I don't really enjoy talking down to people...I prefer just sharing information and leaving it up to the individual, but you have to understand that you're spreading misinformation that you learned blindly that you're now repeating verbatim, before even questioning it. Your arguments are basically "I don't actually know, but I know you're wrong, and I don't need to verify any of it" like really?! You're really going to go with a weak ass argument like "There is no second rotation of stars"...welp, fuck me, cause every time I go out with my camera and my astronomer friends to go look for myself, that empty ass claim is proven wrong on pretty much any clear night. Like holy fuck man....you're just listening to con men feed you bullshit and you're just nodding and agreeing with them for some reason, never questioning what they tell you....while meanwhile using a COMPUTER made from the very science you argue against, telling us that scientists don't really know anything...while using a device THEY BUILT FOR YOU, that YOU don't likely understand at all...it's incredible. Why so much hate and distrust of science? You really hate them THAT MUCH that you're willing to ignore facts about reality? There are two hemispheres...this is a fact, not an opinion. Denying something exists does not make it go away...and it's not how you convince anyone of something...it just makes it more clear how willing you are to ignore reality to support a bias.
I'm really not trying to be a dick (you're just making it really hard not too)...I'm trying to snap you people out of this fucking brainwashing you're getting from Flat Earth. A sunset does not work on the Flat model, there are TWO HEMISPHERES...these are not something you can just ignore. I hope you wake up from this mess someday...I really do. Pull your head away from your computer for a few weeks...and get outside and TALK to some actual scientists maybe. Go hang out with some local astronomers sometime and JOIN THEM on one of their many star gazing get together's...they film the rotations of the sky all the fucking time. Get on a plane and go south and LOOK at the different night sky. Have you ever seen the Southern Cross constellation before? No? Well why do you think that is?
I truly hope you take a look at the information I've shared with you so far. It's fine to question what you're told, it's even logical, but at some point you have to be honest with yourself and ask yourself if you're just being contrarian...for the sake of spiting a group you despise and distrust. That's not how you remain objective...that's how you follow bias down some dark rabbit holes of bullshit.
1
-
Alright, so what would you prefer they did instead? Do you have a better method you'd like to propose? You come off as if you're better than all of science...like you have a better more efficient method of science we should be using, so tell me, what have you discovered, engineered or invented? Anything of note that you feel should give you this sort of arrogant confidence in yourself? You just sound smug and envious to me...and most of all ungrateful. It's fine to question science, in fact it's quite logical, but damn dude...you really have a chip on your shoulder for science don't you. Why exactly? You do realize this conversation here is only possible because of science, right? Seems pretty obvious to me that their method is working...you're currently holding a device in your hands that only exists thanks to their current methods. I hope you at the very least can realize that much...I find it a tad amazing that anyone can be this arrogant and ungrateful in today's age...seems we've been a privileged society for far to long if this is the sort of rhetoric we're now getting.
We do not know everything and we likely never will, there is just too much to know, that is the stark reality. Scientists are well aware of that, this is not news to them, they humbly admit it and they welcome any discoveries that CAN prove them wrong...that's what science is really all about, falsification. You really think Einstein got famous for going with the flow? Fuck no...he challenged the work of Newton and he succeeded. That's why he's a household name today...but he was not very popular amongst his peers while he was doing it. The same will happen the day anyone can successfully falsify his work today...but even if they can (and they have been trying) that doesn't mean he'd be completely wrong. He didn't completely obliterate the science of Newton, he merely improved upon it. When Einstein is falsified, the same thing will likely happen, we'll have a more complete picture....that's how science works, one little piece at a time...it's a long process, but it works.
It's impressive we're even able to get this far, given that we basically started with nothing. Little hard to solve a puzzle, when you don't have many of the puzzle pieces...doesn't matter how smart you are (or think you are), you will never solve that puzzle if you don't go looking for the pieces. At least they're trying...what are you doing exactly? Trolling on public forums about your delusions of grandeur...ya, really getting a lot done, way to contribute. :/
So you really think NASA is getting a lot of money do ya? Do you know how many facilities they own around the world and how many employees they pay? 70 million may seem like a lot to you...but to a company that big, it's impressive they can even keep the lights on...especially when ONE rocket launch carries a price tag of half a billion dollars. They really don't get that much of the pie, do me a favor and look up the annual military funding for the US sometime...NASA barely makes pennies compared to the military. If anyone could "solve world hunger", it's the fucking military. Even just 1% of what they get per year would be enough...so why aren't you mad at them? Go ahead and look up their budget sometime...you'll shit yourself.
NASA is a research and development organization...it's important to fund the sciences, that's how a society advances. Any nation that does not fund science and research, is left in the dust...they do not thrive, they struggle. So it is quite necessary, whether you like it or not...or would you prefer we were also one of the poor and hungry? You should be a little more grateful...a lot of technology you use (and likely take for granted), is thanks to the funding of these science institutions, that you seem to think are not important.
All I'm saying is, why such arrogance and disdain for science? Is it envy or do you really feel they're that overrated? Did you have a bad experience or something, or do you just generally hate on any institution of authority? They literally make EVERY technology you enjoy today possible...so why so ungrateful? Do you want more or something? Why? I'm just curious why people are turning their anger on science these days...I fear this is what over privilege looks like.
Again, it's fine to question science, but science is just a tool, it's not your enemy...with respect, I feel your anger is a little misplaced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iodfsk Ah, you blindly follow the claims of the lying con man Dubay, now I see where you get your script from, thought your rhetoric sounded familiar. I get that he may sound convincing to you, but you should really stop and break down one of his videos slowly sometime and then really take in how many times he speculates and makes empty claims, but provides zero tangible evidence for any of it. It’s pretty staggering once you realize, all he’s doing is dumping gish gallop and his delivery is very similar to methods used in hypnotic suggestion, that’s why he speaks consistently monotone. The dudes a con artist, and I’ll give him this much, he’s good at it.
Anyway, here’s some photos taken from space https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. Was your search bar broken or something? Found these in like 5 seconds. If you click the back button at top left on the page, you’ll find an archive with many more. But go ahead...just tell me they’re all fake, while not demonstrating how you proved that claim, it’s always the same with you lot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cause it was cheaper and easier to do and it was a lot more stable. Think about it, is your internet faster and more stable while connected with Ethernet direct to the modem or while using wifi? A direct line of cables creates a steady flow of internet connection between continents that is far more stable and WAY cheaper then a satellite network. It's not like they weren't trying though, but every company that tried to create a satellite network for internet failed because of the high cost to pull it off. It's a little easier to send TV signals via satellite, less information being transmitted, internet is a bit different...lot more data being sent, which means these sats are not as cheap to produce....that and far more people are going to access them, so you require a lot more of them. You wanna know how many more internet users there are compared to tv satellite users? The difference is in the Billions.
So it was just a lot more stable and cost effect to run cables...that's generally how all new communication infrastructure starts out, we start with solid land lines, then work our way up from there. Internet is the newest of the communication networks we've developed today, so it's gotta go through its growing pains like everything else. But they are going to be rolling out a global network of satellite internet actually, look up Star Link sometime. It's a large network of satellites that Space X is gonna be launching real soon, which is going to make satellite internet accessible around the entire planet...so it's coming, be patient. Satellite TV has been around for decades now...but it didn't become possible over night, it took a few decades to get that right too, just like all new tech does. We're only in the second decade of even having internet...it's really not that old still.
It's fine to question things...just don't let paranoia lead you...that's how people jump to conclusions.
Also, the North Star does move...any astronomer will tell you that. We know this cause we've been tracking the stars a long time, in a few more centuries Polaris won't be the North star anymore. They do change, they are changing, it just takes longer then any human lifetime will ever notice...unless they're paying attention...and fact is, most of us aren't.
1
-
1
-
@shots-shots-shotseverybody2707 According to you…someone who thinks empty claims and questions somehow equal evidence and proof. Just cause you blindly agreed to some bullshit you read or watched online, doesn’t make you an expert I’m afraid. So take a seat and listen, learn some real science.
Rockets propel in vacuum thanks to the third law of motion; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It’s the same physics that causes a gun to recoil, the bullet pushes off the inertia of the gun, the gun is flung back in the opposite direction from that action…action, reaction. A rocket does it in a similar fashion, the ignited gas pushes off the rocket and shoots one direction (action), the rocket then is pushed away in the opposite direction (reaction). Again…basic physics, that you can confirm yourself, at any time you choose to stop being an intentionally ignorant pleb.
Here’s a simple experiment that helps confirm this, and one that’s often used in your general science classes back in high school. Sit on a skateboard, feet up on the board, with a 20 lb medicine ball in your hand…now toss the medicine ball as hard as you can away from you. You will go one way, the medicine ball will go the other…essentially pushing off of each other. 3rd law of motion confirmed in a simple experiment anyone can recreate. That’s how rockets propel themselves…and it works exceptionally well in vacuum, because there’s no friction to slow or stop any reactive motions.
There’s no psi in space…so what are you talking about? 🤷♂️ You only require about 5 psi to keep a crew conscious and alive for long periods of time, that’s a fact, you can look it up. A car tire holds far more pressure every single day…while holding up thousands of pounds of metal. You’re an idiot if you think we couldn’t design a vessel strong enough to contain 5 pounds of pressure…we create vessels designed for far more extreme conditions here on Earth, submarines withstand thousands of pounds of crushing pressure…you really think we couldn’t design something for just 5 pounds, or even 14? Where’d you get that assumption? 😅 Jesus….
I swear…Flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. You fell for some bullshit my dude…sorry to have to tell ya.
Plenty of videos you can find online of rockets propelling in vacuum containers, as well as several experiments of the third law of motion demonstrated in vacuum as well. It’s proven science…taught in basic physics classes. It’s really not our problem if you had a poor education, or if you didn’t think it important to pay attention in physics class.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deptfakex7472 The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has to do with energy not mass. Our atmosphere is contained by gravity, and it's also what creates the pressure gradient we measure. You're misunderstanding physics and holding that misunderstanding up as evidence...how do you think this is an argument? It's incredible.
Photos that are composites are photoshopped, photos that are non composite are not photoshopped...it's pretty simple. You're arguing a strawman, convincing yourself that all photos NASA takes are composite images...and this is just simply not true at all. That employee was describing what HE DOES at his HIS JOB. He never said that ALL PHOTOS are composite...just the ones HE WORKS ON! Open your ears and stop filtering everything through your bias. Here's an archive of photos that are all non composite, meaning they are full images of Earth taken from thousands of miles from Earth. If you want more I can provide many more sources...full images of Earth are not hard to find. Is your search bar broken or something?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
A helium balloon rises due to buoyancy...buoyancy is directly caused by gravity. It is less dense mass being displaced by more dense mass, forcing the lesser dense mass upwards...but for that displacement to occur there first has to be a downward accelerating force pulling that dense matter down, causing the displacement of less dense material...in this case Helium. It's no different from air bubbles rising in water, it's the same exact thing, except helium is doing it through air, because it is less dense than the atmosphere we breath. Gravity is the key to this upward motion, when you remove gravity from the equation, buoyancy does not occur. This is proven all the time in simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI&t=177s
Heat effects magnetic material that absorbed that charge through contact with electromagnetic fields...but electromagnetic fields are very different, they are generated by large quantities of energy...so basically heat and pressure, that flows through highly conductive material (iron, nickel, the two most abundant metals on Earth). Which is quite abundant in our inner mantles, we know, it gets spit out all the time in the form of volcanic rock. The Earth generates an electromagnetic field...we know this, we measure it, we detect it, it does exist. The question is how does Earth do this? Electromagnetic fields don't just generate themselves. We actually know a lot about this science though, we recreate electromagnetic fields all the time, and it requires a lot of energy, passing through highly conductive material. That same energy can be produced by a rotating system of iron and nickel, within a pressurized environment...like our core. You're error here is assuming that a regular house hold magnet that holds a charge, is the same as an electromagnet...and it's not.
So again, you're just reaching a very erroneous conclusion, formed from having ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you're talking about.
We don't have to dig down into the core, to know what it is made of. We have other methods we can use, one being seismic data we collect from Earthquakes, which can tell us A LOT about the composition of our Earth. Here's a great video explaining how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA&t=180s
You should really go back to school man...and spend a lot less time watching conspiracy videos on YouTube. You're not gonna learn anything of value from a group of people addicted to bullshit.
1
-
1
-
@JudaismIslamUnited Not directly no, though it does create the conditions that make it possible, so indirectly, yes. Point is that a force squeezing everything towards a centre, creates a sphere, every time, it’s the most rigid shape found in nature…and pretty common too, hence why almost every celestial body observed in space is spherical. The other point is that level doesn’t just mean flat, it can be used in many different contexts. Like with Sea level, a surface at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, at the same LEVEL from centre of gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swanm3ta850 Ok, Rowbotham conducted a sloppy experiment, that was only designed to confirm his bias and then he stopped looking. He only took ONE data set, from ONE observation and then somehow thought this was good enough. Then he made it worse by doing some bad math, and then never checked to make sure he was using the proper math for his observation. Which means, his experiment is inconclusive, due to the experimenter not doing enough to reach an actual conclusive result. It is the perfect example of a bias experiment and it's taught to undergraduates of science today, to illustrate the dangers of conducting sloppy experiments. It is a clear cut case of confirmation bias, it's also one of the many examples for why peer review is so important to the process of science. Peer review catches errors and bias such as this...which is exactly how science dismissed his conclusion. Upon all peer review, his version of this experiment is labelled inconclusive. Not because it's a bad experiment mind you, it's actually pretty clever (I'll give him that much), just because he wasn't objective in his efforts, he was deeply bias and because of that, he only went so far to confirm that bias...which is pretty typical from flat Earth actually.
Here is a proper recreation of this experiment. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment THIS is how you do things properly. Account for every variable, take multiple data sets over several days, create the experiment so you can control for every known variable and conduct control experiments to account for any hidden variables. Most of all...use the correct math, that adds variables for height of the observer, height of the objects and refraction. If you'll pay attention to the second half of that report, it has a whole section on refraction...it is a very important variable to factor. Rowbotham took no such effort to account for any of these variables...all he cared about, was confirming his bias.
So that's why his experiment was dismissed and deemed inconclusive. It's the perfect example of science done wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JasonsMove It’s funny how some people think just saying “scientific method, start there” is in anyway something of substance that adds anything to a point. 🤦♂️
8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math for what Flatties use it for. It has no variable for height of the observer….I shouldn’t have to explain this to an adult, but you know we see further the higher we go in elevation, right? You’re aware of that, right? Okay…so then don’t you think that’s a pretty important variable to include in the math for line of sight observations? 😳 Ya…it is.
We know how to do math……do you? 🧐 Cause I don’t think you do…if you did, you’d recognize a parabola equation when you saw it, and you’d understand that the formula FE uses is missing important variables. So it’s the WRONG MATH for what you’re using it for…use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
You know a big part of the scientific method is called PEER REVIEW…what do you think we’re doing right now? 🧐 We do peer review because people are not infallible, they make mistakes, often without realizing it because of bias or their own cognitive limitations. You are in error, your math is extremely wrong…and so we’re just pointing that out. 8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation (not for a spherical curvature), and has no variable for height of the observer…which is an extremely important variable here. So please get that through your head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JasonsMove You missed; 7. Submit/publish results…which is where the peer review process begins. Also, should be pointed out that you presented it as a linear step process that eventually ends, but it’s more like a loop that never ends. Science is an on going process, after you publish, the process then starts over for the people reviewing…we call that peer review.
Experiments must be repeatable, or else they are not valid…because just cause someone went through the steps, in no way implies they did it without error. You went through the scientific method of experimentation, that’s great, but the process of science is more than just experimenting…the next big step of the scientific process is discussing the results and recreating them, probing for any possible errors YOU may have missed. The next step is checking the work, to see if it holds up to review and recreation.
Without that process of review, then anyone is free to say and claim whatever they want, and it’s all equally valid. Peer review is how we weed out the bullshit…like Flat Earth.
Like it or not, that’s how it works. The only people who don’t like peer review and wish it would go away, surprise surprise, are conmen and pseudo intellectuals. Why do you think Flat Earth does everything it can to pretend it doesn’t exist? Hmmm…gee, that’s a tough one…🧐
Ironically though, what FE is doing is a form of peer review, which is great! I’m all for people questioning, even the most established science, truthfully, that’s awesome. But that doesn’t make you immune to the same process of review…YOU are not the one exception to the standards of review and burden of proof. Doesn’t work that way. The scientific method isn’t linear, it’s a wheel, a never ending process that loops back in on itself…we call that peer review.
1
-
Been looking at the Flat Earth mess for over 3 years now....still a Globe Earther. In fact I'm more of a Globe Earther today then I ever was before, because now I know and understand how mankind reached that conclusion, from the science to the history. And I agree with that conclusion, the evidence is more than substantial. I'd agree though that not all Flat Earthers are stupid...and that's what makes it even more frustrating and a little scary. It's proof that even intelligent people can lose their minds to paranoia, if they don't learn how to control their bias.
Science learned a long time ago that confirmation bias was a flaw of man, so they developed the peer review system to combat this flaw. We are intelligent and curious creatures, but our ego is a problem...it gets in the way of ability to remaining objective...which is VERY important in science. Some people realize this...others, never figure that out, even though they're quite intelligent by all other measure. That is why the peer review system is so crucial to the process of science...it is there to weed out errors, lies and bias. It works, because though a individual is limited in its own ability to spot its flaws...our peers on the other hand, have no such limitation. Our peers can't wait to tear us apart.
Eric Dubay though...I'm sorry, but he is nothing but a lying narcissist. His claims sound convincing on the surface, because of his mastery of hypnotic suggestion and gish gallop argumentation, but when you really look at his claims one by one, and break them down objectively...you learn pretty quickly that he has NO IDEA what he's talking about. Just watch this video here of an actual experienced paleontologist, breaking down one of Eric Dubay's rants on how dinosaurs are fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4&t=668s Give it a watch, and pay attention to how many lies this guy catches in just a short time. They don't even get through 5 minutes of Eric's video...and he probably points about 30 or so lies.
Eric Dubay lies like breathing....this is not a man anyone should just listen to blindly and without question. He is the poster boy for what a con man is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because he was an Astrophysicist (among other things), and that requires he studied the sky...a lot. Firmament has many interpretations, but it’s largely meant in the context of sky. So it was his life’s work to observe and study the sky and space, so it is a fitting passage for his life’s work. When you go and place suspicion upon it and start assuming possible nefarious narratives for its meaning, you’re now speculating and forming patterns that likely are not there. All you can really do with that tombstone is speculate, so it’s not really evidence, it’s just a waste of time.
I think it’s important to recognize the difference between speculation and evidence, one is tangible and the other is assumed. I don’t know about you, but I would personally much rather follow tangible evidence over speculative conjectures. One I can be certain of and reach definite objective conclusions with, the other I can only form bias opinions with.
Flat Earth is full of little bread crumbs like these, that are fun to chase...but they don’t really mean anything, and if you’re not careful, you can fall into the trap they’re really leading you towards. Stick to the science I say, these kinds of speculations are just bread crumbs used to con people and rob them of their better reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BeachMongoose Any astronomer will tell you, that the stars are changing, it’s very common knowledge amongst those who actually spend their nights watching and recording the stars each night. If you’ve never heard that before, surprise, it’s because you’re not an expert on this stuff and you’ve never really done research on it before...you just think you have, cause you watched a few YouTube videos, from people who are just as clueless as you are, who jump to conclusions based off of what you currently know, which is likely not much, cause you likely don’t have any real experience in science and research.
Look up a star known as Barnards star sometime, it’s one of the easier stars to begin noticing any deviation, only takes a couple years of tracking it to notice its obvious shifting from the surrounding stars. This occurs because of its relative proximity to us, as well as it’s orbital path which is wildly different from ours, not on the same orbital plane. All the stars are changing, this is a known fact, an astronomer with even just a few years experience under his belt can confirm this, there are lots of closer proximity stars that do a great deal of noticeable shifting within a single human lifetime. The reason it takes so long is due to parallax, which is effected by distance. The stars aligned with ancient temples (allegedly, I’ve never confirmed this, have you?), like Orions belt for example, are unique in both their distances and their orbital paths, they take longer to shift, because of how they’re moving relative to us...like cars on a straight highway, moving fast, but unnoticed by each other, due too them all moving in the same direction at the same relative pace.
So now you know, but don’t take my word for it, why not join an astronomy club in your area and start joining them on their observations sometime? You can learn a lot from the stars....like how there’s two rotations, around two separate pole stars, in two different hemisphere sky’s...exactly like we’d expect there to be on a globe that is rotating. I’m just saying...you can learn a lot online, but it’s all second hand information. All you’re doing is arguing from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy, but take your own advice, cause it’s not really research until it’s first hand knowledge, right? So peel yourself away from your computer sometime and learn first hand how flat Earth cons people, by exploiting your ignorance.
1
-
@BeachMongoose Repeatable, observable, measurable experiments...ya, like observing the stars every night, recording the positions for any measurable shifts in parallax between other stars, and then repeating it again and again over a few years to see if the constellations actually do change or not....which is pretty much a prerequisite for any astronomer worth their salt. Every astronomer will tell you the stars are shifting, whether you like it or not, this is common knowledge among these experts. You can acquire this knowledge yourself as well, first hand, at anytime you choose to begin actually putting in the real research. Claiming that it doesn’t happen, is not an argument against these observations...it’s just denial and willful ignorance.
You just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about...you flat out ignored everything I said, so you could go on believing your bullshit fantasy, where you’re right and the experts who actually do know what they’re talking about are just lying because...reasons. Barnards star, look it up, learn what it is, then get yourself a telescope and start tracking it...or don’t and remain in your ignorant little world where your “star gazing” every now and then, somehow qualifies you as an expert.
I thought the information age would make us all smarter as well....boy did I under estimate how much faster misinformation spreads. The internet has become a breeding ground for con men and pseudo-intellectuals...it’s just sad.
1
-
@BeachMongoose Listen, you brought up astronomy and made a claim that the stars don’t shift...I’m just letting you know, that this is not true in the slightest and any real astronomer would tell you the same. Barnards star is just a great example to start with, because it shifts quicker than most other stars, but it’s far from the only one, because pretty close to every star has been observed to shift over time...they are well documented and even single individuals have personally tracked and logged hundreds to even millions of these shifts, ranging from personal observation and cataloging, to being aided by modern tracking and computing technology. You want repeatable science, become an astronomer and actually learn this stuff first hand...like millions of others have. It takes time, but it’s not difficult. Arguments from ignorance won’t get you very far I’m afraid.
But, I get it, not everyone has that kind of time, so since you’re asking nicely, here’s some simpler observations and experiments you can recreate that help verify the Earths true geometry and scale.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno
https://youtu.be/ZMtx5jVLUaU
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Plenty more I can share, but I’d rather not overwhelm you. These are all very repeatable, just requires a little bit of effort, the last one being the most extensive in terms of effort, but still quite doable by anyone.
There is a very good reason why many people do not bat an eye at flat Earth claims, cause we have knowledge and experience that directly refutes those claims and we’re not just going to ignore what we know. It’s fine to disagree, but you’re only kidding yourself if you think there’s no valid arguments to your claims. I’m sorry if most would rather mock you than share information, and apologies if our conversation became tense or condescending at any point, but real experts are out there...and they’re more than happy to share what they’ve learned first hand, so long as the respect is mutual.
Flat Earth has no working model...this shouldn’t be so easily ignored, in my opinion. Anyway, I can’t force you to agree, but if it interests you enough, at the very least consider some of the information I’ve shared.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DigitalGus75 Flat Earth is just an easier topic than others, requiring a lot less scientific knowledge and experience to tackle, so that means a larger pool of people can chime in. Also, it’s more frustrating and shocking than others, because It’s obviously wrong, it shouldn’t even be a debate, but it is…somehow. So it’s more triggering, we’re just dumbfounded that anyone would even consider it, so the desire to snuff it out is greater.
Thing is, we’re all kind of sort of experts here, because we all live here, we have experience here. I don’t have any experience synthesizing a vaccine, or on collecting carbon data from ancient ice samples, or sending rockets into space, and most people don’t…but I have been to the ocean, I’ve seen boats go over the horizon. I’ve travelled to the Southern Hemisphere, I’ve seen the second rotation of stars around their own polar axis. I’ve been on long plane and ship voyages before, I know these professionals of navigation use a system designed around the knowledge that Earth is spherical. I’ve seen a sunset and I understand basic geometry, I understand how a sunset would be impossible, on a flat Earth with ONE sky, where it’s never blocked from my line of sight by the surface.
So it’s easier to debunk and we’re all basically experts on the topic, so that’s why it gets more attention, more people can chime in. It’s actually fairly rare to see an accredited scientist wasting their time. Most people debunking flat Earth, are layman, joining a conversation of science that’s not outside their experiences…like most other conspiracy’s are. I can argue for vaccines, but I’m not a virologist, so my expertise is very limited. I can argue against climate deniers, but I’m not a scientist out there collecting and analyzing data, so it limits what I can argue against. Flat Earth though…remembering just a few experiences in my life, and I can take the arguments as far as any flat Earther can.
That’s why it gets so much more attention, in my opinion. It’s the easiest one to debunk, with the largest pool of experts. We’re all experts on Earth, in our own ways, because we all have experience here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@awakenedwarrior5510 Ya, it’s cool, I do too. And to be fair, I do see your point as well, I’m just not one to lean towards the more paranoid conclusions is all. This is one of those things though, that we both can only really speculate on. I may be able to provide a logical answer, but that doesn’t make it true. I prefer sticking to the arguments I can actually verify for certain, rather than points I can really only speculate on, but it is fun to ponder alternative answers on those as well. Anyway, glad to know the info was at least interesting, have a good one.
1
-
@awakenedwarrior5510 Well, I personally know it’s a globe after years of studying Earth science and time spent travelling the world, where I was able to make a lot of my own observations. Anyone with enough interest and willingness to learn can recreate the science for themselves that led to the current conclusions, you don’t have to just take somebody else’s word for it. Learning to navigate will tell you everything you need to know, pilots and sailors require an accurate mapping of Earth, if they’re going to find their destinations with any accuracy, that’s just common sense. That extra 3rd dimension of travel matters a great deal to things, and they do make geodetic conversions when plotting courses, they wouldn’t have to do that if the Earth were flat.
It’s simple geometry, navigation is built around the knowledge that Earth is a sphere with two equal hemispheres, that’s just a fact. If the Earth was flat, then navigation would operate differently, it would be designed accordingly. So to believe the Earth is flat, you’d basically have to believe every pilot and sailor is lying to you for some reason. Take the time to learn what they know, learn how to navigate, and you’ll understand the true shape and scale of things. That’s how I was able to verify things for myself, well, one of the ways anyway, there are plenty more. Sailors aren’t scientists, but they’ve known the true shape for hundreds of years now, just by understanding some basic geometry.
As for your Moon question, this is just a simple misunderstanding. The phases of the Moon aren’t created by Earths shadow, you’re thinking of a Lunar Eclipse. The phases of the Moon are created by the Moon itself blocking the light from the Sun, casting shadow on the part not pointed at the Sun, not illuminated by the Sun. Here’s a simple demonstration that might help. https://youtu.be/wz01pTvuMa0 See the phases have more to do with the Moons position in its orbit relative to us. It spends about half its orbit on the day side, coming between us and the Sun, so the Sun illuminates the side pointing towards it, while the other side of the Moon is in shadow cause it’s not pointing at the Sun. It’s more basic geometry, the Moons a sphere, there’s only one major light source (the sun) so only one side of the Moon can be lit up at any given time. As it orbits us, our viewing angle shifts, creating the Moon phases.
Anyway, hope that’s at the very least interesting information for ya. Let me know if ya got any more questions or points to raise.
1
-
No, we have taken pictures now, it is pretty darn set in stone at this point. You're quite deluded if you actually believe the world can operate as it does, with the technology we have and the industries that exist, if we do not actually know the true shape and scale of our planet. It's fine to question what you're told, perfectly logical in fact, but if you're wrong...no amount of being "woke" is going to change that and people are not just going to roll over and accept empty, ignorant, incredulous claims...from individuals, who clearly have zero experience or actual expertise, with contributing to society in science, math, navigation, research and development.
You use a computer likely every day...do you honestly think the people who made that possible for you, down to the silicone in the microchips, to the binary code that runs the software, to the wifi that travels on the electro magnetic spectrum, and connects you to a world wide global network, do you honestly believe they could achieve all that, but they couldn't figure out what shape our planet is? Wake up...somebody has filled the gaps in your knowledge with some real bullshit, using your growing paranoia and lack of experience against you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seesaw1969 No problem, everyone is entitled to their opinions and asking questions is a good thing. In all fairness they were actually great physics questions, many of them were the exact same questions many scientists ask at some point. I just worry people are leaning more into their fears and paranoias, than they are actually thinking about these questions. My fear is that instead of seeking to really answer these and other questions, you instead collect the questions as your evidence, and ignore any possible answers to them, because the questions compiled together gives you a case, and it’s your only weapon against a system of authority you’ve come to resent and hate and above all, distrust. So to answer those questions, kind of disarms you in a way…I fear that people are currently preferring to remain in ignorance, because that ignorance is their weapon, helping them muster some power and control over a system that is indifferent to them. That’s what I worry about...people being misled by their fears and distrusts, rather than using their heads.
You basically described your reasons for doubting science, with your perspective on 9/11. You’re not wrong there I personally feel, it was odd, and I would agree, from what I’ve seen, it’s very plausible that it was a controlled demolition, with inside meddling. So I get it, you’ve lost a great deal of trust that day and who can blame you. But even if the government or some rich shadowy cabal was proven to be responsible for bringing down those towers, it wouldn’t automatically mean the Earth is flat, or that NASA is faking space travel…those are still exclusive issues, it’s a dangerous leap in logic to think in sweeping absolutes like that. People shouldn’t lose their heads, they should leave it on their shoulders and continue to look at everything objectively, not be led by their desire to bag the bad guy. That just develops into confirmation bias, and then people begin inventing things like flat Earth…that’s when you lose. When you start going so deep into that paranoia, that you’re now denying a fact of reality that’s easily verified with one sunset, or one successful voyage plotted and planned using our current system of geodesic navigation…at that point, it’s pretty clear you’ve allowed this distrust to fester and cloud your better reasoning.
You’re not wrong to think something is wrong, because something is wrong, your distrust for some systems of authority is justified…but the Earth is still not flat and anyone can verify that, if they just stopped collecting questions, and instead started answering them. Questions are not evidence on their own, there is a distinct difference. Questions are good to ask, but if you assume the answers instead of actually answering them, and if you do that enough times, then you wind up following confirmation bias down a path of complete bullshit…and it can be hard to turn back if you’ve gone too far down, even if you do learn it’s nonsense. Because then it’ll just feel like you wasted time.
I feel Flat Earth is a purely psychological phenomenon, that reflects how mentally unhealthy society as a whole is becoming. We’ve been abused by our governments, lied too, cheated and even murdered in many cases, it’s making us crazy…causing us to abandon our better reasoning, in favour of pretty much any wild theory. It’s sad….especially now that this distrust is bleeding out into science. Scientists are not your enemy, and the very large majority are not out to harm anyone. They are your neighbours, you likely grew up with many of them, they’re mostly good people, they want the same things you do, a better world. On top of that, there is a very simple way to sniff out pseudoscience…it doesn’t work and it’s not useful in any applied science. Real science is the opposite, it works, that’s how you tell what’s true and what isn’t. Anyone can learn to navigate, it’s not difficult. The current system of navigation is built on the knowledge that Earth is a sphere with two equal hemispheres. Millions of people use this system of navigation every single day and it works every time it is applied properly. That’s not just a coincidence. If the Earth was flat, then current navigation models would not work. It’s really that simple. So I do strongly feel people are wasting their time on flat Earth, looking for answers in the wrong places.
Anyway, I’m starting to ramble a bit. If there’s anymore questions on the science, feel free to ask, I’d really prefer staying focused on answering whatever scientific questions you might have. My point here is just to remind people to be careful, avoid following confirmation bias, keep your head on your shoulders. It’s good to be skeptical, it’s good to ask questions, but be honest and objective while you do.
1
-
1
-
Yes, that experiment is an example of an inconclusive experiment, it does not verify or falsify either model, it is inconclusive. So when Flat Earth uses it as evidence, they are doing so out of bias, completely ignoring the globe model and all the science that comes with it...like gravity, which is the biggest factor for why this experiment is inconclusive. A bubble level uses buoyancy to work, which is directly caused by gravity. That bubble is leveling to center of gravity at all times, which will shift as you travel along the surface of Earth, following center of gravity...which means it will read level the entire flight thanks to gravity.
So if Earth is a sphere with gravity, the bubble will read level. If the Earth is flat without gravity, it will still read level....so this experiment proves nothing, it is inconclusive. Flat Earth doesn't care though, ignorance is their bread and butter, they just ignore the heliocentric science (even though it's 100% verified science) and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Denial is not an argument, it's just good ol' fashion ignorance.
1
-
Electromagnetism is also a theory in science, but you’re currently using wifi to access the internet I bet…how do you think that technology is possible? A scientific theory is very different from a regular theory in the layman usage, so don’t let the wording fool you, nothing graduates past hypothesis into theory without first being verified, with lots of supporting evidence. Even then, it still has to pass peer review, which can sometimes take years.
A scientific theory is a body of verified knowledge and facts, that describes how and why a physical phenomena of nature operates the way it does. Not to be confused with a scientific law, which only describes WHAT is occurring, but makes no attempt to explain how it occurs. That’s the difference between the two. Facts are just smaller bits of information that make up the foundations of theories and laws. Understand the difference a bit better now?
Your comment reveals a few misunderstandings of basic scientific terminology…which is not a good start if you’re going to argue science. It’s no wonder you’re confused by much of modern science…you don’t seem to know or understand the basics.
A balloon doesn’t drift away because of conservation of momentum, basic physics of motion. It’s moving relative to the surface, so it’s moving with it, conserving that momentum at all times. You can easily verify this, by taking a helium balloon with you on any moving vehicle. Once the vehicle has reached a constant forward velocity, let the balloon go, you’ll be surprised to see that it continues forward with the vehicle, conserving its momentum. Doesn’t matter how fast you go either, motion is always conserved. It’s the first law of motion; all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Most weather balloons use gopros, which are cheap and durable. Most people aren’t about to send up a camera worth thousands of dollars, if they don’t have too. Weather balloons are designed to pop once they reach the vacuum of space, so these cameras fall back down to Earth, it’s generally the only way to retrieve them. So gopros are typically used, for efficiency and economic reasons. Lots of people have sent up balloons with other various cameras though, so just gotta keep looking, you’ll find one eventually.
Anyway, I hope this information is helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, the Bedford Level experiment has been repeated many times now. Upon every published recreation, it’s found in favour of a Globe. Here’s a very recent recreation, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
The reason Rowbotham (Parallax) came back with a flat result, is because he was ignoring variables (like atmospheric refraction) and he conducted a very rushed experiment that only made one observation and only collected one data set. He also did the wrong math, so his experiment was just poorly done. Upon all peer review of his work, it’s found that he didn’t do enough to render a conclusive result, so his work is inconclusive. It’s now a perfect example of how a good experiment done poorly, can lead you to a false conclusion if you’re not careful. He only went as far as he needed to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking. But, that’s why we have peer review in science, to weed out errors, bias and lies.
1
-
It actually has been done many times now, they just don't listen. Here's a few that I am aware of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=390s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=480s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=9s
These YouTubers actually dedicate their channels to this mess, debunking each claim with actual experimentation. They're pretty thorough, so they're good to check out and keep on deck if you're gonna chat with these nut jobs. Cause trouble is channels like these are just not easy to find online, so people assume nobody is out there doing these sorts of experiments....but they are. That being said, I agree, we should keep repeating these experiments, this sort of things should be common knowledge.
When it comes to Flat Earthers though, we're not dealing with rational people here...we're dealing with paranoia, ego, and confirmation bias...at least for the true believers, the rest are just trolls and con men who spend their time fooling these people...for some fuckin reason I have no idea why. For the true believers, we're dealing with a mob mentality that is done trusting science, their better reasoning robbed from them by their fear and complete distrust of authority. You can show them experiments like this, but it won't put out that fire, it'll likely just stoke it. They're just not listening anymore...pretty ironic from a group of people who claim to be more "open minded".
1
-
1
-
@erikrodriguez5143 "idk Im just so dissapointed with the scientists that imp they wont answer anything coherently"
Are you sure they're not answering, or maybe you're not really listening. Ever considered that possibility? Yes, Flat Earth does ask great questions...but they're not really seeking the answers, if you pay attention you'll notice that they tend to hold those questions up as their evidence and meanwhile ignore all explanation. Consider the very real possibility that you're not really listening, scientists understand that things are not as simple as most people would like them to be, these are great questions because they're the very same questions scientists once asked...but they took a long time to answer, so it's going to take a little patience from anyone wanting to catch up to where we are currently.
You really think you can learn those answers in a just few short words? Almost nothing in science is that simple, scientists are ready to help...but do you have an afternoon to kill where they could go through all that science and history required to give you a sufficient answer to even ONE of your questions? We didn't come to the conclusion of a Globe over night...it took hundreds of years to reach that point, but there is probably nothing in all of modern science that they are more certain of today, than the shape of our planet.
They can offer you one quick observation however, nothing in the world around you today uses Flat Earth science in its framework. From engineering, to communication, to navigation and infrastructure...it's all making use of global geometry. That's for a good reason.
That being said, it's perfectly fine to ask questions, but I worry that people are allowing to much emotion and bias lead them, rather then objective reasoning. There is so much misinformation on the internet today, and for some reason people just gobble it up and accept it all blindly, because it was presented to them in quick packages of information they could consume on the fly without much research. Someone may have made a claim that they were seeing a lighthouse from 100+ miles away...but what reason do you have to believe them outright?
1
-
@RandomVideos-kn3pf Funny you should say that, I’m actually an artist for a living…been studying perspective art fundamentals for a very long time now. Flat Earthers butcher perspective to make it work for them, ignoring many of the fundamentals of perspective. Wanna learn something about perspective? When something is physically above your eye level, it can not go below it due to perspective alone. It can appear to converge at eye level (eventually reaching a vanishing point), but never will it go below it. The sun dips well below horizon when it sets, we’ve all seen it do this, so perspective does not account for what we observe in reality with a sunset.
Another problem you have is that perspective causes an object to appear like it’s shrinking in angular size the further away it gets. The Sun does not do this, observe it throughout a full day with a solar filter lens, you’ll notice it maintains the exact same size throughout a full day.
So perspective does not account for a sunset…a curvature does. Please don’t just slot in ad hoc solutions without really thinking them through first. Perspective has pretty simple rules, so if a sunset isn’t checking all those boxes, then it’s simply not the answer. Don’t allow a desire to win an argument, keep you from remaining objective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skateup2291 Ok, or...you were fed bad information from huxters online, who lied to you about the details, and for some reason you believed them without question. For example, the math FE uses to make their long distance observations (8 inches per mile squared), is straight up wrong. That is not a spherical calculation, that is a basic parabola equation. It doesn’t represent line of sight, has no variables for height of the observer, distance to horizon, refraction, eye level, etc. It’s basically akin to a slight of hand trick....and if you used it without checking it first, then you fell for it. Just one of MANY ways they lie to people.
You’re not getting the facts from these people, you’re getting bullshit that they made up. You’re being conned...at the very least, you should consider that possibility.
1
-
So we shouldn’t call out obvious bullshit when we see it? Do you think Flat Earth is somehow free from analysis and skepticism? Why can’t we question them, just as thoroughly as they question others? 🤷♂️
It’s fine to be skeptical, but when you’re just a contrarian for the sake of being different, then you’re not thinking rationally or objectively anymore, you’re just a hipster of misinformation. We are just being skeptical as well…skeptical of strangers online, with no background in science, pretending they’re the real experts, while pushing misinformation, that’s easily falsified with just a base understanding of physics and geometry.
You make claims on a public forum…you should expect to be checked for it. Flat Earth does not get a free pass from peer review. It’s unfortunate that ridicule occurs, but it’s human nature, so it’s gonna happen…and it happens from both sides, not just the globe proponents. Get a thicker skin I guess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, but many of the photos were taken during the Apollo missions (and even earlier), decades before CGI was really possible or viable for such imagery. Long before photoshop any way. I remember these images, long before the internet or computers were largely used. So how exactly did they fake these photos? Furthermore, what you really have here is just an empty claim, a conclusion reached from speculation. If you really were a professor as you claim, I’m surprised you’d form such a flimsy conclusion from speculations alone. It’s logical to infer the possibility of fakery, but no conclusion can really be drawn here, only speculated upon. That being said, I’d agree, unless I took the picture myself, I can’t really use it for argument either, so it’s fair not to accept photos as evidence. I’m fine with that, in this case at least.
Point is though, no, NASA does not claim every image they’ve produced is CGI. So you’re not off to a good start if you’re claiming they do. That is a lie...so why should anyone engage in conversation with anyone so willing to lie or twist facts? If you feel it’s not a lie though, feel free to educate me with a citation where NASA made that claim.
I don’t mind sharing and discussing evidence, but I’m not really interested in a debate where I’m going to be lied too constantly, just to win an argument. We have every reason to question Flat Earth, so don’t pretend like we don’t. It’s not delusional at all to be skeptical about a potential online hoax.
On that note, I’ll share some information on your points, I don’t mind.
1. Well, first of all, 8 inches per mile squared is not the accurate math to use in long distance observations. It is missing important variables required to make an accurate calculation here, things like height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc. So if that’s the math you’ve been using, then that’s your first problem. Here’s where you can find the correct math you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/. Feel free to check the math here, you’ll find it’s far more accurate, than a basic parabola equation.
As for the evidence you’re looking for, here you go http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is a very in-depth recreation of the infamous Bedford Level experiment, only this time conducted over 10 km of a frozen lake. The conclusion is quite conclusive, the surface of that lake is curving and at the rate it should be given Earth’s scale. But feel free to analyze it closer if you’d like.
2. No, Michelson and Morley’s experiment was inconclusive. Upon all peer review, that has continued to be its conclusion, even Michelson and Morley agreed to this. What this means is, it neither verifies nor falsifies Aether, or its null hypothesis of a stationary Earth. So no, it did not prove the Earth is stationary, it is inconclusive, so anyone using this experiment to support any definite conclusion, is doing so out of pure bias.
What it did mean however, was that there was a possibility that Aether did not exist. Which was a problem at the time, because they were very certain it did exist...this experiment was supposed to find it, and everyone within physics at the time expected it would. They weren’t as concerned with the null hypothesis of a stationary Earth, because mountains of evidence already existed verifying that Earth rotation did exist. Foucault pendulum experiments, the gyro compass, observations of Coriolis effect, not to mention the plethora of observations already amassed from astronomy records, verifying the motions of our solar system, there just was no evidence suggesting Earth was not rotating, meanwhile there was tons in support of it. Today we have even more, with things like ring laser interferometers, used to measure Earth’s rotation.
So here’s how science looked at it, there was no evidence yet for the Aether and all other attempts to find it continued to find nothing, either failing completely or rendering an inconclusive result. Meanwhile, Earth rotation was being confirmed more and more, with tons of verified evidence...so you see a little better now why science would continue to support Earth rotation, while abandoning the concept of Aether?
So it’s another lie, saying Michelson Morley confirmed a stationary Earth, truth is it’s inconclusive. But feel free to provide me with any evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, I’ll now share some simple experiments verifying Earth rotation.
https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss - Ring laser interferometer measuring Earth rotation through the Sagnac effect.
https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U - Foucault pendulum experiment repeated in a stairwell, refined a bit to calculate latitude.
https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38 - Simple Coriolis experiment, testing the swirling water of each hemisphere.
https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o - Measuring Earth’s centrifugal force by latitude.
3. Well...no, the heliocentric model was already pretty well established, special relativity physics just helped solve of few of the issues presented by the missing Aether (among other things). It filled in some blanks and solved a few problems, that’s about it. It helped refine gravity physics, to which much of Newtonian physics couldn’t account for. But proof? I mean, just look at any nuclear reactor or nuclear bomb. Both use this equation and understanding, to help understand, calculate and create the massive energy outputs of both. It’s just an equation to calculate how much energy you can get from a mass and vice versa...and it’s been pretty useful for that purpose, history proves that, current nuclear fission and fusion technology proves that.
But, I’m not a physicist, so I don’t pretend to know every facet of special or general relativity, just a baseline understanding really. But regardless, even if it could be falsified, does it change the observations made for a spherical Earth? There’s so much nuance in higher physics like that, that you could probably argue against these equations and maybe even falsify them...but does that really change the fact that I can travel to the South hemisphere, and observe the second rotation of stars around Sigma Octantis, for myself? Which I have done btw. Does it change the fact that I can put the current system of navigation to the test, by using it to plot my own navigation courses? Should we just throw the baby out with the bath water, because of some higher level physics that we’re aware is not completely worked out yet, even if it could be proven false? No...I’m not about to do that. Science is a process, it’s been wrong many times...but the geometry of the Earth, is an applied science today...it’s not really up for debate any longer.
You think GR is false and falsifiable, by all means, give it your best shot. But good luck with that, because every attempt so far, has just verified it further.
Anyway, that’s my two cents for now. Feel free to respond if you’d like. I don’t have all the time in the world for a full on debate, but I’ll try and respond when I can, if you have anything you’d like to address.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickhickman8723 Well, you certainly don’t mind ignoring basic facts, to ram a square peg into a round hole. Here’s some basic facts you’ve ignored so far.
FACT: Rockets are not Aeroplanes, so they shouldn’t be compared to Aeroplanes.
FACT: Rockets do not use air for thrust or lift, they use the third law of motion, action reaction. Ignited gas imparts a force on the rocket (action), rocket is pushed by that force in the opposite direction (reaction).
FACT: Rockets can and do propel in vacuum, Aeroplanes can not…hence why rockets are used in space travel.
FACT: Many words in the English language have different definitions depending on the context. Ex. Level.
FACT: Sea level is not implying Earth is flat, it’s implying that the surface of oceans are all at equipotential distance from centre of a field of force. Field of force being Gravity.
FACT: Plumb Bobs align with gravity vectors. Gravity vectors point to centre of gravity, so plumb bobs point to centre as well.
FACT: You are not smarter than the engineers and scientists who developed our current technology and scientific understandings. Far from it.
FACT: Flat Earth is an internet hoax, introduced by conmen and trolls, and perpetuated by the village idiots who fell for the scam. Which one are you?
1
-
Water is inert, and will conform to whatever force is acting upon it. Gravity is understood to attract everything towards centre of Earth, creating a field of force emanating out from that centre, that forms Earth into a sphere, and puts any all fluid at equipotential distance from that centre. From our tiny perspective, it’s almost impossible to tell, because we see curvature in terms of degrees, and it takes 69 miles for Earth to arc 1 degree…how many degrees you think are in 3 miles? Which is the average distance to horizon at 6 foot viewing height.
Your argument is ignorant of both gravity physics, and basic geometry and perspective. So how can anyone think ignorance is an argument? It’s also ignorant of the fact that we have long since measured and surveyed the entire Earth…to the point where we now have an entire system of navigation, built around that knowledge. You honestly think every pilot and sailor in the world can do their jobs, with perfect pin point accuracy, if they don’t know the shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating? 🧐 You’d have to be pretty dumb and incredibly ignorant of navigation and geometry, to believe they could.
So here’s what we know; Earth is measured spherical, that’s a fact not an opinion, and we do observe an attraction to surface from all matter…drop something, it will fall. That attraction is observed everywhere on Earth, doesn’t matter where you are, it works the same. So it’s pretty simple deduction after that…there is a force present on Earth, that attracts everything to surface…we just gave it a name, cause it sure makes it easier to discuss something when we all know what’s being discussed.
Water flows from high elevation to low elevation. You wanna know how elevation works on a sphere? The closer to centre you are, the lower your elevation, the further from centre you are, the higher your elevation…..pretty basic geodesic geometry. Our oceans are at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, meaning all points at equal distance from centre, at the same LEVEL from centre…hence the term sea level. The oceans are at lowest possible elevation, as close to centre as the crust will allow. Rivers start at mountain peaks, at much higher elevations…they are further from centre. Everything is drawn to centre, so water flows from high elevations (further from centre) to lowest possible elevation (sea level, closer to centre).
I know you likely won’t understand any of this…Flat Earthers have a real problem with basic physics and geometry….then they call everyone else stupid. Oh the irony.😅 But I hope it helps anyway. You’re reaching a false conclusion from a very limited understanding of things. It’s not a falsification of gravity or the Earth’s measured shape, it basically just boils down too “it looks flat, therefore it is”…boy, if only science could be so basic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 I gave you two points that are both observable in reality, that can both be verified by anyone. Navigation, and gravity. So first, learn how to navigate. You learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth is, and why it’s vitally important in navigation to know for certain the shape and scale of the surface you’re navigating…or else it simply will not work. No better way to verify the spherical Earth for yourself, the entire system of navigation we currently have today, is built from that geometry…that’s not just a coincidence.
Then drop something, does it fall? Yes, it does. Is that falling a motion? Yes, it is. Does any change in state of motion occur without a force to cause it? No, nothing is put into motion without a force…that’s pretty basic physics. If you think that statement is wrong, provide me with any examples where something went from stationary to moving, without applying a force too it. So a force is present that attracts everything to surface…including water.
Here’s another quick proof of gravity; I’m sure you understand how a scale works, you press down upon a scale, applying a force, which creates pressure, that the scale then interprets as a weight value. Okay, so if a solid mass is just resting on a scale, but it’s reading a weight value…how exactly is it pressing down to create that pressure, if there’s no force present? 🧐 Ponder that as long as you like.
So it’s not difficult at that point. You verify both of those principles of reality for yourself, becomes pretty damn hard to conclude the Earth is flat after that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Well ya…that’s how the process of falsification works, that’s how science works. We find as many errors as we can, until we can’t any longer, the explanation that fits all observations and stands up to all falsification, is the model of reality we conclude, until further information can be obtained. That’s peer review in a nutshell, a very important step in the scientific method. Falsification never ends really, that’s the reality of information gathering, old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired….why do you think science chose the word ‘theory’ for their top conclusions? It’s how we remain objective…science is a process of falsification, not proving. Pretty much everyone in science today agrees with that methodology.
So if you can’t provide explanation or evidence, it’s likely because you don’t actually have any, you just chose to believe what you currently do on faith alone. Not much else I can conclude until an actual rebuttal is provided.
Let me answer your question with another question; what would happen to your model if gravity was a reality? 🧐 Simple…it wouldn’t work, just like the globe wouldn’t make much sense without gravity. But that’s not a valid falsification…it does absolutely nothing to test, or verify, or falsify gravity, it’s just a logical fallacy, a red herring, among others.
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Well, you first have to understand what’s implied by a force in physics. A force is anything that causes a change in state of motion for a mass. So when you drop something, it falls, that is a change in motion…so this implies a force is present to cause that motion. That’s how force’s are defined in physics. That’s the simplest way to put it. The trouble with your model, is that density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, it’s just how much mass occupies a certain volume. It is a scaler variable in mathematics…has no means to cause motion in matter on its own. A mathematical formula for any physical phenomenon requires at least one force variable and one scaler variable. The simplest equation to help anyone understand this, is probably the formula for weight; W=mg, which translates too ‘weight is equal to mass times the downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2)’. Mass is already there, so that’s the scaler variable…mass is basically the same thing as density (in this case), so why would we put it into the formula twice? 🤷♂️ There’s no motion, no vector…so how do we calculate weight from W=md? We can’t, the formula is now redundant. It needs a force…something that can put the mass in motion at a rate of travel, in a specific vector. Gravity does that.
Your model is really just taking established gravity physics, and chopping out the word gravity…that’s all you’re really doing. Density is already included as part of gravity physics, what you’re basically describing is buoyancy force…density displacement. What you’re not aware of currently is that gravity actually causes buoyancy, that’s why it’s included as a variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg. It works like this; gravity effects all mass equally, that’s why everything falls at the same exact rate (9.8m/s^2) but the more mass a molecule/molecules has/have, the more gravity is acting on all that inertia. So more mass in a smaller volume, means more density, more dense matter will occupy lowest position closest to gravity first, because molecules of various types do not mix well, they repel each other, and the greater mass occupies lowest potential energy state first, closest to gravity. An object with more mass, has more inertia, so it requires more repelling force from molecules to push them out of the way, while less dense molecules are easily pushed out of the way of more dense molecules.
So let’s remove gravity for a moment now, now what happens if there’s no force present to start any motions? Well, everything will just float in place, it will be chaos, no ordering of anything by its density, it would be a mixed system of various molecules, scattered all about. But now add a force that can interact with every molecule, and put it into motion in a specific direction, suddenly you have something that can order everything by density. Most dense matter will occupy lowest position first, which pushes less dense matter up…causing buoyancy. This gives order to the system, now everything can order itself, from most dense, to least dense.
So you see gravity actually causes density displacement and density ordering, which causes buoyancy…in fact it’s what gives everything in existence more order.
This stuff is already included in gravity physics…you’re not stating anything new, you’re just trying really hard to recreate the physics, without using gravity anywhere in the model. But it all falls apart without it…it’s the missing piece of your puzzle. You described it as “the density gives it weight” but that still doesn’t answer for the motion. In a small way, you are a little correct though, Einstein gave us general relativity, which stated that an objects mass curves the space and time around it, which causes gravity. So in a way, yes, it is density, density causes gravity….so you’re basically, again, just describing gravity, without saying gravity.
None of this is new…it’s new to YOU, because I don’t think you’ve ever really studied modern physics before. That’s the problem I have with flat Earth…you’ve rejected modern science, out of distrust…but now you’re just reaching the same conclusions, but with chunks missing…because you refuse to accept that modern science could be right. It’s like a cried Wolf situation…they’re right, but you don’t trust them, so psychologically can’t accept that they’re probably right.
I commend the effort…science is about falsification after all, and no better way to find the holes in a theory, than to start from scratch and see if anything was missed or overlooked, but confirmation bias is a trap anyone can fall into. So when does it cross a line from falsification, to ramming a square peg into a round hole? 🧐 It’s not always very clear…that’s why we have peer review in the scientific method in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peteoverton6069 It’s pretty simple, a map can’t be created or used, until you have accurate knowledge of the distances, correct? Same is true for the model we currently use for navigation, with lines of latitude and longitude that are equal for two hemispheres, designed for the globe. Can’t navigate the surface, if the measurements of that surface are not accurate…you will get lost, you require an accurate model, before successful navigation is possible. Everybody in navigation uses the same globe system of navigation…and it works. If you think millions of pilots of sailors can navigate with pin point accuracy, without an accurate map….then you’ve got a bit to learn about geometry.
It’s also important to understand, that you can’t interpret 3 dimensions (a sphere) with just 2 dimensions (a flat map). Because you lose a dimension of travel, which means you lose distance. The same is true vice versa, can’t interpret 2 dimensions on a 3 dimensional surface, because you add distance, so distortions are created. So it’s one or the other, can’t be both…the model that works every time it’s used, is the correct model. It’s really that simple.
I’ll give you a great example. The most common map used by flat Earth is the Gleason projection map. It depicts Australia as twice as long East to West, as it is North to South. But in reality, Australia is measured to be equally as long North to South, as East to West…they’re roughly the same distance. The globe model maintains every distance measured, there is no accurate flat map…that’s for a good reason, because the surface is not flat.
So no better way to prove Earth’s shape, just learn how to navigate, then test it yourself.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 We observe Earth to be spherical, so the experiment is Earth itself. We measure it as spherical, we are clearly attracted to its surface everywhere upon that surface, so it’s just logical deduction after that point, Earth generates a force that attracts us to its spherical surface. Whether you understand how gravity works, it can’t be denied that everything is attracted to surface…so does it not exist, simply because you don’t understand it? Reality is under no obligation to make sense to you. Your gripes over gravity don’t falsify the geometry either. You not understanding, agreeing, or accepting gravity…doesn’t change the fact that every pilot and sailor navigates with that model.
As for your experiment. You can’t scale down gravity, it doesn’t work that way, it relies on an objects mass…it requires a LOT of mass, before we get characteristics that are easily observable and comparable to the gravity of Earth. So your experiment is flawed by design, because it’s misunderstanding how gravity works. You also have the problem of controlling for Earth’s gravity during your experiment. When you pour water onto a ball, where does the water go? Towards Earth…right? So how exactly are you supposed to test the gravity of a much smaller mass, when it’s always going to be competing with the much stronger gravity of Earth? You’d have to conduct the experiment in deep space to get away from all other sources of gravity, and good luck with that.
A better experiment is the Cavendish experiment, which tests Newton’s law of universal gravitation, mass attracting mass. Cavendish experiment controls for Earth’s gravity, by cancelling out its downward vector. If you suspend a pendulum in air, it’s still being pulled down of course, but it’s free to be drawn towards other masses in other vectors. That’s a far better way to test mass attraction. This experiment works, and does verify mass attraction…it’s how science first verified gravity. Plenty of recreations of the experiment you can find online, it’s very repeatable science.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 You said there are three major components of the globe model that you claim are false…but then you didn’t share what those were exactly. I’m sorry, I can’t read your mind, so would you mind listing them? I’m sure at this point, I could easily guess, but I’d rather not assume anything, so feel free.
Yes, more mass equals more weight, that’s exactly what gravity physics teaches as well. That’s why the equation for weight is W=mg, weight is equal to mass times downward acceleration of gravity. So where exactly is the problem? Density is just a ratio of mass to volume…so it’s basically just mass. Still not a force though, can’t put matter into motion…and that’s what you’re missing.
Like I said earlier though, in many ways you’re basically describing gravity physics…without using the word gravity. It’s quite odd…would you prefer we name it something else?
More mass equals more molecules being effected by pull of gravity…this means more weight. All matter has inertia, every molecule in fact. Inertia is basically just how much energy is required to cause it to move or be moved. Try and move a grain of rice, it’s very simple, requires no effort and very little energy. But try and move a large bag of rice…far more difficult. Because there’s more mass, so more inertia. The same thing occurs with weight. More mass, means more molecules being attracted downward, means more energy required to pick it up, or move it, means more weight. Gravity creates its weight, mass increases its inertia, see the difference?
So again, density is already a part of gravity physics. You’re basically describing gravity in much of your conclusions.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Those aren’t flaws, they’re just you stating that they’re flaws, out of incredulity. You have questions sure, but questions are not evidence, nor are they conclusions. They’re great physics questions though, so I don’t mind providing some answers.
As far as we currently know, the Earth was set in motion by gravity, many many eons ago. Mass attracting mass, causing collisions, eventually forming larger clumps of mass, the largest masses creating more gravitational attraction, causing everything to follow them on a similar plane, forcing everything to spiral into a disk, that eventually collapsed inward as gravity attracted everything to the largest mass, which then formed into the stars and planets. The rotation, and the orbits, are the left over momentum, from that forming accretion disk, set in motion by gravity. Since space is largely a vacuum, there’s no air to cause drag, so no opposing force to slow Earrh down or stop it, so Earth is free to rotate indefinitely, because of conservation of angular momentum. The laws of motion, some of the first laws of physics ever realized and the easiest to learn and verify for yourself, with hundreds of easy to reproduce experiments. The first law being the law of inertia, all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an opposing force.
This forming of stars and planets has been simulated, by creating a simulation with simple physical rules similar to our reality, adding physical matter into the system, then providing a single attractive force upon every simulated molecule, the system is then observed to order itself, eventually forming into a spiralling disk, then larger spherical masses. Simulations like this help to verify the plausibility of modern cosmology, but they also verify that gravity is all that’s required to put everything in motion. You see…gravity didn’t just answer for why things fall, when gravity was realized, the mysteries of the cosmos began to fall like dominoes. It explains orbits, rotational motions of celestial bodies, why they form into spheres…it even explains how the Sun burns, by fusion reactions. Which is basically just molecules of hydrogen being forced together by a stars intense gravity, which forms it into helium. That fusion causes a shed of electrons, which releases massive amounts of energy. We recreate this science in fusion reactors today…we can’t use gravity mind you (requires a mass as large as the sun), that’s why it’s so difficult to recreate, we have to force fusion in other ways, but our understanding of gravity led us to that discovery. Anyway…I digress.
Gravity is not centrifugal force…where did you get that from? They may be similar in that they’re both an accelerating force…but that’s about it. And centrifugal force is increased by rate of rotation, water won’t cling to a ball spinning at 100 rpm’s, but what about a ball spinning at 1 rpm? It may drip slowly down to Earth, but it won’t be flung off, that’s for sure, so if you’re gonna claim water can’t cling to a ball because of centrifugal force, the next logical question to follow is; what rate of rotation are we talking about here? What about an Earth rotating at 1 revolution every 24 hours? Does that sound fast to you? It’s exactly two times slower than the hour hand of a clock. You really think Earths rotation would generate much centrifugal force, at such a slow rate of rotation? If you do…then you could research a lot more on rotational motion, cause you’re current assumption is in error.
You have many misconceptions and misunderstandings of physics, that is very clear. Not surprising though, you’re trying to start from scratch without prior knowledge of what came before…so of course you’d misunderstand the globe model and physics, you don’t have a foundational understanding of any of it currently, from what I can tell. I hope this information is helping to fill some gaps though, if at least so you can stop strawmanning and misunderstanding the model you’re attempting to argue against.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 You don’t find the Bible to be a majestic and hopeful tale of fiction? Really? A literal magical being, uses literal magic, to create the Earth and everything on it…I’ve read some fantasy fiction in my day, the lore in many of them sounds a lot like that. Not to mock your beliefs mind you, I have my own spiritual beliefs, but be honest…do you really not see anything about the Bible, that others might consider on the level of fiction?
Everything I’ve mentioned is verifiable, it’s applied science…much of that science we’re both currently using to have this conversation. I find it interesting that people will on one hand claim science is bullshit…while in the other, they’re happy to make use of every marvellous technology science has made possible for them, all while possessing zero understanding of how it works. Actually it’s a bit arrogant to me, if I’m being honest…but mostly sad.
You’ll tell me the globe is a farce…while every pilot and sailor is currently using that knowledge to travel the Earth with precision, bringing you all kinds of imported goods, you couldn’t get otherwise. Am I supposed to ignore a working model of navigation…because your interpretation of a book claims otherwise and asks for me to believe it on faith alone? 🧐 Why exactly would I do that? 🤷♂️ Should we throw away the current system of navigation, even though it’s more than proven to work? Then you’ll tell me gravity is a farce….while we currently use our knowledge of gravity to do everything from predicting a parabolic trajectory (ballistics must keep in mind a projectiles drop rate, acceleration of gravity), calculating a vessel’s weight capacity out at sea before it capsizes (engineers develop ballast tanks with the buoyancy force equation, which has gravity as a variable) to get a plane to fly (weight to thrust ratio), to putting satellites into orbit (orbital mechanics built from gravity physics), to recreating nuclear fusion (understanding the gravitational power of our Sun, taught us how it burns), etc, etc, etc.
You’re arguing against applied science…that’s the problem. The whole point of science is to acquire accurate knowledge of physical reality, so we can then apply it for our benefit. So when do you know when your science is accurate? When it works…it’s really that simple. Your computer wasn’t made by a God, it was made by a man. I understand that for many God created everything, but I don’t think we should ever diminish our accomplishments. Do you realize just how incredible we really are? 1000 years ago we were digging in the dirt, just hoping to get enough food to survive another winter….now we’re lying in cozy beds, in heated homes, with water and electricity at our command, sending messages at the speed of light, over electromagnetic frequencies, to people in other countries around the world! It’s incredible to me how anyone could take that for granted, or fail to realize that WE did all that…with science and our thirst for knowledge. How can anyone think science is wrong, despite how many home runs its hit and continues to blast out of the park!? How could anyone really argue against the results? Are you blind? It’s fine to challenge consensus, fine to ask questions…but come now, be honest, are you asking questions to learn, or just to spite an institution you’ve come to despise, for whatever reason? Do you really have a superior understanding of things, or are you just pretending? Can we navigate with your understanding? Can I rebuild every facet of my computer with your understanding of things, from the silicon and plastics that make up the microchips, to the wifi that uses the electromagnetic spectrum to send and receive internet data, to the binary code that runs the software? If not…can you really claim it’s science that’s got it wrong? 🧐
God still very much has a place in science, most great scientists throughout history in fact (and even still today), are/were theists, not secular. You know Einstein fir example, he was very spiritual, he believed a universe this incredible had to be created by a God, and he felt it was his job to figure out how that creation works. Most scientists have no problem marrying their religious beliefs with science, for many it only helps them admire Gods creation more. It’s never been the role of science to destroy God, nor could it even if that was the goal. It’s just a method of thinking, just another tool in the belt, it has no more agenda than a hammer does. Some may use the hammer for nefarious ends, but it can never really be used against the metaphysical…by definition, it’s only purpose is to determine how things work in the physical world. So if your goal is just to put a bit of dirt in the eye of science, because you fear it’s trying to destroy your spiritual beliefs…I’d say, stop and maybe recognize that as a bias you might have. You’re not gonna achieve much truth through confirmation bias…but where does this fear of science come from? My guess is it’s a fear built from lack of understanding. Perhaps if you understood science more, you wouldn’t be so staunchly opposed to it.
Food for thought. I mean no disrespect towards your beliefs, I just prefer to speak my mind, and be honest.
1
-
@peteoverton6069 Of course it’s not as simple as “it’s all science”, I never said it was. But science is a very large cog in the wheel, and that should never be overlooked or taken for granted. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Fund scientific research into how to farm fish more productively, you feed an entire nation for centuries. Though you’re correct to say it’s not just science alone that fuels societal growth and progress, it obviously requires every individual doing their part, for any of it to be possible at all, but science is the catalyst, it’s where it all starts. Knowledge is power, and the scientific method is without a doubt the best method for acquiring knowledge of the physical world. All I ask is that people don’t take it for granted…out of spite alone. And I do feel that’s the real reason many denounce science, purely out of spite…I just feel it’s petty, as well as naive.
It’s part of our very nature, we’re very curious creatures…we’ve been doing science ever since we first harnessed fire for ourselves, crafted tools for hunting, built shelters, made clothes, etc. All of this required that we pay attention to physical reality, and deduce how things work…it’s our super power, science is something we’ve always done, even long before we gave it a name. The scientific method wasn’t ironed out until roughly 500 years ago, but we’ve always been using our powers of observation and our intellect to improve our lives, and take us from just simply surviving, to thriving. It’s a huge part of who we are, so it’s foolish to diminish it’s influence on our successes.
Apologies though, I do tend to carry on. I hope it’s been interesting at least, and I hope it’s been a helpful insight into a different perspective. Take care.
1
-
1
-
People who respond to those emails, from an African prince looking for a person to inherit his wealth, are morons...does that change the fact that a person created a scam to defraud these people? No...it doesn’t...it’s fraudulent no matter how stupid the victims are. What you read was not a meme, what that person created was an advertisement, for a false voting method...which makes it a clear case of fraud. I’m sorry...but are you stupid? You’d have to be, to not understand how this guy did something clearly illegal in that case.
Does it directly effect their ability to vote? Yes and no, it doesn’t technically, but if these people think they’ve already voted, then they’re not likely to vote again...cause even these morons know they only get one vote. So it effectively stops them, from casting a real vote...which directly effects election results. If it was a scam done against republicans, I bet you’d be singing a different song.
Either way, that’s not a meme...it’s a fake advertisement, with the very real intention, of getting real people, to cast fake votes, during a real election, effectively defrauding them of their vote...cut and dry fraud. You’re either stupid, extremely bias, both, or you just don’t give a shit about how fake and click baity your content is. :/
1
-
"True scientific acknowledgement. Such as water always finding level."
The trouble with this is that level doesn't necessarily mean flat. In math and geometry especially, it can also be defined as "perpendicular to center of object", which is how we define it in gravity as well. What water is really doing is seeking lowest elevation, which on a Globe with gravity is always towards center from all directions...which means the surface of water seeks the equipotential distance from that center...cause that's how gravity works.
The only reason it appears flat on Earth, is because of how massive the Earth is...even if you disagree the Earth is a sphere, surely you don't disagree that Earth is huge. So if it is a sphere at this scale, then it will absolutely appear flat to anyone on that surface at our size compared to that object. And if gravity operates the way we believe it does (which is pretty sound science), then water will have a surface with equipotential distance from center, which means it's not a FLAT surface, it's a level surface that is always perpendicular to center from any position, meaning an equal distance from center.
So no, this is in reality a dumb argument from Flat Earth...because it refuses to understand how gravity works and it grossly misunderstands it. All Flat Earth is demonstrating is how stubborn they are...you absolutely could be wrong and rather then listen to your opposition, you'd rather just assume that there is no valid counter argument here. How very Dunning and Krueger of you. I'm afraid there is a very valid counter argument to the "water seeks level" argument...and it's very apparent to anyone who actually understands how gravity works. You're assuming that level means flat in every case. No...flat means flat, level can mean many things. You will just be a laughed at for making that argument in any actual institution of math or science, because they understand right away where the error is in this argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CalsTube Every mechanical gyroscope used on aircraft have a mechanism included on the gimbles known as pendulous vanes, that are there for this very reason, among others. Basically, they’re designed to correct any drift in the gyroscope, due to any reason, be it gyroscopic precession, extreme maneuvering, or Earth curvature. Look them up sometime…or go ahead and ask a pilot, every pilot is trained on the equipment they operate, and nothing more important than the horizon indicator, so very good chance they’d remember the pendulous vanes and their function.
Again, you’re reaching false conclusions from a lack of knowledge. Learn more about what you’re arguing…this is exactly how Flat Earth cons people, by exploiting the gaps in their knowledge.
1
-
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Actually, the very large percentage of flat Earthers are religious, spending even a little time chatting with them reveals that. Many have been using flat Earth as a means to confirm their larger belief structure, and to further their distancing from modern science. So they’re not much different from young Earth creationists in that way, in fact it’s a pretty safe bet that if they’re a religious flat Earther, then it’s very likely they’re also a creationist. Not difficult to make the connection anyway, many theists have long been vocal about their distain for science slowly eroding the core concepts of their beliefs, so how do you combat that? Simple…you just catch science with its pants down. If one can disprove (at least for themselves) a major scientific tenant such as the shape of the Earth, then what else is science hiding? At that point, becomes a lot easier to restore ones faith to maximum, now that science can’t be trusted. So it’s easy to see the appeal for many.
So she’s really just making an observation, one that many of us have noticed as well after spending some time chatting with this particular group, just is what it is really. Not all flat Earthers are religious, but I would argue it’s a majority.
Also, people are born gay…they don’t just become gay, and they don’t convert either. If you’re gay you’re gay, doesn’t go away. This always seems to be the thing religious groups don’t quite understand about homosexuality, or perhaps just something they don’t want to admit. We do also observe homosexuality in other species, it’s not exclusive to homo sapiens, so there is substantial evidence to verify it is actually part of nature. Some crossing of the wires during fetus development, just happens sometimes, nothing we can really do about it, it’s always going to happen eventually. All religion has achieved by suppressing that minority is caused a lifetime of suffering for individuals who were forced to hide who they are, today they don’t have too, and personally I feel that’s far more humane and ethical.
Not to bash on religion though, it does provide a strong community foundation, which is an important pillar for a healthy and productive life and society. And yes, I’d actually agree that there needs to be some restraint of our personal vices, and religions do help people strive for a better control of such things…the trouble I do see though is that the way they go about it can foster a bit of naïveté and in worst cases delusions about how the natural world actually operates. We all have our fair share of delusions, so I hope that’s not taken to personally, just an outsider from religion making an observation from that perspective.
Every decision we make as a society will always come with its own pros and cons, collectively deciding to provide a more welcoming environment for queer people doesn’t solve every problem, in fact it creates its fair share of new ones, but declining birth rates are a far more complex issue that certainly can’t be chalked up to a single minority group. Coming from the older end of the millennial generation myself (I’m 38), many of us (especially in more secular left leaning upbringings) we’re just not as interested in having kids, because we were constantly told by our parents that we should strive for our highest potentials, rather than marriage and family and strictly blue collar jobs like previous generations. So we focused on our careers and passions instead. I’d say that has contributed far more to declining birth rates, than a minority group that wasn’t having kids in the first place. Cause gay people have always existed, they just hid themselves before, all that’s changed is they’re not really hiding anymore. So it seems more prevalent, but the reality is those numbers haven’t changed. They’re not forcing themselves to have kids like they used too, that’s true, so I’m not saying it’s not a contributor, but it’s far from a huge contributor.
I do find it a bit odd that theists and especially conservatives tend to focus so much on LGBTQ, to a point they really seem to stretch their real cultural impact. These are still very much minority groups, so I think it’s safe to say they’re not making as much of a dent in the issues you’re painting them as having a large impact upon. What is this obsession for blaming the gays for everything? Just a means to justify hatred perhaps?
Personally, I feel declining birth rates are more because of a generational shift in thinking. Having families are just not as much of a priority anymore to younger generations today, and parental controls over their child’s lives are greatly diminished today as well, so nobody’s forcing us either. One of many contributing factors, but far more impactful than the queer community I’d say.
That’s my opinion anyway, no disrespect to the religious community as they do provide a strong communal foundation for living I do admire and see the benefits of. I just think they’re putting far too much blame on the shoulders of another community that’s really not as harmful or impactful as they’d like to think.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Thing is marriage is no longer just a religious thing (nor was it ever really, if we’re looking at its history objectively). Marriage has always been more of a social contract —between the couple but sometimes even between the families— giving each individual certain rights and privileges recognized under the law. So the real reason gay couples want the right to marry is so they too can be assured of those same rights and privileges. Everything from tax incentives, to next of kin privileges, to common law regulations, that’s the real reason they want the right to marry. They’re not fighting tooth and nail just to annoy religious people, the real truth is that marriage comes with many legal benefits. Personally I don’t see why that would even be a problem, all they want basically is to not be second class citizens, simply because of a sexual orientation they didn’t choose. They want basic human rights essentially…so what real reason do others have to deny them that, other than they don’t want a definition to change? Change is really the only certainty in life, and that’s kind of a problem I have with religion, it’s too rigid, it doesn’t adapt to change very well…more often than not it does everything it can to oppose change, which sometimes can even lead to violence. That’s where I personally lose a bit of respect for religion, like it or not it has been used many times as a weapon to justify some pretty rotten deeds throughout history, and still today that’s true.
Denying people basic human rights, benefits and privileges because of a definition…it’s not a great argument imo.
1
-
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 “Marriage predates rights and privileges.” Then you say “the purpose was to protect woman…and government to officially recognize a family for inheritance.”
You’ve just described rights and privileges, so marriage doesn’t predate these things, it was the whole point. You really can’t see why gay couples want the same rights? Two consenting adults love each other, they want the same rights and privileges recognized under laws, that any other couple receives, that protect them and help them greatly during things like receiving inheritance, getting family tax benefits, or just going to a hospital to visit when your partner is ill…it’s really that simple.
It’s a social contract, laying out terms that protect the family. By fighting against them here, you’re basically saying they’re not allowed to be regular humans, they are forever to be second class citizens. What’s odd to me is just…why? For what purpose? Them being able to marry doesn’t change heterosexual marriages, there’s still going to be plenty of that happening…they have absolutely zero effect on heterosexual marriages. So why do you really care so much, I’m not seeing a good line of reasoning here…other than to just deny some people basic human rights.
If gay people are suicidal, it’s because they continue to be treated like freaks, for something they didn’t choose. My best friend is gay, coming from a very old fashioned conservative family (his father’s an old farmer), his brothers are your typical sports and construction jobs types. He’ll likely never tell his parents or his family, because he loves them too much to rattle there world, and that’s where his depression stems from. He’s going to be depressed and alone for the rest of his life likely, so long as he remains shackled to this notion that he’s some kind of problem…which is a message that strict conservative values have instilled in him. It’s nothing he’s doing, he was just born…it’s old fashioned ways of thinking that are why he will suffer.
Meanwhile, I have several other friends who aren’t hiding, they’re living far more normal, productive, and happier lives.
So I would argue these problems like depression, drug abuse, suicide, aren’t there because they’re gay…it’s because there’s still a psychological stigma against them, that they’re constantly reminded of, by all the older ways of thinking, that just refuse to change.
For the record I’m not gay, in case you were thinking that’s why I’m going off on it so vocally. I’m just a regular blue collar dude, grew up on a farm myself, living in a very conservative farming community, never had to worry about this stuff a day in my life because I’m as straight and boring as it gets. But I have lots of gay friends, they don’t bother me in the slightest…but my best friend struggles greatly with this, and while it’s his own decision to stay closeted that’s ultimately causing him his suffering, it’s the society around him that he feels he needs to hide from that’s doing all that damage. Just old ways of thinking that I personally think need to change.
And they have really…it’s not like this is a new thing, but lately it feels like we’re regressing backwards. Nobody cared 20 years ago, the gay community had pretty much won and the dust felt like it was finally settling…then social media came around, and now it’s all anyone talks about again. Media pundits that found a way to monetize discourse, so they bullshit endlessly.
I’ll give you the perfect example that happened recently; a new Star Wars show came out, it wasn’t very good honestly, so naturally it was panned, but the director and lead actress were in an interview joking about how R2D2 might be a lesbian in canon…and it blew up. Every conservative media outlet had something to say, even filling hours long podcasts on the discourse. Over a joke….if you actually watch the interview, they’re clearly not being serious, it was a joke. And it’s not a new one either, the Simpsons made the same joke 30 years ago, making C3P0 and R2 into a gay robot couple, that then fight 2 massive Battlestar droids in a wrestling match. It’s funny…and it’s a pretty easy joke to make given the characters. But conservatives lately don’t seem to know what a joke is.
The reality is it’s not conservatives, I’m sure they got the joke just fine, it’s the media pundits who took it out of context and spun it into some extreme bullshit….that’s the problem, right there. We all gotta stop listening to these media outlets, who thrive on bullshit, cause it’s slowly poisoning all of us. Gay people have always been here, and always will be. 20 years ago we largely stopped caring, it really wasn’t a big deal anymore…what changed? I say it was social media…it’s doing more damage today than anything else we think is the problem.
Even your wording from earlier “war on the family”, nobody on the left says that shit, that’s a strictly right wing phrase. It implies that there’s some kind of conscious premeditated effort from the left, when the reality is left leaning thinkers just don’t appreciate allowing the suffering of others. We don’t do this consciously, it’s just how we naturally are…we see suffering, we do what we can to stop it or at least mediate it. Sometimes we overreact…but that’s a human flaw not unique to the left. My point is, most of us are not actively attacking the nuclear family through any concerted effort…we’re just reacting and adapting to how society raised us. We were raised not to put priority on family, not because someone wanted to abolish families, but because it didn’t seem as important anymore, we finally created a society where we could chill more and enjoy life…so that’s what we’re doing, that’s all. Is it selfish? Maybe, sure. Does it create a whole bunch of new problems? Yup, absolutely, any changes in society do. But these aren’t conscious efforts like right wing pundits would have us all think. “War on the family” is just a buzz word to piss off a certain group, to generate income from their outrage….it’s clearly working, and it sucks.
In fairness, I’m wholly aware of the extreme left wing pundits who do rile up kids in universities taking gender studies classes, to “abolish the nuclear family”, but they’re dumb kids and these media outlets are just as shitty, and they do not represent a majority of the left, any more than the extreme right represent all conservatives.
That’s my opinion any way. Off to work for the day, thanks for the discussion. Apologies I can’t really respond to everything, just not enough time in the day it seems. 😅 Take care.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Where I do agree with you though, so it’s not just me piling on disagreements; I do agree that the nuclear family is a healthier structure for one’s mental health. It’s just how we’ve evolved over thousands of generations, men need something to protect and provide for, and women need something to nurture and care for, it’s just how we’re wired. So depression and instability can arise more often than not when we resist our ingrained instincts. The nuclear family is the best way to align with those natural conditionings, it’s a system that works.
So don’t get me wrong, I understand your perspective more than I’ve let on, and so I do see why many strive to preserve that structure. It’s basically a “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” kind of approach. Trouble is some people simply don’t fit that mold, and so they shouldn’t be forced too.
Our society is pretty good for that I feel, for the most part we do allow people to choose their own way, freedom is a big part of what America is founded upon after all. I think we peaked in the 90’s personally, felt like a pretty perfect balance of right and left leaning concepts…then the internet came along and stirred the pot and we’ve been regressing ever since.
I think we were slowly striking a good balance is all I’m saying…last 10 years especially with social media making discourse so profitable, it’s just made the worst people of society popular and rich, thriving off of drummed up hysteria. That to me feels like the real problem…and I wish I could offer a solution of any sorts, but what do you do, honestly? I really don’t know how you fix greed and a current online culture that seems to thrive from it.
1
-
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 More to that statistics point; suicide in general has gone up, so while I feel you’re trying to draw conclusion that they killed themselves strictly because they’re gay, people kill themselves for all kinds of reasons, so how would you conclude it was from being gay itself? Here’s a hypothetical to help with my point; what if we could absolutely pinpoint suicide rates were rising across the board because of current social media and online habits sapping everyone of their time and lives? Would the stats reflect that if we looked at purely just the numbers? Nope…if you’re just looking at the numbers, how could you ever draw that conclusion?
Personally I feel I’m bang on about that, people aren’t depressed because they’re gay or not having kids…depression is skyrocketing because we spend more time online, and less time living and experiencing our actual lives.
That’s purely my speculation, but I do feel it’s a good one. Point is, you can’t just look at some stats, and draw sweeping conclusions for a complex issue like that. We both can speculate, but the only real conclusion either can draw from pure death tolls is that suicide rates are increasing. Not much else.
1
-
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Sorry if this is a dead thread to you at this point, more time to respond now that it’s a day off for me, just had a few things I had wanted to address yet if you don’t mind, feel free to respond or ignore, it’s all good, I get that these ramblings are long. 😅 Firstly though, while we may not agree on everything, I just want to say thanks for being civil, rational, and all around pleasant to discuss with, it’s refreshing for sure. I also agree with healthy dialogue over disrespect of peoples viewpoints, that’s how we ultimately see each other’s perspectives and hopefully reach agreement or at least compromise. It’s how society used to be, we used to be adults. So thank you.
I just want to clarify one of my agreements that comes with some nuance. While I agree the nuclear family is the healthiest family standard, that’s only because some in society make it very difficult for the others to prosper. Nobody’s threatening a heterosexual couple with death threats simply for being a couple. Nobody’s actively trying to take their kids away because they see heterosexuals as an abomination. Nobody’s telling heterosexuals they can’t marry.
These things really do happen to gay couples and families. It creates a stigma that makes it very difficult for these families to truly thrive, it’s a lot of psychological baggage I’m sure, a lot of pressure, and a lot less privacy depending on the community. I’ve been amongst many families that have accepted their gay family members, and quite frankly these families are doing just fine, a lot happier than some of the stricter more “proper” families I also know, at least I know which gatherings are more cheerful and fun anyway.
Point is, gay families can be just as prosperous, when they’re amongst family who actually love and care about their well being. So they can fit just fine in that nuclear family dynamic, if they’re supported. They’d only struggle if/when their community and other family members give little to no support…but at that point, did they ever really love them to begin with? A parent shouldn’t want for their children to suffer, if they do, then I say they got into parenting for the wrong reasons. You might feel it’s selfish that a person comes out and stirs up the family dynamic, but I think it’s far worse to pretend to be something you’re not (some families pretend to be happy and more successful, when in truth they’re miserable and hate each other), and I’d say it’s more selfish to want total control over your kids, for your own selfish wants and desires. How many people have kids just so they can hold them up as some kind of achievement of their life? I wouldn’t be surprised if the number was a majority…I’d also say that’s the wrong reason to have kids. It’s fine to reflect on your life and add it as an achievement, of course it is, I’m just saying it shouldn’t be the only reason you had children…as little trophies for yourself.
I feel that’s very often the type people who really seem to care when their children come out as gay; the ones who placed a lot of their own expectations upon them…instead of just loving them for who they are. It then ruins THEIR self centred wants and desires….as if someone forgot to tell them you don’t own your children, they have their own hopes, dreams, and ambitions. You’ve created a life…not a slave. I do feel some parents treat their kids as such, and they’re generally the ones who make things so difficult in these situations.
Also, my friend would be fine, he’s just a shy introvert who’s afraid of a lot of things, this struggle is all in his head, as it is with all gay people before they come out, some are just braver. I’ve known him for almost 20 years, he finally told me he was gay just 2 years ago, saying it was because he was afraid to lose me as a friend. All I said was “Uh, ya…I know, I’ve known from day one. Bout time you idiot.” Seriously…he doesn’t look outwardly gay, but the moment he starts talking, yup…that guy is gay, it was the first thing me and my other friends noticed. I’m sure his family has known for a very looooooong time. 😄 His parents are old fashioned, but they’re also the sweetest old couple, and I’ve never once underestimated how much they love their son.
So no, I don’t think it’s good to suffer. While it might seem like a noble sacrifice, that pain just festers and manifests in bad ways, it doesn’t sit quiet and do nothing. Better to be honest than live a lie. Nobody should live in fear of their families…that’s not a real family if that’s the case, and so you’d be better off not being in it. I’m not worried about my friend though, his family cares about him, just like I cared about him…guess who’s still my best friend. He’s loved, so he’ll be fine, but it’s up to him, so we all just wait until he’s ready. As his friend I just don’t want him missing out on the time he has…life is short.
“Allowing homosexuals to marry literally changes the definition of what a marriage is and fundamentally changes its purpose as an institution centered around producing and raising children…”
I still strongly disagree here. I may just be repeating myself here, but I think it does bare repeating. Marriage isn’t just for the sake of children, plenty of heterosexual people who got married who never had children, it was still just a social contract between them to reap the legal privileges and benefits, while at the same time strengthening their union through a more binding agreement. Allowing gay people to marry does absolutely nothing to change heterosexual marriage, it just changes a wording from “union of man and woman” to “union of two people”. This does nothing to effect your marriage, or any other heterosexual marriage, you can still marry just fine. It also does nothing to effect your ability to have children or raise them, heterosexual people aren’t going away because the gays can marry. And what’s the difference between calling it marriage or a civil union? 🤷♂️ It’s just a word…if they mean the exact same thing, what’s the difference if they call it marriage? Just seems like petty semantics to me.
So again, I’m not seeing any real argument here…it really just seems to boil down too wanting to remain an exclusive club of sorts, where undesirables are not welcome. Just wanting things to remain as they were, even though society is changing and these old ways of thinking don’t fit or help every individual or family, like they’re supposed too. I know you’re trying very hard to be respectful, and I don’t mean to push you into uncomfortable realms, but it just seems like very thinly veiled religious dogma. The church has deemed it unnatural, therefore god has as well because they say so, so that’s that, no discussion to be had. This is kind of why we removed church from state though…it creates a deep bias that can lead some decisions being made without much rational thought behind them. Not saying you’re not thinking rationally, you are willing and able to discuss these things and your points aren’t without merit, I’m just not seeing much reason to agree.
We’re certainly of two different minds, but again it’s nice to have a discussion for a change. Apologies though if I ever got too pushy. If there’s one thing I personally dislike about the left it’s how smug and pushy they (we) can be, it’s certainly not helping the pendulum swings from balancing again…if I can be so on the nose with analogy. 😄 The reality is that cooperation is messy, it always will be, but that’s the society we struct out to achieve just 200+ short years ago, a freedom for all, not just the majority. I hope we don’t lose sight of that, because I really do believe it’s working. It’ll never be perfect, but it’s better than the outright fascist alternatives. The left has pushed a bit to far the last few years, I don’t disagree, so the current response shouldn’t be a surprise…in fact I actually agree with a lot of the push back, because cancel culture just goes waaaaay to far most times, and I feel ya, it is exhausting.
Anyway, take care.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 “We are better people when we sacrifice our own wants and desires for others”
But taking your kids to gay conversion therapy isn’t just you placing your own wants and desires on your kids? 🧐 While I do agree some what, our vices are what lead us to misery, I don’t think you’re really applying that logic very well for yourself.
I 100% agree you shouldn’t have your kids taken away for raising them how you see fit (unless of course there’s a lot of physical, mental, or sexual abuse occurring), but if your child is gay…then they’re gay, there’s no getting around that. I don’t think you should lose your kids for taking them to gay conversion therapy, but gay conversion doesn’t “take the gay demon away” it just masks it. They’re still gonna be gay, you can’t really change what they’re attracted too, it’s hard wired into who they are. You’re only putting them into a world of suffering for the rest of their lives, for no real reason. I’m sorry but, this is what I mean…some people simply just don’t fit the normal molds. I don’t think it’s right to force them too…most kids just end up hating their parents for stuff like that, so you’ll just be causing a rift…a rift that could lead them down some dark roads. It doesn’t happen all the time, but you’re certainly taking a gamble, so I’m just warning you.
Gay couples can be just as happy, and the kids they raise can and do grow up just as normal under that dynamic. I know, I’ve met them…I’m friends with many. Kids don’t hate anything…that’s a learned trait, all they really need is a family and a community that cares for them and supports them. Plenty of nuclear families where the kids end up depressed, suicidal, abusing drugs and getting into crime…most of the time that happens when parents stop caring and supporting them, and start controlling every facet of THEIR lives.
My parents are pretty old school too. I grew up on a farm, my dads an old trucker/cowboy type…but god bless him for still nurturing all my interests instead of controlling them. I work a trucking job currently, but I’m also an artist who’s done work for comics, games, logo design and band merchandising. I’m also a musician (guitar) playing in multiple bands in my local area…and while my dad doesn’t understand any of that (except music, though I like punk, he likes blues), he still never once got in my way or tried to stop me pursuing a career in art, never tried stopping me from being me. He comes to my gigs, he helped me build my art studio, he’s a great dad and a good man that cares about his kids. That’s all it takes…THAT’S why I don’t hate or resent him, and we have a good relationship, and I grew up fine. I love my parents, because they hold old school beliefs, but they actually DO sacrifice their own wants and desires to allow others to be who they are, and they support people even if they don’t completely agree. We’re a pretty good family thanks to that, even though I’m the polar opposite of my dad, we actually hang out now as adults (we both love music and we go to concerts together all the time) and we get along. He’s a rough old guy who definitely has opinions, definitely opinions I disagree with strongly, but at his core he’s a big damn softy. Support and love, that’s all a kid really needs to grow up normal….by forcing them to become someone they’re not, you’re just crippling them for life in ways you won’t notice until it’s too late.
That’s my opinion, something I’m glad my dad agrees with too. We disagree though, and that’s fine, you make some good arguments though, so again, it’s been pretty good conversing with you I feel.
I did have one more question, but I get the feeling I already know the answer…but I’m curious, so I’ll ask anyway. Have you considered the possibility of one your own kids being gay? What would you do if they eventually told you they were? Would you still love them, or would you shun them?
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Well I don’t think gay conversion camps have been very charitable to gay people…so not sure why I should pull my punches against them. The parents…alright, I don’t mean to disrespect them, I understand they’re just trying their best. I can’t imagine how hard it is to raise children…especially today, it myst be incredibly daunting. So my apologies to you.
I get that parents are doing it mostly from a place of love, but I do feel It’s just resisting nature…you’re fighting the current of a river. It just causes more damage than it sets out to achieve. You know how many gay people left their families and now don’t speak with them at all thanks to gay conversion therapy? Instead of listening too them…they opposed their will upon them. Some will comply, sure…doesn’t change the fact that they’re gay, and that will manifest eventually in far less healthy ways. You know how many “strong” men are gay, but hide it? Usually they’re the ones beating their wives or kids…or worse…
Meanwhile, the people who came out as gay and that are accepted by their friends and family, are now living healthy productive lives. I’ve already told you I’m friends with many, and I love going to those family gatherings over the stricter family gatherings where they’ve shunned their gay kids. Far more relaxed and enjoyable settings, a lot more fun and openly loving.
Just saying, you keep trying to convince me these people cause problems and they live in misery…while the opposite seems true from my perspective, a person who has gay friends and sees their happiness first hand. The only time it becomes a problem is when they’re not accepted…soooo, the real problem for me seems clear, it’s those people…not gay people.
Do you think my relationship with my best friend is worse now? No, it’s actually better, cause we can openly talk about it now! 😄 I never cared, I think it’s awesome he can finally feel comfortable to truly be himself around me, I’ve never seen the guy happier! That makes me happy…seeing my friends happy makes me happy, as I’m sure it would make me happy if I was a parent. It’s a MASSIVE weight off of his shoulders…you have to understand how good that must feel. Surely you can understand that.
It’s a fact, my friend is gay…you’re fighting against a fact of nature, some people are gay. They’re tired of hiding that fact. I’m all for them getting to be happy and have the same basic human rights as I do.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 “…seem to be based on an ideology driven by how you think the world ought to be, not how it really is.”
Gay people exist and they are a fact of nature. By denying them the right to be who they are, you basically are imposing your own ideology on these people, thinking how the world ought to be, not how it really is.
My hobbies are not equivalent in its “deviancy” (for lack of a better word), but I play in punk rock bands, and how many deeply conservative/religious parents still to this day try and ban that music and stop their kids from listening too it? So it’s equivalent in that way…conservatives have a bad track record for pushing their children away, simply for finding enjoyment in something they do not understand, and then trying to rob them of it. My dad never got in the way of that interest, we have an awesome relationship thanks in large part to that decision. He instead nurtured it, he bought me my first guitar…I’ve been playing in punk rock bands ever since. Most of my friends are metal heads and punk rockers, bikers and tattooed deviant’s, none of which are in crime, don’t do drugs, we’re all grown up, have regular jobs, have healthy normal families, live normal lives…heck one of my more tattooed and biker heavy friends is a Doctor, and has been married for 20+ years, with 2 kids. Rest of my friends are mostly in the trades (or farmers), making heaps of money as journeymen, with families. They’re not all perfect, but they’re good people, living productive lives.
Anyway…point is, you see them as non functioning members of society, but I’m directly living amongst the lives you’re so afraid. Do I strike you at all as a bad person? Or as an irrational delinquent?
I’m telling ya, the only one of my friends I’ve worried about over the years, are the ones with families who cast them out for being who they are. Those are the ones with drug and depression problems…because they’ve lost a pillar of support that they thought they could always rely on. Or it’s the friends who had (closeted) fathers who beat their kids and had drinking problems…who probably wouldn’t have done that, if they were allowed to be gay when they were younger, or were allowed to be free from whatever it was that turned them rotten. Like I keep saying, it doesn’t just go away…it just manifests into something rotten.
You’re going from statistics…I’m going from lived experience. That’s the difference here. Your stats only tell you the trends, they can’t give you a cause. You can make correlations, and draw biased conclusions, but that’s about it. Not saying it’s not useful, not even saying I disagree with many of your conclusions, but it’s not the best measure of how things really are. I’d much rather talk to the people directly experiencing these outcomes, and/or the people living amongst them…experiencing it yourself is how you really open your eyes to what’s real.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Thank you for your honest answer to my question. See you did surprise me actually, and I think that’s a small example of what gay people experience. We don’t give you guys enough credit, and that’s why they’re so afraid to come out.
But you know I already disagree about the nature/nurture aspect. Gay animals don’t have any interest in the opposite sex. And I mean, do you understand why you’re attracted to the opposite sex? No…it just is how it is. Same with me, I’ve never been attracted to same sex…but why is that? It’s just how we’re naturally wired, it’s nothing we chose it just is what it is.
Gayness isn’t a gene (at least I don’t think, though I’m not a biologist so take my opinion with a grain of salt), I believe it’s just something that happens during fetal production, the wires get crossed somewhere in the process of the sex being determined, the mind develops with some more of the opposite gender traits than it should have. Essentially, a man acquires the sexual attractions it should have received if the fetus had developed female instead, and vice versa. I hold this opinion because I myself have no clue why I’m attracted to the opposite gender…is just is what it is. You can’t nurture that…people don’t just become gay, they know they’re gay from a very early age, just like how I knew I was straight from a very early age.
I think that’s where a lot of the confusion between our two camps comes from; you believe it’s nurtured, we believe it’s natural. That’s why have such a disconnect when discussing it. Because don’t get me wrong, I getcha, homosexual sex grosses me out too, but since it’s between 2 consenting adults, and I’ve seen them experience love first hand, then it’s within the realm of mutual, consensual, love between mature adults who can BOTH make their own partner decisions, then it’s really none of my business. If they’re happy, then I’m happy. Nobody in the coupling is getting or being hurt, in fact the opposite is true, then I’m all for it.
But the core of our difference of opinion lies in the science really, I have looked at the science, and I do feel it supports my understanding of how people become gay, it’s not learned, it’s a born trait.
Now I’ll answer your question, since you answered mine…and I’m sure this conversation is perhaps getting a bit much, I’ll probably wrap it up and leave it at this. 😅
You make a great point. I do feel it’s warranted to guide our children as best we can, and keep them from dangerous situations or habits. If my child was showing signs of a clear sexual or pornographic addiction, then I’d take steps to mediate it and warn them of the dangers. I’d lock their internet access and I’d closely monitor their friend circle, probably even keep them from seeing some of the more extremely lost and obviously bad kids. More importantly though I’d TALK to them about it, I don’t think I’d just leave it at that, I’d want to understand the problem better. But at the end of the day, they are their own human beings, and they need to be allowed to make their own mistakes. To a point…if they’re committing clearly criminal behaviour, sexually abusing partners for example, then they deserve the full brunt of the law. I’d never give up on them, they’d have that support, but there are lines of course.
It’s terrifying, I completely understand your fears here, being a parent today would be extremely difficult with everything that’s going on, and I hope I’m not acting like I’d do any better, because that’s likely not true. I just think it’s a balancing act, you gotta trust your kids a little, but you do have to catch them and reel them in when they’re going to far. I suppose we differ on one aspect of where they go too far, I don’t feel your examples are equivalent, because I don’t see being gay as an addiction or a habit. It’s a sexual attraction, what you’ve compared it too is very clear examples of excess that can be harmful. Being gay doesn’t determine whether a person will fly off the rails into a sex or porn addiction…actually most gay couples still very much believe in single partner relationships and get just as upset when they’re cheated on, or if their partner develops porn addictions. Aside from liking the same sex, they’re actually very normal.
The difference is you lump being gay into the same realm as being a sex and porn addict, problems of excess and bad habit, and it’s not hard to see why. It’s because you believe being gay is a learned trait…but I grew up with full access to internet porn, why aren’t I gay? I’m sure perhaps you did as well, are you gay? No…so why not? If it’s a learned trait, then why didn’t we turn gay? Why is it still a minority? It was always been there to access, never once have I been curious…because I too knew what I was from the first moment I started becoming attracted to the girls around me. I’m sure you did too, being gay probably never once crossed your mind.
Why is that? Because we’re just simply not gay…it just is what it is. If I can change your mind about anything, it would be that; I do strongly feel this is a natural born trait, not nurtured, and I do feel the science supports this…but again, I need only observe my own experience in life and ask myself why I’m straight? Because that’s how I was born.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Again though, people are born gay, this isn’t an experiment. They’ve always been here, and always will. Nobody who isn’t gay is really experimenting with this, they may not be entirely sure right away, but if they’re gay they’re gay, and they do eventually figure it out. And vice versa, people who aren’t gay know it…if they are curious, they find out pretty quick. But this is of course where we differ, nature vs nurture. I think we’ll just be going in circles if we continue that point, I think we’ve isolated the core of our differences on how we view that. While you’re correct in pointing out that my argument is mostly anecdotal, personal experience, there is data and science supporting it. I’d look into what biologists and neuroscientists have actually researched on that point.
But now I think you’re giving fast music a bad light. So I’m sorry to shift gears to a vastly different topic, but it’s a passion of mine. 😅 Just not every day I get to defend the music scene I love, and share some inside perspective.
No greater source of joy in my life personally, than rocking on stage with my friends (if I had kids then they would be, but I don’t, so rocking it is). Jamming, playing gigs, writing songs, recording, it’s always been extremely fun and rewarding for me. Can’t help the music I like, anymore than gays can help being gay. If it moves me it moves me, don’t even care it’s not punk, I love so many genres of music. But sadly, some in religious circles still do protest the music, and advocate for bans. Not sure what Christians have against people having fun and experiencing joy…are they trying to make this life as dull as ever? Don’t they have music they enjoy? I’m almost certain they do, how would they feel if a group tried to ban them from listening to the music that enriches their life? Music that just brings them joy? I’m sure they’d think they’re over reacting and are no authority to ban their music, simply for not understanding it. They wanted to ban the Beatles too back in the day…the happiest, softest, most positive music ever created, preaching the same love and respect for others that Jesus advocated for, and it’s just odd to me when they can’t see the similarities. I get that some pleasures can lead to destructive addictions and vices…but music is not destructive in the vast majority of genres, it’s actually quite the opposite, a creative and positive outlet that does nothing but better peoples lives.
Punk and metal get a bad wrap. Metal sings mostly about fantasy fiction, wizards and dragons and such, except for death and black metal…those get pretty dark (demons and satan), I’ll give ya that.😅 But most metal is pretty harmless, even the darker bands don’t take things to seriously, some people just love rougher, louder, faster jams. I’m not a big metal guy, but I think it’s because we’ll never completely take the warrior out of some men, they just found a healthier outlet, trading in axes and swords for guitars and drums. And these people are the modern Beethovens as far as I’m concerned…most metal musicians are incredibly skilled virtuoso musicians without many equals, dedicating their lives to perfecting every aspect of music composition, performing, and recording.
It brings joy to many people, it’s greatly misunderstood by many because of its rough exterior, and a few bad apples; death, black, doom and some hair metal. But there’s good apples in those genres too, the lead singer of Cannibal Corpse for example is well known for his contributions donating a lot towards children’s hospitals and child abuse centres. Why? Because he was likely abused as a child, and so he found a healthy outlet for that pain and trauma through music. It made him very successful, so now he gives back to those he relates with, his music is brutal, but his heart is pretty big. He plays harsh music, yes, but it’s saved his life and now saves many others…getting pain and anger out through art is what most metal is all about.
While the core of punk rock is very positive; be yourself, do things for yourself because why wait on others to do it for you (DIY), don’t let your traumas or addictions win over you, be kind and helpful to others but don’t be afraid to stand up to fascists and tyranny. The lyrics are always pretty positive actually, or humorous, lyrics are often satirical, not to be taken literally, teaching valuable lessons through comedy and music. But I mean just listen to ‘Swan Dive’ by Strung Out, then tell me that’s not a powerfully uplifting song, I’d even call it beautiful. There’s a lyric that goes “I don’t wanna let another day go by without creation”, sung with such passion you just can’t help but feel good, reminding us why art and creativity is so important. It’s a song about beating depression and dealing with loss and grief as we get older, rising above it all. A lot of punk rock is like that, positive messages to improve your life. That’s the core messaging in punk in fact, it’s mostly music to lift people up and empower those who have been kicked down by society..,so you know, pretty much everyone. That’s why it’s often called “music for the people”, people often referring to the poor and downtrodden that society largely gave up on…but also because almost anyone can play it, most of its pretty easy and accessible. Hence why the youth like it, can’t play a lick when you’re just starting, but anyone can learn power chords in a day! 😄
So I gotta ask, what’s wrong with all that? I’ve seen nothing but good come from punk in my life. I think people fight against it because they don’t really understand it, and we tend to fear what we don’t understand. Or they fight it because they have an agenda…and punk often stands up to them and gets in their way. We’re just not push overs is all…anything to keep another Nazi regime from taking over, we’re always ready to push back against…even within our own scene. Nazi punks are a real thing, but the vast majority of punks don’t allow those clowns through the door.
I also think they often get confused and think these genre’s promote drugs and sex…but that’s mostly gangster rap, and some hair metal…not punk. Punk largely only sings about that stuff when it’s about recovering from addictions, or while making satirical commentary. There’s actually a movement in punk called straight edge, it’s against drugs and alcohol, promoting a healthy sober lifestyle. It’s been part of the scene since the 80’s. You ever see anyone with two big black X’s tattooed on the top of their hands, it means they’re straight edge. Nobody really gets the tattoo as much anymore, but straight edge is still a big part of punk. And punk is very pro feminist, so we don’t treat women as sex objects…you’ll get your ass kicked at any punk show if you treat women badly in any way. Majority of bands don’t promote sex or porn addiction…we do have a few immature groups, yes, but they’re few and far between.
So we get a bad wrap…because the people who criticize the genre, don’t actually listen to it and don’t actually know much of anything about it, they just assume a lot. I’d be more worried about certain rap genres today, but even rap has been taking steps to cut that out, with more positive sub genre’s rising up over the years taking the music back.
Of course you’re free to disagree, but just trying to maybe share some perspective from a part of the world you don’t quite understand.
Point is, while I do see how these genres can be pretty off putting and even scary from the outside —being as they’re whole shtick at times is to intentionally offend to shake people out of comfort zones, to get them questioning and challenging their own beliefs— the overall point is as a healthy creative outlet, to hopefully better people’s lives, not effect them negatively.
There’s even a right wing genre of punk called Oi punk, sometimes religious, mostly working class, family focused, and the left leaning majority welcome them, because the music and the messages are actually really awesome! Punk has matured a lot over the decades, far removed from the gangs and thugs of old. Just look up a guy named Greg Graffin, lead singer and song writer of the band Bad Religion (the names more tongue in cheek and meant to challenge ideology, they don’t really think it’s bad, they’re widely known as one of the most intelligent bands of the genre), he’s a PHD in Zoology, a biologist, a part time professor at UCLA and Cornell. Looks like a high school English teacher, not a tattoo on the guy, as white bread as they come, fronts one of the biggest and best punk bands of all time, has since 1980. One of many examples actually.
Anyway, I could rant about music for hours, 😅 but I’ll leave it at that. Just a passion if mine I love sharing.
1
-
@patrickthomas2119 Well we’re all bias, that’s why we have peer review in the first place, but I get you. Yes, it’s difficult to navigate a (now) heavily politicized talking point, because they do get tied up in agendas, and then it just gets messier. I’m working, but when I do find time maybe I’ll do some digging. I do recall a study on homosexual behaviour observed in other animal species, but I’d have to find it. I’m actually not sure what neurological studies have been done on the subject, but I know psychologists have studied it pretty thoroughly, and neuroscience often falls within their realm of research, in terms of hard data collection. So perhaps I’ll brush up on the science when I have a moment.
Though I wouldn’t brush off my point so quickly, regardless of its anecdotal state; my gay friends are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and I’m not attracted to the same sex. Why is that? It’s a good question. Do you feel our personality traits are ingrained from birth? I’m sure you do, so why couldn’t this as well? Our personalities guide our decisions and our tastes, so it’s pretty logical to me to conclude it’s a born trait. More first hand experience, my parents said I never cried, was the most relaxed baby, not afraid of the dark…while my sister was the opposite; cried constantly, especially if you put her alone in a dark room, not relaxed, very moody. That’s still us today. I’m very chill, very patient, and don’t get bothered by much, my sister is pretty vocal and easily riled to anger, but generally just more outgoing. Traits we were born with…we’re not just blank slates when we’re born. I’m sure all your kids have personalities you recognized from pretty early on. Where do these traits come from? I don’t think it’s much different, we’re very clearly born with some traits and preferences right from the start. I think it’s more wishful thinking from a biased perspective, to hope this isn’t a born trait…but I do strongly feel you’d be wrong on that.
Every gay person I ask say they knew very early in life, and my community is a farming community, so very conservative. Meaning nobody in these circles was pushing it on them, quite the opposite. They still turned out to be gay, regardless of the nurturing. You could say it was from outside “propaganda”, but when I ask how they first knew…it’s usually something completely unrelated, like a muscle magazine, or a scene from an action movie, etc…manly things, far from that propaganda, that don’t have that effect on most boys.
You can brush that off as anecdotal if you want, but for me that’s research data. A small sample pool yes…but I’ve been alive long enough, and listened to their community long enough to know this experience is pretty standard across the board. Just talk to a few of them, hear their stories.
And again, it’s not hard to see how it’s possible, when you just stop and wonder why you’re straight, where does that instinct come from? Why couldn’t it get mixed up during fetus development? Again, I’m no biologist, I’m really not sure which holds the gene for sexual orientation, the sperm or the egg, but what if the sperm or egg was mutated slightly? Mutations in these cells do occur, it’s the driving force of evolution. I can only speculate on that without the knowledge base to really back it up, but I do still have the ability to wonder why I’m straight, and if I don’t have any interest in same sex, then it’s pretty easy to draw the conclusion that we’re just born this way. I grew up under the same “propaganda”, so did millions of others…why did it only work on a small few?
As for music, seems I’m preaching to the choir here. 😅 I misinterpreted your point it seems, thought you yourself were also against rock and faster musical genres in general, but if you like Metallica then you understand and get why I’m so passionate. Well, I hope that rambling was at the very least interesting then. 😅
Anyway, been swell as usual, perhaps I’ll do some searching into the science again, it’s been some time. I do agree, bias agendas do muddy the waters…and I mean, the well of information is obviously poisoned pretty badly lately, why do you think we have flat Earthers?
Take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 Or maybe I’ve worked it out on my own, through my own observations and experiments, and now know exactly why these conclusions were reached. You think we’re just blind followers, but you really have no idea…it’s just something you need to tell yourself, so you never have to consider the possibility that you fell for an online con.
I’ll listen to anyone’s presentation of evidence, but I’m not just going to blindly agree with it. Science is about falsification, if your theory was accurate, then I wouldn’t be able to falsify it…but Flat Earth is actually pretty easy to refute, hence why I don’t subscribe too it. It’s really that simple. If you couldn’t…well, then that’s a you problem.
Feel free to share more information on your position, but yes, don’t expect me to agree with any of it out of the gate. Unless it can’t be refuted upon reviewing, then I have no reason to conclude it’s accurate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, it is a theory, but it's not as simple as most seem to think it is. A theory in science is very different from the general use of the word theory. Theory in the regular sense means a best guess based on prior evidence, so not proven yet. But in science Hypothesis takes on this role and a Theory in science becomes the highest form for explaining a phenomenon, it's what hypothesis graduates into after it's been proven, not before. Nothing in science graduates to the level of a theory until it is basically proven science, with multiple forms of evidence backing it. Nothing is beyond a theory in science when it comes to explanations for how and why something works the way it does at the mechanical level.
Not to be confused with Laws of science, which only describe WHAT is happening, they do not further explain HOW or WHY that something works the way it does. Because there is also the Law of gravity, which just describes the motion we observe from gravity, the downward acceleration towards the surface, but this Law does not describe HOW it is happening, it just records WHAT is happening. To describe HOW it works, we have the scientific theory of gravity to explain that part of things.
Also not to be confused with Facts, which also do not explain how something works, they just describe something that's undeniably true about something. Facts make up both Laws and Theories, but Facts by themselves are not what we use to explain things in greater detail, by themselves they do not explain HOW something is the way it is, that's what theories are for.
So the word 'theory' in science is not as simple as people like to think. When people use the argument "it's still just a theory", all you're really doing is displaying your scientific illiteracy....which pretty much forfeits that person from any conversation of science immediately after saying it.
1
-
@Lordani66 A better question is, when has he ever debated? He’s been invited to debate on the Non Sequitur show many times, Reds Rhetoric, Sly Sparkane, Godless Engineer, FTFE, Team Skeptic, Conspiracy Catz, these guys regularly hold Flat Earth debates, Eric Dubay and Nathan Oakley are offered debates all the time by these guys and to my knowledge, neither of them have ever answered. Nathan Oakley won’t step away from his mute button and Eric...does he even debate at all? I’m not really aware of him ever debating anyone before. So feel free to share an example where he has, cause I’m not currently aware of any.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@googleplaynow9608 See, that’s what I figured. You’re using the wrong math…Flat Earth conmen like Jtolan have conned a lot of people with that math, that none of you thought to question or check for accuracy. Pretty simple rule of thumb in science and mathematics; always double check your math…especially if there’s discrepancies. Because if you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion…it’s pretty simple.
8 inches per mile squared does not include a variable for height of the observer (among many other variables). So it simply does not represent line of sight, and it can not tell you how much is obscured by horizon. So if that’s the math you’ve been using, then that’s been your problem this whole time.
I mean…think about it for a moment; you see more as you go higher, but that formula only gives you ONE figure, whether you’re at 6’ or 100’. Soooo…should be pretty simple to understand, how it’s wrong. Height of observer matters, line of sight matters, horizon position matters…not just the curvature.
That formula is wrong, because it ignores important variables. A surveyor can use it as a quick guide to determine elevation drop from a tangent…but that’s about it, and even that requires further elevation information on the object being viewed. They don’t use it to determine what’s blocked from line of sight…that’s not how the formula works.
Here’s a far better formula you should be using for the geometric line of sight over horizon, using trigonometric functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Radius of Earth
d= Distance to object
h= Height of observer
Even this is purely geometric, ignoring atmospheric effects, but it’s the first step in any observation and this math actually represents line of sight…so it’s far more accurate. Refraction is also important to factor, and you include that after the geometric is calculated. The Walter Bislin blog has a great calculator and curve simulator you can use that includes every important variable. Meta bunk has a great calculator as well. 8 inches per mile squared does not represent line of sight, that’s the important thing to remember. So it’s not the right math, I hope I’ve made that clear.
You should check out the plethora of videos debunking Jtolan…he’s actually one of the best providers of Globe proof. 😄 A great example, look up a user name Okreylos, specifically his video on Jtolans Mt San Jacinto observation. He demonstrates pretty clearly how much of that mountain you should actually see, if Earth were actually flat.
So you’ve been conned, which is all Flat Earth ever was. I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. I would suggest you look at the Jtolan observations again, and use the correct math when you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markandrews6054 Let’s look at it this way, if you jump from a building, does it matter which way you are orientated towards Earth, you’re still falling down, correct? Now if you’re flying, and you put your plane into a nose dive, you’re still falling towards Earth, even though you’re technically flying and could correct at any moment, you’re moving towards Earth, then you are falling towards Earth. Same for your example, what you need to understand, is that if you’re moving towards Earth in any way, then you are falling towards Earth. Even if you were to enter from space, with an orientation that to you feels like you’re flying up, you’re not, if you’re moving towards Earth, then you are falling towards it, because gravity will eventually become to strong to overcome.
I get that this is a hard thing for you to grasp, because of the usual form of falling to you is always used in the context of the word down, which is generally towards your feet, but down on Earth isn’t your feet, down is always towards surface, regardless of whether your feet are pointing that way...it has very little to do with you and your orientation. If you’re moving towards Earth, then you are falling towards Earth. If you can’t understand that, then it’s personal incredulity that’s stopping you from being able.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GT_Void Alright, I'll pick one since you're to much of a coward. At 41 minutes of your doc, the presenter brings up an Encyclopedia entry from a 1958 edition. Reading an entry from the book it reads as fallows "These flights proved the inland areas to be featureless in character, with a dome 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80°S, longitude 90°E". Then he makes a claim that this is talking about the "dome firmament". So he reads the word "dome" and immediately assumes this must mean "the dome firmament". Boy...didn't realize the dome was only 13,000 feet high...the highest elevation points in Antarctica go higher then that, shouldn't this dome firmament go MUCH higher, if planes are flying under it? Gee, I wonder if they could have meant anything else by word "dome"? Upon a quick search, yup, it's very likely they did. Ever heard of an ice dome before? They're a form of glacier that are pretty common all over Antarctica, here's a map of some of the larger ones. https://static.sphaericaest.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/image-131-1024x701.png Wow...lotta domes around Antarctica...I wonder which one is the firmament?
Alright, so let's see if we can find more info. Here's an entry found in a book titled 'Antarctica in the International Geophysical Year, Issue 1'.https://books.google.co.id/books?id=j44Kw31FSboC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false On page 15 in the section on Antarctica Geography you'll find this quote "The latter is believed to be a massive Precambrian shield superimposed by a great dome of snow and ice, and toward its center reaching in excess of 13,000 feet elevation". They're describing a glacier ice dome in this article...which are very common in Antarctica, as stated earlier.
So the researcher in your doc series really has nothing to verify, that what is being discussed is the "dome firmament", but he has no problem saying it is anyway...even though it states that this thing is only a measly 13,000 feet high. If he found the wall of this firmament...wouldn't he call it a wall, not a dome? And again, why is it only 13,000 feet high? What exactly gives him ANY INDICATION, that what he's reading is a discovery of the "firmament"?
No, I think he's applying his bias here and just making an assumption, because it says a word that he can spin into some bullshit. He just pulled a single word from a book and spun his own bias narrative upon it....selling you a claim that they were talking about the "dome firmament". They were not, they were likely talking about ice dome glaciers found all over Antarctica...that is far more likely, since the elevation of many of these ice glacier domes, are roughly around the elevation stated in the Encyclepidia. So he's being bias...this is just classic cherry picking, meaning it's confirmation bias, nothing more.
So that's one down, how much you wanna bet if I tackled every claim made one at a time, I'd be able to spot the bullshit in each claim? I know I would be able too....I've done it many times...it's all bullshit, that's why I'm no afraid to you have you pick a point yourself, it's ALL BULLSHIT....so pretty easy to dismantle if you really take the time.
I've watched your fucking bullshit documentaries bud....they're nothing but empty speculations, quotes taken out of context and respun with a bias narrative, misunderstood physics, bad math and paranoid delusion. They are 3 hours long, to impress idiots like you....with what's known as GISH GALLOP. Which is a deceptive debate tactic, where you bury your opponent in an onslaught of weak arguments, that one at a time can't stand on their own, but together they seem more impressive. It's designed to overwhelm your ability to counter the bullshit being spewed....and sadly, it works.
Now go ahead, pick another point...I don't mind at all.
1
-
@karynwaithera3207 I just don't like bullshit. It's fine to question things...but why lie to yourself and others in the process? Why cherry pick information and spin bias upon it and reach conclusions from pure speculations and bias conjectures? The fact is, that entire documentary G.T. shared is nothing but gish gallop and bias. It's deceptive and bias, cherry picking only the information that supports their conclusion and ignoring all the other details that directly refute it....and it's incredible that I have to sit people down and tell them this. You should NEVER form full opinions around speculations....and that's all this documentary does, from start to finish, it speculates, endlessly.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to keep people honest, objective and reasonable. Bias is real, we all have it...it can and will lead you to false conclusions if you allow it. I try my very best not to form opinions around pure speculations and I do everything I can to keep bias in check....that's how you get to the REAL truth of things. I do that, by reconizing the difference between speculation and actual evidence. I do that by recognizing that I have bias, identifying what mine is, and then keeping it in check when evidence is presented to me....I wish everybody else did the same, but sadly, I don't see that happening...I see people chasing it, like moths to a flame.
From what I've seen, Earth is not flat...the evidence for the Globe is overwhelming. People would know that, if they could just step away from their bias long enough...to actually LOOK at that evidence and understand it.
I don't doubt there are very corrupt and evil people out there, pulling the strings for their own agendas...trust me, I get why everybodies on edge, but that doesn't mean we just lose our heads....that's very likely what they want us to do, lose our minds and confuse us, which divides us further and gets us fighting amongst ourselves. But, they can't hide the natural world from us, anyone can put reality to the test any time they want too, it's right outside every single day...you can learn the physics and discover the science on your own, at any time, the elites can't take that from you. I have done that, I know for a fact Earth is not flat, it doesn't take much effort to realize that either. So I'm challenging anyone who claims that it is, both to challenge myself to see if I might have missed something AND to challenge what I feel is misinformation. Misinformation is easier to spread then ever before thanks to social media, I'm just doing what I can to stem that flow, because NOTHING should just fly by the radar unchecked and unchallenged.
Just wish I met more rational people...who could keep their head on their shoulders, and recognize the difference between speculation and actual evidence. But I don't find a lot those...and that is just scary.
1
-
@karynwaithera3207 What you might as well have just said is "ignore everything else and agree with me"...sorry Karyn, but I will not do that. Religion is your bias, it keeps you from paying attention. All I care about is physical evidence, because reality is not magic, it can be measured, observed, studied and understood. That proof is all around you. You're not talking to me through a bible, you're talking to me on a computer...mankind didn't invent this technology, by keeping their nose in a bible...they did it by studying the natural world and figuring out how it works. We can absolutely do the same for the true shape of the Earth...and we have, pilots and sailors are not using a flat model of Earth to navigate with, that's for a good reason. So physical evidence is all that matters to me, leave your book of superstitions at the door please.
1
-
No, the real fake science is from a conclusion drawn from a sloppy experiment with no controls. I assume you’ve reached your conclusion from the “Cold Moon Light” experiment. That experiment is extremely inconclusive, because it did not include a control experiment, to isolate the variable it’s testing in the hypothesis. It’s made worse by the fact you’re all skipping over and ignoring peer review, ignoring all process of falsification, and forcing your conclusion…even though the experiment is full of errors. That’s simply bad science…that’s how pseudoscience operates.
The Moon does not produce its own light, you’ve just been conned by pseudoscience. By the way you called them “great scientists”, it points to a resentment of science, a jealousy, which probably means a desire to prove your superiority over the science community. That’s why I suspect you’re happy to agree to sloppy science without question or review, because of an inferiority complex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown No, people are arguing Earth is flat, because they don’t trust systems of authority anymore and many are also doing it to confirm their biblical beliefs. All calculations and observations match with a Globe, the only reason people are being so stubborn about that, is because they’re deeply bias. The math for curvature works, I’ve gone through many observations and found that to be true. When it doesn’t work it’s because a deeply bias flat Earther has either used the wrong math, or they lied about the details, or they ignored variables in their math like refraction...in the worst cases, it’s all 3 of those errors.
While you’re wasting your time arguing, the rest of us are putting satellites into orbit, flying passenger jets directly to anywhere on the globe with ease, mapping infrastructure with accurate geodetic data, making technologies that directly make use of Earth’s geometry to function at all. You are wasting your time on a hoax...perpetrated by con men, trolls and the village idiots of the world that fall fo these scams.
1
-
T Brown But we use those maps to find our destinations...so it’s good enough to find destinations, but not good enough for plotting Sun shadow angle data? Why not exactly? We occupy a 3 dimensional space, correct? We have mapped our world enough that pilots and sailors can navigate those locations and distances with absolute precision...so those coordinates are accurate to our 3 dimensional reality, correct? We know where everything is, in relation to each other, in 3D space...so the coordinates are accurate. They’d have to be, otherwise we couldn’t use them for navigation. So we can use that data collected in reality to form a working model of our surface...even with this data alone, we can confirm a sphere, as we’ve mapped the entire surface and we’ve found it has two equal hemispheres...so it’s not a reification fallacy, because the model fits with reality. A reification fallacy is when you build a model from nothing but assert that it’s reality anyway...kind of like what Flat Earth does. You use no data collected in the real world to create it and you don’t constantly test it against observations in the real world to verify it further...yet you believe it true anyway, that is when you commit a reification fallacy.
So there’s really no argument here, we know where locations are on our Earth, they are confirmed every single day by millions of people, navigating our planet perfectly...so locations are known. What’s also known is that sunlight moves in a perfectly straight path from its source, unless refracted through a medium. The density of our atmosphere would deviate it roughly 1 degree, so we account for that, it’s not a large margin of error at all. Ok...so when placing a stick perpendicular to the surface, making sure it’s plum, then the Sunlight should produce shadow angles we can compare to the surface and our location. From there it’s just simple geometry...do those angles match up when placed on a flat surface? Well sure, you can match them up so that they intersect, but then they won’t be at their proper latitude locations...they won’t fit at all if you line up those angles on a flat surface. But when we keep them relative to their latitude and then make those shadow angles all completely parallel to each other, the stick angles now create a perfect sphere...but how? If Earth is flat, then those angles should not form a sphere....this should not be ignored, this tells us something about our geometry.
Getting it yet? You can ignore the data all you like, but this data does give us further evidence for the Earths true geometry.
1
-
1
-
T Brown YOU believe the Earth is flat, you’ve stated it several times, so whether you like it or not, YOU have conformed to a geometric model. I get that you don’t know anything else about that model...because arguing from ignorance is much easier then actually accomplishing anything, but a flat surface is a geometric distinction...so the moment YOU claim the Earth is flat, YOU are absolutely supporting a geometric model bud. You support that model...despite all the evidence that refutes it and as near as I can tell, Flat Earth forms that conclusion from “it looks flat, therefore it is”...which is itself another logical fallacy, it’s an affirming the consequent fallacy. If A therefore B, B therefore A. It goes like this “if Earth is flat, then it should appear flat from our perspective. It appears flat, therefore it is flat”. If you feel this is not how you’ve reached the conclusion of a flat Earth, then by all means, explain why you’ve reached that conclusion then, provide your reasoning.
Either way, you’re supporting a geometric model, the moment you say Earth is flat, you’ve made a choice. Now, because that model you’re supporting was formed with no real world data, just a conclusion FE has reached from a fallacy in logic, it means you are indeed committing a reification fallacy, the moment you conclude Earth is flat. You’re forcing that model to be reality, when it has no real world data or application...while we have collected data in reality that we’ve compiled together which all points to the same conclusion and that all has the exact same geometric measurements...that we apply in physical navigation of that surface.
Ignorance may help you remain annoying...but it’s not useful for advancing society forward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown No single entity was responsible for mapping the entire surface of Earth, it was many thousands of different individual efforts, compiled together to complete one single mapping. Though single companies have today mapped it with satellite imagery, further confirming it. We know it’s accurate, because we currently use it for successful navigation. If the mapping was wrong, then we would not be able to predict and plan for any long distance navigation, people would be getting lost every single time they attempt to travel with that mapping...it’s incredible I have to even explain that to an adult. Pilots need to know how much fuel they need, sailors need to know how much food to store...having an accurate map of the world is key to millions of people’s jobs, it’s key to hundreds of thousands of daily voyages...you have to be completely idiotic and ignorant, to think we haven’t mapped the Earth in the modern age...and somehow we navigate it successfully? You wanna talk logical fallacies...then holy shit, you don’t really care about logic at all at this point.
Anyone can learn global navigation and apply it with precision, at anytime they choose. So YOU can verify this knowledge, anytime you please, many of us have done that...so ignorance is not an argument here. The model we use for world navigation is the Globe model, with lines of latitude and longitude that are equal for two hemispheres...that is a fact, not an opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown The model isn’t assumed, because it correlates with other data, data taken from the real world. We’re not just shooting in the dark with the model we’re using to interpret those shadow angles upon. The locations are known and measured...and those distances don’t work when interpreted flat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4 The only geometry that does make sense of them...a sphere. So we have more than enough evidence to confirm the spherical model, so we’re not assuming anything, we have enough evidence from real world data to confirm the model is accurate. When we interpret the shadow angle data on a flat Earth to check if it also works this way...then we’re assuming a model, cause as you said...flat Earth has no working model. We do this though, to isolate and control variables, to verify further that the data plotted flat doesn’t identify a local Sun. There is only one model this data works on...this shouldn’t be ignored, those stick angles correlated with latitude locations don’t just form a sphere for no reason.
You’ve not demonstrated anything, all you’ve done is made empty statements. You stated that navigation is used with strictly flat maps...but then refused to point out which map that is exactly, because you know the moment you do, you won’t be able to defend it once we start testing its distances against reality. So instead you’re choosing to argue from ignorance...which is easy sure, but it’s also a fallacy.
1
-
T Brown Sorry, but not done at all actually, because all you have are empty claims of accurate flat maps with no evidence supporting that claim, and a cleverly prepackaged argument from ignorance, designed to keep you and other flat Earthers ignorant to evidence. You’ve made a claim that flat maps are all accurate, so now it’s time to demonstrate it. You claim to know for certain how geodetic data is converted, but you haven’t shared a demonstration yet, that accurately verifies they take flat Earth coordinates and interpret them spherical...so until you demonstrate it, until you provide the map you believe is accurate for navigation and work through an example with me, I have no reason to believe anything you’re claiming.
Just empty claims, and arguments from ignorance. Can’t reach conclusions with either...but you have anyway.
1
-
1
-
T Brown You don’t quite get it. You’re trying to argue from ignorance because you feel if you don’t hold any position, then you can’t be defeated. It’s a common tactic used by trolls and Poe’s (the latter I’m growing more and more suspicious of). What you’re not getting though, is that it’s a flawed logic, when you don’t make a chose...you’ve actually made a choice...though in your case, you’re actually lying to yourself. You claim to not conform to a model, yet you argue for flat Earth...so you’ve chosen the flat Earth model. Then you say you don’t have a model...but somehow maps work? Maps are a recording of distances and locations of our physical surface...once you start creating maps, you’re creating a model...so if maps work, then you have a model.
You said we navigate with triangulation methods. Ok, that’s true, but triangulation doesn’t work, unless you have some accurate details to help you finish the triangulation...like an accurate distance, or angle, or location, typically you require at least two pieces of correct information, to complete a triangulation. So a map has to be accurate...in order to use it for triangulating a position, for navigation purposes. So you may not realize it...but you are absolutely saying that maps are accurate, if you’re going to say people use them to navigate with.
But flat maps are all inaccurate, they have errors...hence why you need the geodetic conversion. You can’t accurately interpret a spherical surface onto a flat surface, without creating errors...so when you navigate with a flat map, you have to convert to spherical...or you will get lost. This has been known by sailors for hundreds of years.
I’m basing that off the work done by pilots and sailors the world over, actual navigations experts, who actually know how to navigate the planet and are happy to demonstrate why and how flat maps of Earth are inaccurate. Spend some time on an actual pilots channel sometime https://www.youtube.com/c/Wolfie6020/videos and learn how navigation really works.
I’m happy to share examples with you. Here’s a fun example, of something that is impossible to do on a Flat Earth, but completely possible on a Globe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FJG65nbUO8&t Perhaps you can explain, how three 90 degree angles can lead back to starting position...if the Earth is flat? This is an actual pilot, plotting that exact flight path...using his actual navigation charts. Creating a triangle flight path...with three 90 degree turn angles. Not possible on a flat Earth, completely possible on a Globe.
1
-
T Brown I’m telling you triangulation doesn’t work unless you have an accurate map, the Globe has accurate maps of the Globe surface, we use it for navigation, it’s accurate. But YOU’RE claiming that people triangulate accurate positions using just flat maps, which means those flat maps with no geodetic conversion are accurate, so where’s the map you used to reach your conclusion? If you know for certain how navigation works, then you must have a map you used to test it in the real world, where no geodetic conversion was necessary. If you never did test it, then you’ve reach that conclusion on an assumption. So what map did you use to test your triangulations on?
They do the geodetic conversion for a reason...if Earth was flat, they wouldn’t need to do that. You think they do it just to fool people...so ok, prove it. That’s what I’m asking for. You must have tried navigating using a flat map with no conversion and it worked...or, you’re just assuming your conclusion. It’s pretty simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown Forget the model for a moment, cause you’re not paying attention to the distances of each location in that video and that’s what is important. Flights go to and from each of those locations, every time they do, they’re clocking a distance...so those distances are measured and recorded, they are undeniably true distance measurements at this point. Ok, so if those distances are accurate, then we can lay them flat, as he has, and see how they fit.
The distances don’t match when laid flat, there will always be one distance that won’t fit...but basic spacial geometry (and common sense), tells us they should all line up and work....but they don’t. That right there should be enough for anyone to go “oh, well maybe the Earth isn’t actually flat”.
I know you get this, you’re not stupid...but you’re plenty ignorant. So aren’t you even the least bit curious why those distances don’t match when laid flat? It doesn’t make you wonder at all? Or are you just a Poe, who enjoys endless circular debates like this?
1
-
T Brown If you believe mankind’s efforts to map and model are impossible or futile, then here’s a very historical painting by Leonardo DaVinci you should see. https://integrated4x.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/leonardo-da-vinci-map-of-imola/ On the right is a modern aerial view of the city of Imola in Italy, on the left is a scale painting of the city created by DaVinci. This painting is quite famous, for its incredible accuracy, you can overlay the drawing with aerial photos today, and it matches almost perfectly (some infrastructure is obviously changed today). Point is, in his time he could only really assume it was accurate...there was no way to fly up and see it. And yet, through math and geometry, he was able to map the city perfectly....so what makes you think we can’t do the same?
I get that you think it’s wrong to conclude anything unless it’s 100% visually confirmed...but you don’t seem to understand how limiting that method of thinking is. You can annoy people on YouTube with that kind of reasoning, but it’s not useful...and won’t lead to any real truths of reality, it really just keeps you stuck living a lie. The Earth is not flat...but you’ll never know that if you stick to this ignorant mind set you have.
You and all of flat Earth are trying desperately to force your will upon reality...that’s what you’re really doing. What greater display of will...then to override truth. I get the appeal, but it’s just not going to achieve anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown A model is formed the moment you decide a geometric distinction. You say with absolute certainty Earth is flat, so in that act you have chosen a flat geometric surface, that’s basically your model then...you have started a model in that act. If you were to say “I don’t know what shape the Earth is”, then you can argue a little deeper in ignorance, but you haven’t done that, you have chosen a flat Earth. We do know for certain we occupy 3 dimensions, so that automatically adds to it, so your model is pretty basic, flat surface, can move and see in 3 dimensions upon that surface...that’s it. I agree it’s a crappy model with lots of incomplete holes, and with very little data supporting it, but then you’ve chosen it, not me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown Ok, but you’re reaching a conclusion of your own, from no real science of your own...just an assumption, that it looks flat, therefore it is. So I feel you’re being hypocritical. You’re saying with certainty the Earth is flat...but how do you know that for certain? You haven’t really shared any science of your own, just made empty statements that you hold to be true, the core statement being of course “Earth is flat”, but you’ve made many others.
Flat Earth demands so much of science, but they don’t seem to think they should be held to the same standards of review. It’s a valid question, how do YOU know the Earth is flat? It seems to us, that all you have is a base observation, “because it looks flat”. But if that’s how you reached that conclusion, then you’ve assumed it...because you can’t really make that conclusion on one observation. It’s a rushed conclusion and that’s not science, that’s a start, but there’s really been no attempt to prove the conclusion....yet you make it anyway? At least the Globe has something, it’s deduced its conclusion from recording every detail of an observation, creating data collected in the real world and then applying it with concepts we DO know for certain, such as geometry. All the data points to the same conclusion, but your camp is basically saying we should just ignore it all...simply because you’ve decided models aren’t scientific, you have this hang up with models.
You have a different idea of what science is, you seem to believe that models are not scientific...that we should not use them. So you’re asking that science start over and basically hack off a limb for next time, “don’t build models” is your real argument here, from what I can gather. But everything mankind builds today is based off models....your computer is made possible, through many different scientific models all working in tandem...so this conversation was made possible through models. So you’re asking we shouldn’t build models, but it’s still pretty undeniable that they are extremely useful, the proof of that is all around. So why should we listen to you and stop using something that’s been extremely useful for human advancement? Why should we essentially cripple our deductive capabilities? Good questions don’t you think?
At this point I’ve just been trying to get you to realize, YOU have assumed a model of your own...you assume Earth is flat, so you’re kind of a hypocrite. But I’m also trying to learn your point a bit better. I don’t just argue with people on these subjects to win something, I argue to learn and to test what I think I know. Difficult to learn when people are just trolling though...that’s on both of us. I hate the trolling aspect, it really gets us nowhere, would get more accomplished if the shields were down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T Brown There’s no reification here...you’re just grossly misunderstanding that fallacy. The data is collected in the real world...solar path of the Sun is confirmed, you confirm the Sun is directly above, when you get a 0 degree shadow angle...which is confirmed, in the same location, every year during Equinox. That is the reference point, if you know both the surface and the Sun are perfectly perpendicular to each other in that one location, and if you know the exact direction, location and distance to every other stick from that reference point, then you’re not assuming anything in those known variables, or using a model to represent reality, you’re using reality (known variables) against reality (observation you’re currently making). So no reification committed.
Your biggest trouble is misunderstanding that particular fallacy, and using it to ignore data. Fallacy’s are tricky, they’re easy to misinterpret and misuse...you’re misusing the fallacy, it happens all the time. You think a reification fallacy is committed anytime you use a model or data to help solve for any other part of a broader model. That’s not reification though, because you’re using real world data and applying it to other known variables collected from the real world. It’s other real world observation, compared against more of the real world. You’re using the real world to solve for more of the real world...no reification is committed.
You commit a reification fallacy, anytime you attempt to use incomplete models with errors, to represent reality. A good example is when Flat Earth looks at a model of the solar system that’s not to scale, planet’s aren’t spaced correctly, aren’t in proper orbits, sizes aren’t to scale, etc. Then they attempt to argue how broken it is, while using that not to scale model to make their argument, and then conclude Earth is flat. See how that works? That’s a reification fallacy. But you seem to think...anytime a model is used at all, you’ve committed reification...which is why you don’t conform to any known model of Flat Earth.
But, as we’ve been over again and again, the moment you say Earth is flat with certainty, you’ve chosen a model...so, even if you disagree you’re not misusing reification, it’s still a fact that you’ve chosen a model, and you’ve chosen it from one observation, that you can’t draw any conclusions from...but you have anyway.
1
-
Science does work…look at every technology around you, that’s only possible thanks to science. From the power that comes direct to your home, to the car you drive, to the fridge that keeps your food fresher for longer, to the computer you’re accessing to join a global network, to read this message. I think people have been a little spoiled and privileged the last century or so, we’re starting to take these things for granted.
I’d suggest, stop thinking in absolutes, because nothing is that black and white. She wasn’t saying it’s a perfect system, she’s just saying it’s clearly brought results, so it does work. Does it work every single time? No, but nothing does…there’s is no such thing as a perfect system, there’s always going to be errors, best we can do is diminish those errors as much as possible. Any scientist would agree with you though that science can be fabricated and lied about…that’s why they included peer review into the scientific process to begin with. But can it be lied about absolutely? No…and here’s a couple reasons why. Because the majority of scientists are good people, who care about accurate information, and want the best for mankind as a whole. The other reason is because junk science simply does not work…so it eventually reveals itself as bullshit, from the fact that it’s absolutely useless, and eventually it gets weeded out by peer review.
You can say the last couple years have been a scam, that vaccines don’t work, or go off the deep end and suggest it was a depopulation conspiracy…but we’re still here, and the very large majority of people got vaccinated. So unless you have solid evidence that verifies your hunches, then you’re just reaching a conclusion mostly from paranoia. We’re just lucky this pandemic wasn’t more deadly…cause we’ll be fucked next time, if we get complacent on a far more deadly pathogen, with how paranoid everyone behaved recently.
Scientists aren’t out to get you…they had to do something about a growing health concern, so they did. What’s truly alarming is the response given to their efforts, to me the last 2 years have really revealed the current division in society…we are not doing very good mentally as a society right now, a lot of trust seems to have eroded. Misinformation is rampant and paranoia and distrust is growing…that’s not a good place to be with how many challenges we currently face.
Anyway, science does work, the proof of that is all around you. Is it perfect? Certainly not, so you’re not wrong to question it…but please don’t take it for granted.
1
-
“So if they lied about one thing they lied about everything….”
Surely you know what a black and white fallacy is? Thinking in absolutes like that is not very logical I feel, because nothing is ever that black and white. Think of the boy who cried wolf; most people would agree the moral of that story is too never lie (or don’t lie too often), or nobody will trust you…but what I take away from it, is mankind’s inability to objectively assess every situation without bias. The boy told the truth in the end…but because of his status as a liar, and peoples tendency for thinking in absolutes, the warning wasn’t received, and then people got hurt…all because of thinking like that “lie once, lie about everything”. Nothing and nobody can lie all the time about everything…thinking in absolutes is a logical fallacy.
That’s a core problem with flat Earthers, they’re reaching conclusions not so much from evidence, but more from a deep distrust they have in an authority. It’s created a powerful bias, that keeps them from assessing information objectively and with due diligence. They’re right to be skeptical…but their distrust puts blinders over their ability to research objectively. Everyone would agree the government is shady, and should never be trusted completely. That’s pretty common knowledge, it’s no secret, and so it’s perfectly reasonable to remain skeptical at all times…but paranoia should never be allowed to triumph over reason.
The details matter, it’s where the truth can be found…it takes time and diligence to properly ascertain all the details. For example; Flat Earthers make the claim that every image of Earth is a composite image. This is not true, the real truth is that SOME of the photos are composite, while many others are not. The Apollo missions (as well as the many missions that took place before those missions) took thousands of photos of Earth, on regular old celluloid film. These photos are well archived, you can find them online very easily with just a few quick searches.
These are not composite, nor are they CGI, just one example of many. But most Flat Earthers will never mention these photos, they instead firmly claim that every photo of Earth is composite, they even claim that NASA admitted too it. This is also false, what really occurred was some good ol’ cherry picking. ONE GUY who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite, was being interviewed on how THAT ONE IMAGE was created. He explained that image was created by compiling image data from low Earth orbit satellites, which was then put in a photo editing software like photoshop, to complete the image. He was talking about one photo, he was not in any way shape or form saying that every photo by NASA is a composite…but flat Earthers only listened to the part where he said “…it is photoshopped, but it has to be.”
Cherry picking, taking words out of their original context, with important details omitted, then misinterpreting those words and misrepresenting them, to help spin a narrative and confirm a bias. It’s not NASA who’s been lying…it’s flat Earthers, who refuse to believe an institution they distrust wouldn’t lie to them. It’s not entirely their fault, it’s just classic confirmation bias and thinking in absolutes…it’s made them into liars, mostly towards themselves. But I mean, if we apply your mantra to Flat Earthers, now that you know those details…so Flat Earthers are liars absolutely? 🧐 It’s not that simple…nothing ever is.
Eddie isn’t wrong to question things, nobody is attacking him for that, because many would agree you shouldn’t trust authority completely, it’s wise to be skeptical. But he’s clearly not forming conclusions from solid evidence, it’s mostly speculation and “what ifs”…and the evidence that is presented, when anyone really digs into it, turns out to be just cherry-picking or half truths with missing context, misconceptions and misunderstandings. Eddie is clearly running with confirmation bias and though Joe and company can’t quite pinpoint exactly how, they can sense it. That’s why Eddie is being attacked here…because it’s annoying when people think you’re supposed too be impressed by speculations or anecdotal evidence. In what world or court of law does speculation and anecdotal evidence ever hold up? 🤷♂️
Anyway, that’s just my perspective on this issue. I feel people should absolutely be skeptical, but don’t lose their ability for better reasoning, too their emotions. And I don’t agree that thinking in absolutes is a great mantra towards finding truth…it’s a great way to follow bias though.
1
-
@khayribeyah4480 So what would you prefer they do instead? The scientific community I mean. How would you prefer they tackle solving the mysteries of physical reality? The way it currently works is through a lot of trial and error, constant repeating of experiments, data collection, innovation of old experiments, peer review, constant falsification to leave nothing but the most conclusive conclusion left standing. The reality is that we do not know everything and we likely never will, there's just too muhc to know, so old information will always have the potential to change as new information is acquired...that's true of information gathering of any kind, whether it's solving the mysteries of science or figuring out the truth to rumors in your friend circle...new information always has the potential to change old information, that's just how it is.
Yes, of course nature is rigid and conforms to fixed rules...but it's a tough nut to crack and it doesn't just tell us what many of those rules are, we have to get clever. Again, we don't know everything, so we have no choice but to operate in a manner where old information can be changed as we acquire more knowledge. That's why they chose to call their end conclusions theories, and I believe they were wise to do so.
But what would you prefer they do instead? Flat Earth seems to think they hold the wiser position (even though they've achieved nothing and Flat Earth science doesn't make up the framework of any applied science today), so feel free to let us know what you think science should do instead. What changes to the scientific method do you think would make it better?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well it seems you didn’t pay very good attention in your history class, cause it wasn’t believing in the globe they were being ostracized for, it was heliocentrism. Galileo and his peers were persecuted and put on trial for sedition against the church, for suggesting the Sun was at the centre of the solar system, not the Earth. They were challenging the geocentric model…but every scholar around that time already agreed that Earth was spherical, and they had for at least a good 1500 years up to that point, since the Greeks. Sailors have been using the globe model for navigation since probably Ptolemy, a Greek mathematician and geographer who designed the first accurate globe maps, roughly 2000 years ago, that led to the current longitude and latitude navigation system we all use today, designed from the knowledge that Earth is spherical, with TWO equal hemispheres.
Is navigation “just theory”? You think pilots and sailors can accurately plot long distance navigation routes…without knowing for certain what shape and size the surface they’re navigating really is? 🧐 If so….give your face a slap for me.
Flat Earth is a hoax…get a better bullshit filter.
1
-
@hakan8997 That's fine
Håkan, it's great that you'd rather have solid intel rather than maybes, but why are you ignoring the several times they have pointed out a different flight, from Australia to South America, that does fly direct as well, that on the Gleason would fly over Canada to make the shortest route...but it doesn't fly that way in reality. There are also flights from Australia to South Africa direct, that I know people have flown, here's a guy who has tons of info on these flights...he's a commercial pilot from Australia. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020 Here's one such example of a flight he breaks down and explains better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOY2BSfdbc8&t=514s So how does the Gleason map account for some of the Southern hemisphere flights that don't match with what is flown in reality? Why do Flat Earthers focus so much time on the North...and completely ignore the South? You'll find a lot of flights down there, that don't make much sense on a Flat Earth, so I do find it very conveniant that Flat Earthers only focus on the flights that maybe kind of sort of fit their model better...while ignoring the ones that COMPLETELY make no sense on a Flat Earth.
There could be a lot of reasons why that flight is reverted closer to Sweden, the Globe still accounts for it, it's not like it's flying WAY of course now is it. But there are TONS of flights in the South, that would fly off course immensely, if the Earth were flat...so why do Flat Earthers ignore these flights and focus on the North? Take a look at some of the flights being mentioned above to you and some of the flights being mentioned by Wolfie in the link I shared.
Jeranism and Karen B and those guys ARE being put to task just as much and we're finding them in error as well. We're concluding now that they are the true perpetuators of this scam online...feeding you the information they WANT you to see and ignoring all others.
Wolfie6020, Critical Think, Sly Sparkane, Blue Marble Science, Bob the Science Guy, Greater Sapien, Soundly, Reds Rhetoric and many others, those are the true Globe Earth channels looking at the bigger claims and challenging them. People like Jeranism, Rob Skiba, Eric Dubay, Karen B, Bob Knodel, Mark Sargent, Nathan Oakley, and many others, THESE are the people that are being checked by the ones I just mentioned above...they ARE being put to task and they are STILL being caught out in error.
It's great your name dropping the bigger proponents of Flat Earth, but are you aware of any of the bigger Globe Earth proponents? If not, then you've being doing bias research, looking at just ONE side of the argument. Just take a look at some of the work that has been done by the true Globe Earth proponents sometime...and THEN you'll have both sides of things in a little clearer focus.
1
-
@hakan8997 Likewise, explain the Southern flights to me please. You've received several comments now explaining that flight and it has been noted. My question is why focus on one flight, while several others don't support your claims at all? That's what seems convenient to me.
Yes, I didn't drop Scimandan for a good reason, he's more a commentator and not really a dedicated researcher, his work is mostly for entertainment. He's the largest channel for that reason, because most people use this platform for entertainment...not education. Scimandan is great and all, but I agree, he's not the best source for information pertaining to the Globe side of the argument. Wolfie is a pilot...so I don't get why you hand wave him aside so quickly. Explain to me why you don't believe his work is valid. Maybe I'll listen, if rather then laughing you gave me a reason to agree with you. Soundly is the same, show me where he has fudged things, he's done some really impressive work, but if you have spotted some flaws then by all means, I'm all ears. Go right ahead, I don't mind taking a look.
Do YOU? Cause it just always seems like Flat Earthers would rather laugh and make empty claims and ignore any information that refutes them, rather then give us ANY reason to see their side of things, past their empty claims they will repeat over and over again, even after they've been refuted. So please, point me towards the reasons why you don't trust Wolfie or Soundly. Have you looked at Sly Sparkanes work yet? He's another huge one that has done some pretty impressive work as well, what about his work? Feel free, I don't mind taking a look at any information you have that might help me see why you distrust them.
Ask me about pretty much any Flat Earth researcher, and I will SHOW YOU exactly why I don't trust them. I will find the videos I have watched of theirs and I will point out their errors to you and I will explain to you where they go wrong. I don't just watch a little bit of their videos and then laugh and shrug it off, I pay attention and I hear them out. It is harder now to take them seriously, but I prefer to be objective, so I will still. I always find a flaw in their work, and I can share those flaws with you, so just ask which one you'd like me to get into with you and I'll let you know if I've looked at their work yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bongofury361 So Eric Dubay, in your video you shared with me, points out the same thing you did here with your question "How did early explorers use a sextant on a spinning ball Earth, if all the constellations are flying all over the fucking place?" This is actually a valid question and is the ONLY thing he mentions in that video that is relevant and not bullshit or a straight up lie.
It is a good question, how do the stars remain almost perfectly still night after night and in the same location, if we're moving so fast through the galaxy? But then I have a question for you, have you heard of parallax? Of course you have...It's very easy to demonstrate, you likely have noticed it every single time you get into a moving vehicle. The more distance between you and an object, the less it appears to move relative to you. This is why objects on the side of the road appear to whiz past at blistering speeds while the distant trees, houses, mountains appear to move very slow in the distance, slower and slower the farther they are away from you...and the Moon moves so slow it actually appears to be following you, as if it's not moving at all. This is parallax and you know what this is...Flat Earth talks about parallax too, when it talks about why stars don't appear to shift in their own model.
It works by distance....and the stars in our model are clocked at TRILLIONS of miles away. Sooo...pretty easy to see why they're not moving. The parallax here is even farther then the Moon. But then I do see where Flat Earthers are coming from on this, but I don't think you're thinking it all the way through, you're ignoring parallax here...and you know what it is, so it makes me wonder why?
It is fair though to wonder why there's not more movement, from all the different directions we're going in, it is a valid question. But then work it out, look at each movement and compare the distances they trace, relative to the distances from the stars in our model. Understand that parallax will only make objects appear to move, if there is an angular shift...not a straight line movement. With stars at Trillions of miles away, if you move in a straight path, you would need to be moving at many times faster than light to make those stars appear to move and parallax...cause you have to cover trillions of miles in mere seconds...and nothing moves that fast, not even light. So only a rotation can make the stars parallax in multiple directions...but if you look at our movements through space, most of our movements, are basically straight lines through space. You can work that out, by figuring out how far we've moved in our orbit around the Sun in just 24 hours...and then realize that we haven't even arced ONE DEGREE in that orbital rotation in a single day....it's even less in our rotation around the galaxy....far far less. So the only noticeable movement we should notice in 24 hours, is our daily rotational movement around our axis...and we do, the stars make a perfect circle that matches with our 24 hour rotation...and again, there is two of them, just like we'd expect to see on a Globe.
So if you REALLY focus on all the variables, if you understand parallax and how it works, and realize that rotation is really the only way those stars would make a noticeable shift and then work out how much our Earth actually rotates in its orbits...the only rotation that we should see, is the rotation around our axis, which is exactly what we do see. Sorry, I know I'm being redundant now, but hopefully repeating it helps to understand this.
So IF the stars are as far away as scientists say they are, then it actually makes perfect logical sense that they wouldn't move. So that's the only krux to this, how do we know they are as far away as science claims? Which is another good question...that can be answered as well and I can even show you how they do it.
Anyway, I hope I was able to articulate this well enough for you. I can also show some visuals if they'd help.
1
-
1
-
Actually, it has been scientifically verified. We've measured Earths rotation now in several different ways, starting with the Foucault pendulum experiment, then later with gyro compasses, now today we do it with large area Sagnac interferometers (also known as ring laser gyros). The Earth is measured to rotate at a steady rate of 15 degrees every hour, which is roughly 1000 mph linear speed, to cover a 24,000 mile circumference, 1 rotation every 24 hours. This is long settled science that you're arguing against...the only reason you've reached the conclusion you have currently, is because you're very ignorant to what science actually knows and you instead listened blindly to con men feed you misinformation and bullshit, and for some reason you believed them without question, over actual experts. When somebody told you there was no scientific proof of Earths rotation, I bet you just nodded your head and agreed, didn't even bother to look if that statement was true or not. It's incredible how we can live in the information age, and people are STILL this ignorant. SMH.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Flat Earthers repeat every argument they hear, almost verbatim, from strangers on YouTube channels, so how can you honestly think they’re not just believing what they’re told as well? They choose to believe these con men over actual experts, despite their lack of credentials and experience, because they trust them more than current systems of authority, because these people are generally like them, average joes...but they’re still just blindly following what others tell them, so nothings really changed for them, they just think it did.
The difference is, science has developed a working model of reality that is testable and repeatable and USEFUL for applied science. Everything from engineering, to navigation, communication and infrastructure, it all makes use of the heliocentric model...and it works. That’s for a good reason, because it’s accurate. While FE just has paranoid bullshit, nothing that’s actually useful. They all just simply believe they’re somehow superior, simply because they’re part of a niche’ group of people, who believe something contrary to everyone else. They’re more like hipsters of knowledge...it’s exciting to think you know something others don’t, even if that something is completely nonsensical and doesn’t fit reality.
Also, ever think maybe that guy in the car was just being prepared? Is he hurting himself or others wearing a mask in his car alone? No, so why do you care? Probably even forgot he had it on...it’s pretty easy to forget when you’re wearing them off and on all day. Fact still remains, masks help limit the spread of pathogens ejected from every breathing individual, so it’s just smart. You’re not special or ahead of the curb for not wearing a mask...you’re just a selfish asshole.
I’m sorry if you don’t believe this pandemic is real, try spending some time in an ICU for a few hours. I had a doctor friend tell me a story of a dying man in his care, gasping his lungs out, saying the government had poisoned him, over and over again, never thinking he was sick with anything...believing right down to his last breath, that it was all bullshit. It’s incredible how deep this paranoia goes...it’s sad. We’re lucky this thing is only slightly worse than the flu in terms of mortality rate...or we’d be fucked. Even if you’re not sure, the least you can do is mask up. I get that you feel it’s a breach of your freedoms, but we’re in a society, that always comes with a certain level of manners and cooperation. Thinking of others sometimes, rather than just yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can be the most intelligent person in the world, but if you don't have all the information needed to solve a puzzle, then you can not hope to ever solve that puzzle. Flat Earth does ask some good questions I find, but then I've found that they also do not provide all the information you need to answer these questions...because they either don't want to see that information, or they are aware of the information and would rather ignore it...or in some cases even straight up lie about it and deny it. This to me is a sign of confirmation bias...which is something people no matter how intelligent they are, tend to fall victim too. This is why peer review was added to the scientific method, to weed out such things like bias research. But I won't patronize you any further, Flat Earth does ask some good questions sometimes, but a lot of the information they share I feel, falls closer to confirmation bias that ignores a lot of information that could falsify the many claims made. I'll share some examples.
I watched all of the videos you shared, so I'll go through some of the claims made and answer for them...cause Rob Skiba is the worst for sharing just enough information to get your head scratching...but then never going deeper to try and see if there is maybe some information he's just not considering or aware of. In fact, to me it feels like he does this intentionally, pretending to be an honest researcher, but then purposefully withholding some details in pretty much every presentation he does.
He makes a claim in that first video that there should be a noticeable arc on the horizon left to right on a curved Earth, if boats go over horizon on the z axis then it should also look curved on the horizon. I see his point, and it sounds logical on the surface, but then this can easily be modeled in 3D software to see if this claim is accurate. I think he's made an assumption, assuming this is what should be seen...but then I find it odd that he never tests his assumption, rendering something to scale to see if maybe he's just missing something in his conclusion. He rendered a boat going over a horizon, I'm sure he'd know how to render a simple sphere and then zoom in and place a camera at ground level. Here's a great blog that has created a very cool interactive Globe simulator. walter.bislins.ch/Curve If you click on the first yellow tab marked as "Curve" and watch the demonstration, it shows you this simulated Globe and how it works. You'll notice that at ground level, when the camera pans left to right, the horizon appears Flat. It even goes up in elevation a few times and matches that elevation to actual pictures taken in the real world, the horizon matches with each picture, with their verified elevations. So Rob makes a claim in his video...but I find it odd that he never tests it. This blog puts that claim to the test.
You have to understand that the Earth is MASSIVE. if you could see a curvature from left to right, then how big would the Earth be? Bring up that video again, and start to draw a circle from the curve he's made on the horizon with the boat going over it left to right...so the Earth is a few hundred miles maybe in diameter by his logic? No, the Earth is huge and that's why you don't see curvature along the horizon. The reason for that, is because you're looking at the horizontal of a circle. If you look straight ahead and it's only 3 miles out, then understand as you turn 360 degrees around, from every single point you look, you are seeing exactly 3 miles out, which creates a circle...the horizon drops in a circle around you, not a straight line left to right...that would mean we lived on a cylinder, we do not live on a cylinder. So imagine now, what would that circle look like from a perfectly side view? it would look flat, like a horizontal line. If the curvature drops down out of view from every point on that circle around, then it would look flat from your perspective. So this is a problem of scale, perspective and geometry, Rob has a problem with visualizing all these things...but then he could have just tested this with something that could help him visualize it, instead of making an empty claim without testing it. I urge you check out that blog I shared, you can stop the presentations with the Reset tab at the top right and then you can play around with the sliders to make your own observations, it's a pretty handy tool and it is perfectly to scale to the Globe Earth model. It can also switch to Flat Earth, and show you how horizon and such things should work on a Flat Earth. It also has a lot of other great observations of curvature, my favorite being the Soundly observations of Lake Pontchartrain, if you click any of the other tabs there, I recommend that one if you want some great evidence of measurable curvature.
Alright, so the second video is a little easier to demonstrate and articulate what's happening. Rob makes another claim here...and again, doesn't test it. He claims that a local Sun above a Flat Earth would give the same results of the Eratosthenes experiment. Again, that sounds convincing on the surface...and it's logical to assume that, but then why doesn't he test it to make sure his claim is sound? Here's what happens when you do test the shadow angles of the Sun in the real world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=423s - if you're pressed for time, just watch the final 2 minutes of this video where he shares the results. Basically though, what they did was take shadow angles during the Equinox, from places all over the world and then plotted those positions on a Flat Earth with a Local Sun and then on a Globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg - Here is another content creator who did the same thing, using data from time and date dot com. This adds a 3rd dimension and it's even more damning for Rob Skiba's claim of a local Sun, because the lines don't point to a local Sun at all upon this AE projection, but matches perfectly on the Globe when tested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=462s - Here's Sly again in an earlier test he did of the Equinox shadow angles, only this time mapping them on a few other Flat Earth maps and then comparing them again on a Globe.
This is a just a few of the people who have done these experiments and found FE's claim of a local Sun working in the Eratosthenes experiment to be false. If you actually test those shadow angles and then produce them on a Flat Earth map or model, they do not point to a local Sun, but they do match perfectly with the Globe model. Jos Leys does many videos like that with many other observations, some with the Sun, some with the Moon, some with eclipses, they're all quite interesting and I do recommend them to anyone looking to remain objective about this topic.
Now those last two videos would take a lot of analysis to go through every claim Rob makes...cause there is a lot there, but I will point out just one of the many claims he makes cause it pertains to what I'm talking about with Flat Earth not disclosing some details when selling their claims to people. The point in the first NASA video there where he talks about the "strange boxes" surrounding the images of the Earth in photos from space. What he never mentions to the viewer, is photo compression and what that does to an image file. Especially a low res jpeg, it leaves over what are called jpeg artifacts, which are compressed data that simplifies an image making it into a smaller image file. When you compress a file, it leaves behind these artifacts that are found around the edges between dark and light areas. Rob never mentions this...and he never discloses the image size of those photographs. Why? Here's someone who did the same thing, but he found higher resolution images and gave the same thing a try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GV1nBkWR-Q At around the 6 or 7 minute mark you'll see his results of doing the same thing Rob did in PS, but this time with an HD photo that is not as compressed.
So my analysis is that Rob...is a bullshitter. One of the worst researchers out there in the Flat Earth community...because he's sneaky and manipulative. He uses the classic misdirection trick to fool people, showing you what he wants you to see and never sharing or disclosing the information that would render his claims moot. If I wanted too, I could take the time to go through every point he makes in those NASA debunk videos, but that would take some doing...and I'm pretty sure I've made my case for now.
I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. I don't share this information to mock you or belittle your intelligence, but I do fear the source in which you're gathering information, is not a good one. I find this is pretty common with most if not all of the Flat Earth proponents on YouTube...nothing more then scam artists and bullshitters. So take some time and put their claims to task, just as thoroughly as you now do with the Globe. Feel free to let me know if you feel I've overlooked something or if you have any counter points to make feel free to share. I don't mind taking a look and I enjoy the discussion, so long as its civil, which is why I decided to respond because you seemed very level headed and civil and that can be hard to find in this discussion.
1
-
@natemontgomery5740 It's always perplexed me how anyone can think Earth being round and the universe being vast, in any way makes you insignificant. Being an ignorant flat Earther, clinging to a keyboard in a basement, spouting bullshit online, THAT right there does more to make you insignificant, cause you're just wasting your life.
But here's a question, what's more impressive, a God that could create a seemingly endless cosmos, the likes of which we will NEVER fully understand....or a God who created a tiny terrarium, for a few lowly pets he keeps inside who can never escape? Do you wanna be a glorified goldfish or something? Or would you rather have an entire universe to explore, with endless challenges to conquer and overcome?
Personally, I'd much prefer the latter, that excites me cause the possibilities are endless! But, we should never let what we WANT to be true, get in the way of analyzing things objectively. Science doesn't concern itself with what you want to be true, that gets us nowhere. Which is why mankind barely achieved much of anything for thousands of years, then the scientific revolution struck about 500 years ago, and we FINALLY got out from the clutches of religion and dogmatic superstitions, that had been holding us back for so long.
I'd much prefer we don't ever go back to that, we were just wasting our potential. You can create your own purpose Nate, you don't need a God to do that for you.
1
-
1
-
@fallin4676 So you think we’re able to create new technologies without first making scientific discoveries eh? Oh boy. 🤦♂️ So you think you’d be able to send and receive your internet data over wifi, if William Hershel hadn’t first discovered the electromagnetic spectrum outside of visual light? Interesting….not sure how any engineer or inventor could make use of something they wouldn’t have known exists otherwise, but alright, you’re the expert by the sounds of it. 🙄 So do you also think we would have harnessed electricity…without scientists first figuring out how it travels, how it’s generated, and which materials are best for conduction and insulation? You really think we’d ever have split the atom and unlocked Nuclear power, without Einsteins relativity? You’re right about only one thing, technology is a long process of trial and error, but scientific discovery sparks that innovation…advancement in technology really can’t occur without it, that is a fact, not an opinion.
You have no idea what you’re talking about…and that’s exactly the reason why you fell for one of the dumbest cons online today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SpaceX says False, we know a lot more about the Sun than you realize...but let's just focus on what a regular person can deduce. You can see the Sun, right? You can feel its warmth? So we can deduce a lot from that alone. Here's what we know about the Sun, there is always a line of sight to the Sun, somebody can always see the Sun from somewhere on Earth, so from that we can deduce it's not going under the Earth at night...like some ancient civilizations once believed...and yet night still occurs, the question is how? So we can deduce that it's always in the sky above us, and it never goes below the clouds, no plane has ever reached it, so from that we can deduce it's very very high in the sky, in fact it doesn't occupy our sky locally...or we'd have reached it by now. So that raises some logical questions that shouldn't be so easily ignored. If the Earth is Flat and if the Sun is circling high above in a 24 hour cycle...then where does it go at night? How does night occur? How exactly does it set at all, if the Earth is flat, with a Sun so high in the sky? Flat Earth will often say it's due to perspective and then call their work done...but I'm afraid that's merely a hypothesis, the next part is verifying if that's plausible. So we can then do several little experiments to test the perspective hypothesis. Here's a few really simple experiments anyone can reproduce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I
So if we were to summarize what we know, it would look like this.
1. The Sun is visible from somewhere on Earth at all times, so it does not disappear during the night.
2. It is very high, because we have never reached it despite how high we are now able to travel.
3. Doing simple perspective tests can help us verify that a local Sun circling above is not very plausible and not a valid explanation for why night occurs. There are rules to perspective that Flat Earth ignores to ram this answer in, such as Sun angles, Sun's angular size, the speed of travel of the Sun, etc.
So none of the observations of the Sun fit with a Flat Earth hypothesis, but all of these observations are easily explained by a Globe Earth. So would you prefer we all just ignore this like you have?
These are logical questions and logical observations...and all you're doing here is ignoring them and deflecting, because you desperately don't want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. It's just odd to me though...you're asking for evidence, and then we share it....and then you just ignore that evidence? Why do you even bother asking? You people claim to be open minded, you claim to be "truth seekers", and then you ignore evidence? That's the very opposite of what you claim to be...so all any of us can really conclude then, is that we're not dealing with reasonable people here.
The deeper you go down this line of thought, the more you observe the Sun and collect observational data on the Sun, the less it supports a Flat Earth conclusion. But all observation fits with the Globe...so what reason do we have to listen to your bullshit, if your only argument is basically just ignore and deflect? Can't achieve anything with ignorance I'm afraid...so you're just not being very rational. I can share many more observations with you if you'd like, I've barely scratched the surface.
1
-
1
-
SpaceX says Evidently, you haven't been paying much attention to the comment replies I've been giving you and your group here. I have "looked into it", been doing that for over 3 years now. All I found so far is a small group of pseudo intellectuals, with zero expertise or credentials in any field of Earth science, navigation, mathematics, or engineering, but yet feel they're more qualified than actual experts anyway. People who can barely remember their multiplication tables let alone calculate curvature...and then they wonder why they can't find curvature.
You know why you can't find curvature? Because you're doing it wrong, from the math to your methods, Flat Earth only goes as far as to confirm a bias and then you stop looking. What's worse is that when others attempt to help you see where you might have gone wrong, you don't listen. Pretty odd coming from a group who claims to be more open minded...ya sure shut those minds off pretty quick the moment anyone tries to point out your errors.
I've looked at many Flat Earth claims of no curvature, and in going through the observations made by Flat Earthers, I have found that it's always the same errors. Either you've done the math wrong, used the wrong math entirely, or you fudged the figures, lied about the details such as the distances, viewing heights, viewing angles, height of the object, etc...and don't get me started on refraction, because it is always ignored...even though it is absolutely a variable that does matter and it should not be so easily ignored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t=1s. What's odd is that you never think the error is yours...as if you could never be wrong...that is probably the biggest flaw of Flat Earth, over confidence and ignorance.
Here are a few experiments and observations that verify curvature. Here's what happens when you do things properly. Give them a look sometime if this truly interests you and you'd like to remain objective about things.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3138
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=1s
Just a few examples, I can share more if you'd like. I can also go through some observations that you have if you'd like, I've done it many times over the years...and there is always an error in Flat Earth research, so I don't mind taking the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
SpaceX says Ok, I gotta ask...why do people idolize Nathan Oakley? He's a bit of an insufferable narcissist wouldn't you say? He only debates if he gets to have his finger on the mute button and he never listens. I'd love to see him debate someone outside of his channel, but he won't do it...and it's likely because he knows he'll lose the moment he can't mute or shout over his opponent. So I'm just curious, why does anybody admire this man? Wouldn't you rather have fair and civil discussions, where all information shared is listened to and considered? He's an ad hominem machine...and usually that's a sign of a person who realizes he holds the weaker or fallacious position, so name calling and volume are their only option. Granted, we all do that from time to time, it's hard not too, I've certainly done the same, but I wish it wasn't so much about winning an argument but more about a discussion where we put our shields down long enough to pay attention.
He has been proven wrong countless times, but when the going gets tough he just shouts over you and doesn't let you finish any points. Why does anybody think this makes for a fair discussion where ideas are actually shared and considered? I don't go on these channels, because you people are just too wound up...you're not listening to what we have to share, the moment I gain any bit of ground, I'd just be pounced on and silenced. I've seen it happen a lot...especially on Nathans channel. I feel you've already made up your minds and now you're looking for blood...so there is no civil discussion to be had.
So I don't share this information for you particularly, though it would be nice if you actually considered it as well and so thank you if you have been. Mostly I share this info for anyone on the fence who might be reading these exchanges, who is tired of being shouted at by Flat Earthers, who would like to know where they can find the information Flat Earthers over look and ignore and won't share with them.
In my experience, Flat Earth is deeply bias and they're not really listening...cause they feel they're done listening, it's time to pick fights. It takes a lot just to get to this point where we can stop ridiculing each other and start to have a civil discussion where we respect the other persons position and intellect...so it's hard enough to reach this point one on one...it would be impossible to do it against an angry mob of Flat Earthers, just looking to gang fuck the first idiot that wonders into their echo chamber. I'm not going to achieve much against an angry mob who has made up their minds...so I don't waste my time.
There is not much point talking to any group of people who have made up their minds already and are past the point of reasoning with. I see that in Flat Earth, I get this vibe that it's not really looking for the proof of a Globe anymore, it's looking to attack anyone who disagrees and strong arm them by force into believing the same thing. I've seen enough in 3 years to know that. I can actually have a discussion here, I can share my points without being interrupted and ganged up on, so this is what I prefer. I'm not interested in being shouted at. Flat Earth needs to grow up and cool their jets a bit...which is what you've finally done with me here and for that, I'm grateful. If I felt these channels and chat groups could ever reach that point, then maybe I'd be interested, but I haven't seen it yet is all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikegibbons2889 Tesla was a mathematical genius...so he used math equations just as much as the next scientist to formulate his ideas and iron out the details of his experiments, but he was more an actual experimenter, he liked to get his hands dirty. His argument was just that a true scientist should be more hands on and actually test their theories in a practical experiment, rather then endlessly formulate equations and theories. He had a good point, but he wasn't against math...that wasn't what he was trying to say, he understood the importance of math in science, he knew that math is just another tool we use to help us solve the greater mysteries of our reality...and he used that tool just as much as any scientist.
Theoretical science has its place, it is just the sketching phase of science, it's where we develop the blueprints of science...a blueprint in science is just as important as a blueprint in building. We work out the details on paper first...and then we devise ways to test our theories. Tesla was an experimental scientist, he felt his peers were spending to much time calculating and not enough time experimenting...that is all. But then he needed to make his theories work much quicker, because he was known as an inventor first...that's how he earned his living, so it was his job to experiment and figure things out much quicker, so that he could invent the patents that were basically his bread and butter. Where as a theoretical scientist working for a university (like Einstein), they're not paid to invent...they're paid to lay the groundwork, the foundations, the blueprints. They are paid to crunch numbers...that's why they don't experiment. Experimental scientists however are also employed by universities and these people do focus more time on actual experimentation and field research.
So I think Tesla gets taken out of context personally, he was not against Math...he knew how important it was just as much as any scientist, he just wished more scientists were more hands on like he was...but he came from a different background, he was an inventor as well as a scientist, he was largely self sustaining and independent, many of his peers were not.
1
-
1
-
Stopping it completely is unrealistic with a simple mask, sure. Reducing its rate of transfer significantly or even a little, that’s more realistic and that’s the real point. The point is to reduce transfer…not stop it, why would you assume it’s to stop it completely? Why do some people always gotta think in absolutes like that? With you people it’s either 100% effective, or don’t even bother…it’s just incredible. 🤦♂️
Reduce the transfer rate, that was the point of masks. Of course zero transfer would be more ideal, but good luck issuing a hazmat suit to every citizen in the world, best you can do is issue simpler, cheaper, masks…which do effectively reduce transfer of germs and bacteria…if they didn’t, then you can bet doctors and surgeons wouldn’t bother wearing them during procedures. It’s not rocket surgery bud…point was never to stop it, just reduce it. Stop thinking in absolutes.
1
-
1
-
You allow misinformation to spread, it eventually becomes damaging to a society. Best we don’t let any information just fly under the radar unchecked or unchallenged…especially foundational science. Nobody is navigating Earth using a flat Earth model, every pilot and sailor in the world uses the geographic coordinate system to help them plot successful navigation routes with pinpoint accuracy. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Allow these Flat Earth numpty’s to have their way, suddenly we have them rewriting textbooks that don’t conform to reality, then you get a lot of kids growing up with false information, you then have less people becoming scientists, engineers, pilots, sailors, and other various experts that actually get shit done, you essentially cripple a nations ability to perform even the most basic tasks…like navigating the surface successfully.
It matters more than you realize. Do you like all your stuff? I guarantee most of it was imported…you honestly think they can operate a worldwide shipping network, without knowing for certain what shape the Earth is?
On the flip side, to their credit, if the Flat Earthers are correct, then it’s certainly worth our time to investigate…however unlikely (and it’s very unlikely), the argument should be allowed to continue. Science is never really settled, it doesn’t operate in absolutes, it actually operates in percentages of certainty. That’s a double edged sword, but it’s necessary, because nothing and nobody is infallible. Science does get shit wrong sometimes, and it alway takes intense (often heated) reexamination to realize that. Galileo was nearly put to death for saying Earth isn’t the centre of the universe…turned out he was right.
So these debates will rage on, and they should. Flat Earth will continue to lose, but it shouldn’t stop people from trying.
1
-
@spakeface9752 You’re not entirely wrong, an elliptical orbit does mean there’s a change in velocity, but it’s a gradual change over time. In Earth’s orbit around the Sun for example, at peak perihelion Earth is moving at roughly 67,800 mph, and at peak aphelion it’s moving roughly 65,500 mph, a difference of about 2300 mph. If you were to divide 2300 by 182.5 (half of an orbital cycle, half a year) you’d get a gradual increase of roughly 12.6 mph per day. An increase of 12 mph…over a span of 24 hours. Ever gone from 0-60 mph over the span of an hour? You wouldn’t feel any acceleration at any point in an acceleration that slow…but you think you’d notice an increase of 12 mph over the course of 24 hours? 🧐 Those accelerations just get slower the wider the orbital circumference is…our orbit around galactic centre might as well be a constant velocity from our perspective, when it takes probably a few million years to accelerate a 1000 mph faster.
It’s like Flat Earthers don’t even think these arguments through before you present them…you just stop thinking about it once you’ve found something you think supports your bias. Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
Yes, we feel acceleration, but if it’s a gradual acceleration than you will not feel it…and anyone can test that at any time, with a car, and a gradual acceleration over time. So putting it simply, we do not feel Earth’s motions because from our perspective, they might as well be constant velocities. The accelerations over time are far to gradual for our senses to detect.
1
-
Ya, the Flat Earth is crafty and has a lot of pitfalls that people can fall into if they lack the knowledge at the time to counter those pitfalls. But like Cardinal RG said, you won't find any experts or specialists among Flat Earth...you'll find lots of people claiming to be pilots or engineers...but they're usually always proven to be liars. Meanwhile, the Globe is full of experts and scientists and people who navigate the planet for a living. As an artist/illustrator myself, their claims of perspective were what really pissed me off...they just opened up an art book doing a lesson on perspective and then chopped it to shit...completely reworking perspective and molding it to fit their narrative. I've been studying perspective a long time and I apply it in my daily work...I can tell you, they're straight up bullshitting about perspective and other optical effects.
Anyway, I do hope your friend comes to realize that, this is a good video to start but it might take more then that. Once they start even considering a Flat Earth, it's likely the hypnosis of Flat Earth channels is already set in...it's not easy to snap people out of it after that, because people naturally don't like being wrong...and once those chips are pushed all in, it can be a little embarrassing to admit you were wrong, so instead...most people just double down and dig even deeper...especially if you call them idiots for having dabbled in these concepts. So never call him an idiot, just present him with the facts and leave it at that.
1
-
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 So if you don’t mind, there’s at least one other point I’d like to touch on from a separate commenter. Frankie was asking you for a formula for buoyancy (as was I actually) using your understanding of things, and you replied with “why does there need to be a formula to prove that ice is buoyant in water”. The whole point of doing science, is to understand how things work, so we can use that knowledge and apply it. How we apply it is often by equations, we learn everything we can about something like buoyancy, isolating every variable required to cause it, then we break down those variables into their parts, those then create equations, which are basically a recipe, we can then use to give us predictive power. That’s what equations do, allow us to make accurate predictions.
Sure you can look at ice in water, see that it floats, and determine that it’s buoyant…but how can you USE that knowledge? Is it possible to deduce how it works, to the point where you can apply that knowledge the most effectively? Of course it is…math equations give us more control over that knowledge. You could build a ballast tank for a ship by trial and error…but it would be costly and very time consuming and not very efficient. And in the end, after one successful floating ship, you could only really build the same type of ship…cause that’s the only one you’ve made that works after all that trial and error. You could do that, or, you could understand HOW buoyancy works, to the point where you can calculate and make predictions for the effect. Now an engineer can build a ballast tank, simply by knowing a few things. How big is the ship going to be and what it’s made of, can give him a density, knowing what it’s floating in can tell him how buoyant that density is or isn’t, and how strong the downward force is can complete everything he needs to then predict how much weight a certain sized ballast tank can hold before it capsizes.
He doesn’t have to build anything, and he can predict all of that, knowing exactly how large to build everything and what materials to use, long before any building ever occurs. By understanding HOW buoyancy works, down to its last detail, the engineer now has a much more efficient method of building anything that’s required to float.
That’s the power math gives us, it makes engineering and invention far more efficient and easy. That’s why we do science, so we can acquire knowledge, we can then use in equations. Math is how we apply scientific knowledge in the most efficient way, it’s the end goal of science, applied mathematics.
Another thing about equations, if they work when applied, then you can be certain your knowledge is accurate. Because every variable in the equation has to be true, for it to accurately make a prediction that ends up true. If any variable is wrong, you’ll know, because the equation won’t work.
So he’s asking you for an equation, because if you can’t derive a working equation from your conclusions, then it means your conclusions are very likely incorrect. Basically, he’s reminding you how important math equations are…though most people don’t really seem to understand much about higher mathematics, and I think it’s because they’re not taught these things well enough. So I hope my break down of things above is helpful.
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 You’re welcome, I’m glad the information is helpful, or at the very least interesting. The trouble is you’re not really falsifying gravity, you’re really just denying its existence. I just feel it’s a misunderstanding of the basic tenants of physics that might be leading you to your current conclusions. You wouldn’t deny that things fall when dropped, but why would you disagree that this falling motion requires a name if we’re too discuss it? Why can buoyancy be named, but gravity can not? You see it from my perspective a little better? Kind of defeats the purpose of science, if we’re not going to be objective and treat every facet of physical reality equally, with the same standards of definition and labeling…or even just acknowledge when something exists.
Gravity is just a name we gave to a motion we observe in nature, a physical phenomenon that occurs free from our control, and it’s undeniable that it occurs. That’s where the physics starts, just by providing names to some physical functions of nature that we observe. I just feel you’re being a tad biased is all, denying gravity more so because it’s inconvenient for the model you’d prefer to believe.
You can actually use the buoyancy equation I mentioned (Fb=Vpg), to predict that balancing point of buoyancy to gravity, that you’re describing with the balloon, it works just as well in gases as it does with liquids. And that is what’s happening there, you’ve put enough of each gas inside that it balances in the medium, a balance between gravity and buoyancy. So you’re doing more to prove gravity, not disprove it. Density and buoyancy are already a part of the larger theory of gravity, so these things you’re describing are already explained and accounted for in that body of knowledge. So it’s really just taking gravity physics, but snipping out any mention of gravity.
But again, why so bent on removing gravity? Why can we name and define buoyancy force, but the downward motion we can neither give name or acknowledge? You really don’t see that as intentionally ignorant?
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 I understand your skepticism, I get it, when you look at things from the perspective you currently are, looking at only the conclusions of science, and skipping over the evidence that led to them, I can see why you’d reach your conclusions. These are actually great physics questions, so I don’t mind providing some further information.
You gotta go back to the start, science didn’t start with gravity, it started with Earth’s geometry. Evidence just piled up that made it impossible to deny that Earth is in fact spherical…we have a whole system of navigation today, designed from that knowledge and the measurements, that Earth is spherical. Millions of pilots and sailors verify Earth’s spherical geometry, every single day, with every successful voyage. If you don’t think knowing the exact surface shape and dimensions is important for navigation…then you don’t really know how to navigate. I would urge anyone truly interested in this topic, to learn celestial navigation, from the history right down to how to do it yourself…I couldn’t almost guarantee, you won’t be a flat Earther after that lesson. Especially after you actually apply the knowledge.
So ancient sailors and geographers pretty much made it impossible to ignore or deny, that Earth is in fact spherical…but ya, that of course raises a question, how do things remain on the surface of a sphere? Whether people were in England or Australia, they weren’t falling off this sphere…so what was keeping everything contained to the surface? 🤷♂️ It’s a great question…but questions don’t make facts go away. Just cause they didn’t know how it works, doesn’t change the fact that Earth was verified and measured to be spherical.
That’s where science came in, and it took a long time to figure out. So they didn’t start at gravity, it started by first verifying, then mapping and measuring the Earths shape. So, same with your predicament, your questions of gravity don’t make Earth’s shape just go away. They’re great questions, but questions are not evidence.
Scientists then paid close attention to some other undeniable facts of reality. First thing they noticed of course was that things fall when dropped. It’s been pretty obvious, but nobody really put it together until Newton, noticing that this falling motion was a physical mechanism of nature, a physical phenomenon. Newton had already determined that no motion occurs without a force to cause it (the Laws of Motion), so it’s pretty simple deduction after that, a motion is present, no motion occurs without force, so a force is present that attracts everything to surface. Simple.
That force was given a name and then science was off to unravel the mysteries of how it works. So those were the two undeniable variables at this point, Earth was spherical and all things are attracted and fall to surface. Many hypothesis were put forward for what caused that attraction, from magnetism, to static attraction, to air pressure, but the only one that survived experimentation, peer review and falsification, was mass attracting mass, put forth first by Newton (Law of universal gravitation), then later verified in the Cavendish experiment. Here’s a really good quick demonstration and explanation of the experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. He even explains and demonstrates a few simple falsifications for electromagnetism and static attractions, explaining why they’re not sufficient to account for this attraction. This experiment is repeated constantly around the world, high school kids can do this experiment, it’s pretty simple.
Though its conclusions, still creates many questions. Like how does mass attract mass? What’s causing that mass attraction? The trouble with unraveling HOW things work, is that it’s an almost never ending pit of further questions, test and verify one part of the problem…it opens the door for several more questions that need to be answered. Eventually taking things further and further into tinier realms (quantum), where we have zero perspective, since we don’t directly experience those scales…makes it very very hard to continue answering and solving for further questions, so we’ll eventually hit a wall, as we have. This would occur no matter what conclusions were drawn, if Electromagnetism was verified as the cause, it would then create its own set of new questions, and down and down science goes, just in a different direction.
Anyway, point is, you’re kind of skipping ahead, then wondering why things don’t make sense to you. Of course you’re not going to understand the conclusions, if you don’t follow and learn the steps that led to those conclusions…that’s true of any conclusion. Without all the details, of course you’re likely too reach a false conclusion.
You’re currently forming conclusions, based from your narrow experiences. You see a ball you hold in your hand, and understand that it can’t hold anything too it (though it actually can, through static, friction and surface tension attractions on more microscopic levels, but I digress), so you find it only logical that an Earth also can’t if it’s shaped spherical. You’re thus making a false equivalence, comparing Earth to any ball you have experience with, then assuming they would work the same…even though that’s just an assumption you’re making, not an actual verified conclusions. See the problem?
And then that’s where you stop thinking about it, you’re stuck in the box of things you experience at your scale. Science goes a bit further, it paid attention to a motion that attracts us to surface. Even if Earth were flat, science would have to account for and explain that falling motion, that’s the job of science. Saying “it just does” to the question “how things fall” is not a sufficient answer in science…might as well not even try if that’s as far as you’re willing to go. Won’t achieve anything with surface level conclusions like that.
So these two things are known, Earth is spherical, and all things are observed to attract towards it. That attraction causes motion, so a force is present causing that attraction, simple deduction. You’re starting at the end, you need to go back to the start. How it works down every detail is a much larger conversation, one I certainly can’t have here in a comment thread, but I hope that helps provide at least some further insight. People have this assumption that gravity is not verified…but it’s actually one of the most rigorously tested concepts in all of science. If it wasn’t verified, then it wouldn’t have made it this far.
Anytime, I’ll address centrifugal force in a separate comment, cause you had some issues with that as well.
1
-
@michaelcarlson2512 So centrifugal force is what we experience in rotations. Your argument is that because Earth spins at 1000 mph (Earth’s circumference, divided by hours in a day), then you assume the centrifugal force must be great…but this fundamentally misunderstands the physics of centrifugal force. You’re focusing on the big number you understand (1000 mph) and then you’re falsely assuming a linear velocity (mph) has much to do with a rotational velocity.
First of all, when dealing with rotational velocity, we don’t use linear velocity measures like miles per hour, we instead use rotational measures, like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Centrifugal force is directly effected by rate of rotation…not linear velocity. Earth takes 24 hours to complete 1 rotation. So have you ever been on a merry go round that rotates at 1 revolution every 24 hours? Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force on merry go round rotating at that velocity? No, not very likely. That’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s, for a comparison a Gravitron ride at your local fair that creates a lot of centrifugal force to cling you too its walls rotates at about 24 RPM’s, big difference.
Best way to help you understand this relation, is with a simple thought experiment. Picture yourself in a race car, moving at a constant 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that’s 1000 meters around. Would you expect a lot of centrifugal force in this example? Yes, in fact you’d probably have a heck of a time staying on the track, the centrifugal force would be so great. But now let’s do it again, same car, same 200 mph forward velocity, but this time you’re driving on a perfect circle track that’s 1000 miles around. Would you expect the same amount of centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would be turning so gradually, it almost feel perfectly straight, you wouldn’t feel probably any centrifugal force in this example.
But hold on, it was the same exact linear velocity of 200 mph, in both examples, but the former had a lot of centrifugal force, the latter had essentially zero as far you’d be concerned. Why is that? Because centrifugal force is a product of how quickly your angular trajectory changes per second, how many revolutions you complete per minute. In the first example, you’d be racing around the track completing several revolutions every minute, in the second example you’d complete 1 revolution every 5 hours, greatly decreasing the rate of angular trajectory change per second. So the wider the circumference, the more linear speed you’d need, to generate a comparable amount of centrifugal force at smaller scales. Which is why we don’t use linear velocities (mph) when talking about rotational motions, we instead use rotational measures like RPM’s.
The Centrifugal force generated by the Earth, is greatest at the Equator, and it only negates about 0.03% of gravity…it’s so small, you’d never notice. Gravity easily trumps that outward force, it’s not even close. So I hope that helps you better understand centrifugal force a bit, you’re focusing on the wrong numbers.
As for your bug walking around…it’s on the surface, right? So gravity is holding it. I’m not sure why you’d think it would be crushed by gravity, gravity isn’t strong enough here to do that. And where’s that ocean of water going to go? What other force would be present to cause it to be put into motion away from the Earth? Just think about that for a second, the only force present is gravity…that’s how the water gets its weight in the first place. That water gets its weight from gravity…gravity is basically another name for weight, you don’t have weight without gravity. What you always have is mass, but weight is mass times gravity.
Think of it this way, I’m sure you know how a scale works, you press DOWN upon the top surface of a scale, applying a force, that it then converts into a weight value. So it converts the downward force you apply, into weight…that’s how a scale works; downward force=weight. So if an object is resting on a scale, and it’s reading a weight value…then what’s pushing that object down? That’s how it works, it requires a downward force to be applied, for the scale to work. So the resting object is pressing down, or it wouldn’t read a weight value. Pretty simple way to verify gravity, but it also helps demonstrate that weight doesn’t exist without gravity. Objects always have mass, water always has mass…but it’s not trillions of tons until all that mass is pressing against surface, due to gravity, to create that weight pressure. Understand a bit better?
In any case, you’re assuming Earth fights with all that water, as if it’s in some tug of war where it has to increase its power to keep that water from falling off…but why would it fall? What other force is present outside of Earth to cause that falling off? What happens when you poor water on a ball in your hand? It falls off and goes to surface…so Earth is attracting the water off that ball. What force is there beneath the Earth in space, to cause an equivalent attraction, to make the water fall off?
Anyway, this is all physics 101 lessons, same physics understood by pretty much every scientist and engineer. Everything I’m telling you is the knowledge they all use, with helping them design a great many technology’s you use every day, so it’s not just nonsense. I’d urge you to learn a bit more, cross reference everything I’m saying with other physics lessons you can find online. I hope it’s been helpful. Take care for now and thanks for listening.
1
-
@DS-lq3dr Sure, but debates aren’t really won on truth and facts alone, they’re typically won by whoever is the better talker/bullshitter, and how well they dazzled the audience. It’s just a fact, you can win a debate, even if you’re 100% wrong, just by being a smooth talker, it’s a sad reality. Truth is messy and full of little details, it’s harder to sift through and explain, while bullshit is generally pretty short and direct, easy to shoot out in rapid fire, and easy to grasp…the average person has a pretty poor attention span, so guess which one they’re more prone to gravitate towards.
Just saying, science is very careful who it engages with, because conmen do exist and they’re constantly trying to bait them for the attention it garners. So they have to be careful….a huxter doesn’t have to convince everybody, he just needs to snare a few, then he’s got some customers, and there’s a sucker born every second. These types are typically layman with no real credentials to speak of, so scientists generally won’t accept any debates with layman, as a way of filtering conmen out, it’s pretty common practice. So if Eric really wants to have a debate, he’s going to have to earn it first…but probably not gonna happen, he already thinks he knows everything. 🙄
You know Dubay has been called for debate plenty of times by other YouTubers though, some of them even big channels with lots of followers. He’s so far accepted none of them…so why is it only Neil you focus on? Dubay doesn’t debate either, so if we use your logic that “truth has nothing to fear”, then what’s Dubay so afraid of?🧐
1
-
1
-
The Moon orbits the Earth...and during about half of that orbit, it’s going between the Sun and the Earth. So seeing the Moon during the day is exactly what we’d expect to happen, if the Moon is orbiting around Earth. Pretty simple stuff to figure out. If you need further help, just watch this very simple demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz01pTvuMa0&t
Why would you think oceans would be floating in the universe, if gravity is real? The strongest gravity well in our local area is created by our Earth, so water is going to be drawn to that gravity...it has no way of breaking free of that gravity. So what’s holding our oceans...gravity is. And yes we can conclude that, because gravity has been proven with evidence, if you’d like to see that evidence, I don’t mind sharing it.
Yes, governments lie, people lie...but science is just a method of thought for deducing the mysteries of physical reality, it’s just another tool in the belt...it has about as much agenda as a hammer does. The nice thing about science, is that anyone can learn how to use the method...then you can test these things for yourself and see if they’re true. People will lie, but evidence won’t. So learn the method if you’d like to learn how science came to the conclusions that it has. Then the world becomes a lot less scary and uncertain.
1
-
Your attitude is in the right place I feel, you shouldn’t assume someone is correct, simply because they’ve acquired some status most would consider as a higher intelligence. Nobody is infallible, even genius can make mistakes and they often do. And vice versa, even a broken clock is still right twice a day. So I agree that we should never be afraid to question even the most established ideas…heck that’s how great scientists made their entire careers, by going against consensus. You think Einstein is remembered today because he went with the status quo? Heck no…he challenged the work of Newton, he was not a very well liked fellow when he started out. The problem today is that his work is the new status quo, but he probably was not correct about everything, so we should have more people willing to challenge him, rather than just assume he was correct about everything.
But I think you are in a way limiting yourself with your rigidly defined axioms of experimentation. Not that you’re entirely wrong mind you, experimentation is about determining cause and effect relations, but experimentation is just one part of the process of science, it’s not everything. I mean most scientists most of the time just collect data and record observations, without necessarily knowing for certain what that research may be used for in the future, or by whom. They’re not conducting experiments, but they’re still scientists in a field of science, just collecting data, just a cog in the wheel, but still very important. A zoologist for example, may conduct the odd experiment here and there, but most the time they’re just seeking new species to observe and record. Are they not scientists, simply because they don’t really do a lot of experimentation? The work they do, can help in fields such as engineering, sometimes they stumble upon creatures with unique abilities, skeletal structures, or ways of doing things, that can be studied to advance our methods, or provide us with new materials, or…lots of things really. Identify new toxins, create new medicines, etc, the potential for discovery is almost limitless. So while it’s largely not a field of experimentation, it’s still very useful, and I’m glad we have scientists dedicated to that field.
I think you’ve also made experimentation a bit more rigid than it actually is, which keeps you from recognizing some variables as independent variables. Time is often an independent variable used in experimentation, were you aware of that? In the field of astrophysics, time is most often the independent variable used in experimentation. Of course we can’t manipulate the flow of time, quite like we can poor a can of pop on a flower to see what effect it has, but what we can do is choose when to make observations. We can allow a certain amount of time to pass, then make an observation to see what effect that amount of time has. With the stars, we can choose dates to make an observation, such as in the Eddington experiment, where an observation was made of the positions of stars before the Sun was close to them, then checked again during a solar eclipse (the only time you can really make an observation of stars around the Sun), to record their positions, to see if they do in fact shift by gravitational lensing. See, we’re limited with what we can do in astrophysics, but that doesn’t mean we don’t still have options. We can’t physically move the Sun to a position and see what effect it has on the space around it, but we can predict where it’s going to be…and then just wait for that moment in time to occur. So time becomes the independent variable in many experiments done for astronomy and astrophysics…though, we now put rockets and satellites and astronauts into space, so there’s a lot more we can do now in astrophysics, then we could a hundred years ago. But point is, I think you’re looking at experimentation with blinders on, and overlooking some variables that can also be independent in an experiment. You may think astronomy and astrophysics are pointless or flawed in some way, but there’s a great many technologies you use today, that can give thanks to those fields specifically. So they have proven themselves to be quite useful…and what’s the alternative exactly? Would you prefer we make no attempt at all, should we just stop being curious about the cosmos, simply because we have limitations? You and I both know that doesn’t jive well with human nature…curiosity is our super power, it’s a big part of our nature.
I also get the feeling your opinion here is making a slight argument against theoretical physics…but if you’ve ever built a house before, I’m sure you understand the importance of making a blue print first, yes? Why would you think science would be any different? Can’t even start to build, if you don’t first have a plan, enough for a foundation. Theoretical physics is the sketching phase of science…any artist can tell you how important sketching is, to the process of making a masterfully finished final piece. It has its purpose, and it’s a pretty important one. We don’t just automatically know things, we have to work it out first…it’s a long process, that starts on a chalk board. We don’t get to experimentation, without first asking the questions, and making the predictions. So when Neil said astrophysics is largely in the mind, that’s because a lot of it is done mathematically. It’s a lot of waiting, because time is often the independent variable in most experiments for astrophysics…and the cosmos does things very slowly, so might as well spend the time asking more questions and making further predictions.
I think your heart is in the right place, but I do feel you’re kind of pigeon holing yourself with your current opinion of modern science, you’ve created a rigid box around yourself that’s very limiting to what you can achieve. Science today is a big web of varying disciplines, rigidly defined systems are great and all, they keep us consistent, but if you think you know everything already, then you’ll fail to see anything outside of what you think you know. You may find yourself unable to think outside of your own rigidly defined box.
Great insights though, interesting way to look at the problems and pitfalls of modern science and call them into question, I am all for that. I hope I was able to also provide some interesting insights and perspective. Take care.
1
-
Why exactly do you think the Moon rotating at the same rate as it orbits is BS? It works...if the Moon were to rotate at the same rate as it orbits...then we would absolutely always see the same face. Mercury does the same thing with the Sun, we observe it rotating in sync with its orbit so that it tidal locks with the Sun, always facing one side towards the Sun, so it's not just the Moon we observe this happening with. It has a lot to do with how close it is to the source of gravity that keeps it in orbit. I know it seems odd...but there is physics at work here that does make sense and that does work when all things are considered and calculated. But I am curious why exactly you feel the Heliocentric models explanation is BS? If your only reasoning is because you feel it's to much of a coincidence, I'll stop you there...because that's not an argument, that's just your own personal inability to comprehend or accept what's happening. So what if it's a coincidence? Lots of things are a coincidence...they still occur anyway.
Though I don't personally think it is a coincidence, there is a logical explanation that does work and makes sense. It's rotation was slowed by Earths gravity until it was tidal locked with it, and we just happen to live in the era where the Moon is tidal locked to us, which keeps one side facing us. From what we understand about gravity, this is not only possible but a reality. Earths rotation is also slowing right now...and at some point a few billion years from now, the Earths rotation will be slowed to a point where only one side of the Earth will ever see the Moon at all. If anything is alive in that time...do you think they'll find that impossible or a coincidence? Maybe some idiots will sure...but the rest of us don't look at the world through any superstitious or paranoid lens...we know what's possible and we never rule anything out simply because we can't accept it as true...that's called being objective.
1
-
1
-
So how’d they use CGI on the Apollo moon landing photos, before CGI or photoshop existed? 🧐 Doesn’t add up. No, NASA never said all of they’re photos are CGI, one guy who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite image of Earth, was explaining how that ONE photo was created. He was in no way saying or implying that ALL photos of Earth are CGI or photoshopped. So you just misinterpreted what was actually being said, jumping to an erroneous conclusion from ignoring the context.
That photo is a composite, which means many smaller pictures stitched together to create one bigger picture. You require a photo editing software like photoshop to compile a composite image, there’s no way around that…that’s how composites are made. But that’s not the only photos NASA takes, the original Apollo photos were on regular film, from a regular camera, from deeper space. And geostationary satellites are currently in orbit taking single shot photos as well, with digital cameras not much different than what your phone uses. These photos are not composite, and not created with photo editing software, and they’re taken around the clock…there’s probably millions of photos by now.
You don’t see stars in photos because of the exposure setting. When filming anything properly, you must make sure the exposure and shutter rate is set to a level where you can see the image clearly in the final image. To snap a clear picture of the Earth, you have to lower the exposure, this lowered exposure setting means the much dimmer stars do not make it onto the film, because exposure setting basically sets how much light makes it onto the film. I’d suggest learning a bit more about photography, particularly exposure setting and shutter rate.
Satellites are about the size of a small car…do you see cars from 10 miles away? How about 25,000 miles away, which is roughly the distance most photos of Earth are taken from. What makes you assume you’d see something so small, from so far away? 🧐
I think you need to ponder this a bit longer. I hope this information is helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
Wow...you really didn't pay much attention in physics class did you. Soooooo many misunderstandings. You're forgetting about the laws of motion, most notably conservation of momentum. Here's a helium balloon hovering inside a moving train https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Dyl2msozc wow...didn't know a balloon could move that fast! Once something is in motion, it stays in motion, conserving the momentum of the inertial reference frame it is moving with. A helicopter took off from the surface rotating with the Earth 1000 mph, it will conserve the momentum indefinitely and hover just fine in place, thanks to conservation of momentum and relative motion.
Pretty simple physics that is quite easy to demonstrate. Here's more proof of conservation of momentum. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Wow...how is this guy landing dead center of the trampoline on each bounce, even though it's in motion? Now here's a guy hovering a drone inside a moving van, demonstrating the same physics of a helicopter hovering over the Earth as it rotates. https://youtu.be/HIycHlAsDZk?t=151
Our atmosphere does the same thing, it moves with our rotation at close to the same relative rate...so no, there won't be 500 mph winds and of course there isn't. But there are winds, and what do you think creates those winds in the first place? You guessed it, Earths rotation, which creates a fluid dynamic system of motion to occur in our atmosphere, generating winds. What causes the winds in your Flat Earth system of non motion? Shouldn't everything just remain still? Of course it's a lot more complex then that, storms and winds are generated in many ways, from pressure differences, to temperature, to buoyancy, but a HUGE factor is rotational motion. We know this, because our atmosphere behaves as it should if it were in a rotational motion, the Coriolis effect we observe in larger storms, is more proof of that motion.
Our spin does not create gravity...who the hell told you that? No wonder you're so mixed up about things.
A car doesn't have wings....a butterfly does, pretty simple to see how it's able to fly. It's incredible anyone has to explain that to an adult. So now what happens when a butterfly is not flapping those wings? You guessed it, It falls to Earth...like everything does...it is not free from gravity, it just has less mass making it easier to resist it. Gravity effects mass, if you have more mass, you will have a harder time resisting gravity. A car has more mass, so it's going to be effected much more by gravity...this is simple stuff. All things fall at the same rate of acceleration, because gravity attracts everything at the same rate, but with more mass, that means more matter being attracted, meaning heavier...meaning more energy is going to be required to resist gravity enough to get off the surface. This is demonstrated in flight aerodynamics and rocket science...we know how much energy is required per unit of mass, we put rockets into space all the time, we put planes into flight every single day. YOUR misunderstandings of physics will not change that. :/
So how does weight by itself put matter into motion towards the ground? That is an accelerating motion, but what causes that motion? First law of motion again is that nothing is put into motion without a force, so how does weight know to fall down towards Earth every time? Weight is caused by gravity for one thing, weight is a measurement of inertia caused by the downward acceleration of matter and the resistance of the surface keeping it from getting closer to center, which creates inertia, which we measure as weight. Density is what exists but density is not a force, it is just a property of matter and has no means to put anything into motion on its own. You require a force to put matter into motion...there is no way around that I'm afraid. So what force is causing the accelerating motion we call falling?
You really need to stop being so ignorant. Do you see all the technology out there today? Do you really think it got there because scientists don't know what they're doing? Maybe if you payed better attention in school, you wouldn't be so paranoid and afraid of the modern world. Learn some physics.
1
-
1
-
Well, he probably could have explained things better, I do agree, but this isn’t a science channel, so that’s not really what he does here. Johnny is an independent journalist, so he focuses more on the people and the group, not the science.
But if you require a bit more info, here it is. Both experiments he used were examples of inconclusive experiments. The first one (level on a plane) is just flawed from the start, because that’s not how a level works. A spirit level uses buoyancy in a two part density column, to find centre of gravity. Flat Earthers are ignoring the force of gravity, so they’re ignoring important variables and reaching a false conclusion, from the wrong assumptions. Put simply, you can’t use a spirit level to determine the shape of surface, any more than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet; the bubble moves with force of gravity, just like a compass needle moves with the force of the magnet.
So it’s flawed right from the start, his point is that people who become flat Earthers don’t see or understand how that experiment is flawed…that’s a big part of why they become flat Earthers, they lack some knowledge and/or understanding, so they reach false conclusions. So he was basically trolling them, that’s the whole point of recreating that experiment, to make fun of them a little. He knew it was flawed before doing it, he only included it as a joke…but it does also help to make his main point; why do people become flat Earthers? The answer is because they’re kinda dumb and uneducated…if we’re being brutally honest. He was a bit more gentle about it, but that’s basically what it boils down too.
The other experiment is a bit better, in that it’s a legit experiment with a good premise, but the flaw it makes is sloppy experimentation. Robotham’s version of the experiment is inconclusive, because he simply did not do enough to render a conclusive result. And it was riddled with errors. He used the wrong math that didn’t factor height of the observer. He only used one marker, only making one observation, and included zero controls; proper experimentation requires multiple data sets, with controls to help isolate the variable you’re testing. And he ignored important variables like atmospheric refraction, which does occur, and can effect what you see at distances. So his experiment is extremely inconclusive…that’s the problem. You can not use inconclusive results to reach a conclusion with, if you do you are more than likely doing so out of bias. The problem here is that they do reach a conclusion, regardless of its flaws…and then they ignore any attempts to point out how it’s flawed.
Proper recreation of this experiment actually verifies the opposite of what he claimed, that Earth is curving. A great example of a modern day recreation of that experiment is the Rainy Lake experiment, look it up if it interests you, it’s not difficult to find the official research blog.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
1
-
Ok, but that's assuming all the air isn't rotating WITH the Earth, at the same relative rate of motion. While driving in your car, are you feeling any of that drag force from the air that's moving with you, inside the vehicle? No...cause it's moving with you at the same rate, so it's not smashing into you, so no drag force. It does this thanks to relative motion and conservation of moment, which is basic physics of motion. So...what evidence do you have to assume the air of our Earth is not moving with the surfaces rotation? You'd have to falsify conservation of momentum, gravity, and fluid dynamics to make your assumption even remotely plausible...and it's all pretty established physics, so good luck with that.
Flat Earth loves to ignore physics when it suites them, but that's not how you remain objective. I'd suggest learning more about fluid dynamics and relative motion. It's all real physics that's pretty easy to demonstrate and understand, and it does matter here, so kind of important to understand this physics...before you jump to any false conclusions due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. So feel free, lots of videos and information here on YouTube that could help you out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... People don't bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, because we know where you're going wrong. It's pretty simple. It's fine to question things, but after enough research it becomes pretty clear that Flat Earth is the perfect example of confirmation bias and misinformation run amok. But allow me to address some of your points now.
Yes, the LINEAR surface speed of the Earths rotation is 1000 mph, but viewing it from thousands miles away to get a full image, and parallax will cause that speed to appear to grind to a halt. Ever wondered why a 500 mph passenger jet that traces across the sky, doesn't look like it's traveling at 500 mph across the sky? It's simple, because of parallax, which is effected by distance. Basically, the farther away something is, the less it will appear to move...it's the same thing that makes objects you drive past on the side of the road appear to whiz by you at blistering speeds when they're close to you on the side of the road, but the further away you look (distant trees, houses, buildings, hills, mountains, etc), the farther these objects are away from you, the slower they appear to move relative to. Parallax is why this occurs. So knowing this...if you were to observe the Earth from thousands of miles away, which is required to get a full image of it, how fast do you think the surface would appear to move, due to parallax?
To get a full snap of the Earth, requires the observer be several thousand miles away...a passenger jet fly's at roughly 6 miles altitude, and travels at 500 mph, and from only that distance it looks like it's barely crawling across the sky...what do you think a few thousand more miles is going to do to the Earth? 500 mph is half the speed of the Earths rotation...so think about that for a moment. Take all the time you need.
Really though, you don't even need to go through all that trouble of understanding how parallax works (though it's not hard and you probably should anyway), all you need to realize, is that the Earth completes ONE ROTATION every 24 hours. So if you're an astronaut, and if you were look at the Earth...it would take 24 hours for it to complete a full rotation and come back around with the same face towards you that it started with when you started observing. To put that into perspective, pick up a basketball, now spin it so that it takes 24 hours to complete ONE ROTATION. That's 2x's slower then the hour hand of a clock! Do ya think you'd notice it rotating? Do you notice an hour hand moving? No...you don't....so what makes you think you'd spot it moving if it was rotating twice as slow?
No, I'm sorry, but I'm not looking for evidence of Flat Earth anymore, I'm not new to this discussion, I've been looking at this conspiracy for over 3 years now, I have concluded the Earth is a sphere. I know this argument inside and out and I've heard it all, I have successfully falsified every claim made by Flat Earth and compiled an absolutely overwhelming mountain of evidence that supports the Globe in every way.
So it's VERY clear to me, that Earth is a globe, it always has been...and it's not hard for anyone to verify it for themselves. The only people who think it isn't, are people who can't grasp simple concepts like parallax, and simple physics concepts like relative motion, gravity, entropy, etc...basically physics in general. Not just that though, it generally effects people who also have a great lack of trust in systems of authority, so a strong bias against them. Which causes them to often listen blindly to strangers on YouTube over actual experts.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble. It's not wrong to question what you're told, but you have to be careful where you're getting your info from when you do. So I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
1
-
@April85... Are you referring to the continent sizes and varying colors from picture to picture? If so, I didn't address them, doesn't mean I don't know where you've gone wrong here as well. Just didn't wanna bury you in too much text...I rather prefer sticking to one point at a time.
I'll address the continent size with one piece of valuable evidence to that point. https://i.redd.it/8hao2aez62251.jpg Perspective is why the continent sizes change, as demonstrated in that photo there. Here's a video demonstration of this same effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEzcPJsDohA
Why do the colors look different in each photo? Because of the varying lenses used in photography, that all have their own color settings and presets and capabilities. This is going to vary the colors from photo to photo...it's unavoidable in photography. Even the lighting will effect color, if the camera has to adjust it's exposure to allow less light through for certain shots, then it's going to effect the color a bit as well, either saturating it or desaturating it.
Then there are the composite images taken in low Earth orbit, which are digitally touched up, and the colors here will vary from who's doing the composite rendering. As an artist myself, with hundreds of hours experience in photoshop, I'm constantly tweaking the hues and saturation of any art or photos I take....this will alter the colors of whatever I'm working on, that's what the hue and saturation control does, it's super easy to adjust the color of any photo. So this is also going to cause the colors to vary from photo to photo. This doesn't mean these are faked photos...it just means the colors were tweaked. Composites are not fake images, they are hundreds of smaller REAL images of Earth, stitched together to form ONE single image. Your phone does the same thing, with it's panoramic feature.
The claims by Flat Earth though are just "colors different, means these are all faked" or, "continents are all different sizes, means they're all faked". And no...no it doesn't, it just means your bias is leading your thinking. There are valid reasons why each photo of Earth is different, from colors, to continent sizes...you don't help your arguments much by ignoring these explanations we share.
Anything else you'd like me to address? Like I said, I know this argument probably better then most Flat Earthers...I know where you're wrong on every point.
1
-
@April85... And yet...that image and video I shared demonstrates how perspective changes the continent sizes on those model globes. Perspective isn't JUST about vanishing point....there are MANY more fundamentals of perspective then just vanishing point my friend. I suggest you spend a day watching some drawing tutorials on the fundamentals of visual perspective and they'll tell you all about it.
See, you learned about vanishing point from a con man singing you songs about Flat Earth on YouTube....I learned it from art classes DECADES ago, long before YouTube was ever a thing, long before flat Earth was a thing, and I've been studying the fundamentals of perspective for most of my life now ever since then, because I'm an illustrator for a living. Artists need to know a lot about perspective...we need to know those fundamentals so well, so that we can apply it, every day in the work we do.
So when it comes to perspective, please don't patronize me...I consider myself an expert on that topic in particular. I have earned that, from studying art most of my life. Distance and perspective make it possible to see more of the surface of sphere, so the farther back you go, the more of the spheres surface you see, the smaller those continents will appear, because your eye compares the continent size to the surroundings. It's an optical illusion known as a relative size illusion, illustrated best in this ebbinghaus illusion https://www.cleareyes.com/eye-care-blog/201711/exploring-relative-size-optical-illusions/.
1
-
1
-
@April85... My guess is, your guy was talking about taking photos in different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Different wavelengths include infrared, UV, microwave, radio, gamma, etc. We can't see this light with our eyes, but digital cameras that collect this light with special filters and then interpret it into raw data can. But, because we still can't see this light, it means the camera has to collect it as data, and then reinterpret that data into the visual light spectrum for us. This means they have recolor it digitally to make the data visible. These types of photos come out looking like this. https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40623-018-0789-5/MediaObjects/40623_2018_789_Fig1_HTML.gif Sometimes they color code the data like this. https://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Moon-multiwavelength-.jpg So that's why they recolor these images, they have too...because we can't see these spectrums of light, we can only see things in our visual light spectrum, red, green, blue, yellow, orange, violet, etc.
They do this with the Sun, the Moon, other planets, asteroids...we can learn a lot of extra information from these types of pictures, taken within a different wavelength of the light spectrum. Look at different images of the Sun in different wavelengths. https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2013/11/717632main_Sun-Wavelength-Chart_full.jpg Some things that were not visible in other wavelengths, suddenly become noticeable and easy to see. So this is why they take photos in the different light spectrums.
If I had to guess, that's what your scientist was really talking about...and you just heard him wrong. Probably just heard the words "can't take photos in space" and then completely tuned out the rest. But context is important...that phrase can mean anything given the context.
But, can't know for sure what exactly he was saying, until I know exactly what he said, so you'd have to produce that footage for me so I could have a look. But I've seen flat Earthers misinterpret words and meanings many times, so this more then likely just another case like that. Taking words and phrases out of context and spinning a bias misinterpretation upon them is called cherry picking...and it's a form of confirmation bias. It's important to get the details of what's being said correct, or you risk reaching a false conclusion.
You really gotta stop attacking things with bias...that's how you overlook information and misinterpret it....you've had your brain scrambled by con artists man. Why do people listen to non experts on YouTube so blindly, nodding and agreeing with every word they say and every piece of cherry picked information they share....but then you people don't bother to go out and actually talk to REAL experts and scientists about these things? It's incredible....that you think MILLIONS of people are lying to you....that you can't be wrong.
1
-
@April85... Now you're just rambling Mark. Focus your thoughts for a moment and articulate a response that's clear and cogent please. Are you saying radio, infrared, x-ray, gamma, etc has limitations on how far they can travel? No, they do not, these are all apart of the electromagnetic spectrum just like visible light is, they can travel infinitely far...it's basic physics. Light has no limit for how far it can travel, this is known physics. That means every spectrum of light as well. What WILL happen though at distances, is the frequency will distort and become harder to pick up, so it requires better transceivers to pick them up, you also have to be pointing that transceiver in the right direction and have it tuned to receive that specific wavelength...like tuning a radio in, but much more precise and sensitive.
Do hobbyists do this? Yes, they do. Here's a group that builds their own radio telescopes for super cheap, that they then use to pull data from satellites in orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t Take a look at some of these photos of Earth they're pulling from these satellites, you might find them interesting. They even explain how to build these so you or anyone can do the same thing.
Radar has its limits, because of the curvature of the Earth. Radar requires a direct line of travel to the object you're pinging, if it's blocked by something, then it's not going to show up on radar. It's the curvature of the Earth that limits radar here on Earth, as well as atmospheric effects. But did you know they bounce radar off the Moon, bouncing radio frequency's off the surface which they can then use to determine how far away it is? They do the same for Venus as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mXBPZXyMHw
You really need to stop getting your science lessons from conspiracy documentaries and movies. Take an actual physics class, your information is all scrambled. You're just doing what every bias researcher does, paying attention to only the details that support your bias and ignoring everything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... Physics is the study of physical reality...you live in and experience physical reality every single day, so there is no excuse, you can put physical reality to the test any time you like and learn about it yourself, any time you want. Little hard for them to lie to you about something you can test yourself at any time, with very easy to do experiments in most cases. So you've made a claim that they push false results...ok, so it should be pretty easy then for you to give me an example of some physics where they gave us the false results. I assume you've put these results to the test yourself, to know for certain they were wrong, so feel free to tell me which results in physics were wrong in particular? So go ahead.
I've seen the speech by John F Kennedy, it's a great speech and I have no doubt he was murdered for attempting to stop some really crooked people. Do I claim to know who those people are and what their agenda was? Nope, and I'm not going to speculate about things I can't verify either...I focus on conspiracy's I can verify or falsify with certainty, with science. I focus on the science, because I can verify science myself at anytime, so there's no room for speculation when I've done the science myself. I don' t like forming opinions around empty conjectures and insufficient evidence, so I don't argue other conspiracy's, because that's really all I can do with most of them, speculate. Flat Earth however, is complete bullshit and it's easy to falsify...doesn't take much effort and I can falsify it with certainty through very basic science and observation. I admire John F Kennedy, I think he was a great man and I agree, he was onto something big, or they wouldn't have killed him...and it really sux he got shot...but people often forget that he also signed the order to send people to the Moon and he was still alive while much of the testing was going on...meaning his office helped put some of the first people into space and helped fund NASA's first successful missions. Just cause he was onto something big...does not mean that something was flat Earth. All anyone can really do is speculate about that shit...and I personally refuse to join that bullshit. I will not chase bread crumbs that aren't really there. Humans are experts at finding patterns, especially when they're not really there...it's important to remember that last part and keep yourself from chasing bullshit.
1
-
@April85... Now lets focus on some science, cause that's all I give a shit about and I'm tired of your rambling.
"unless they need to convince you of matter and light bending to debunk other things"
Light bends...this is well known, it's called refraction. You know this, you've seen it before many times in your life. https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/light-refraction-physics-is-fun.jpg It matters for long distance observations, it will distort what you see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t So it's a variable you can't just ignore...https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=551
It's not hard to prove that light bends and refracts as it passes through denser air....it's easy physics to prove and verify for yourself at ANY TIME, with just a few simple experiments, many of which I have just shared above...so go nuts, do some catching up.
"even rocket thrusters need to push off something"
No they do not...that's not how a rocket thruster propels...at least not the kind of pushing you think. You have this assumption that rockets push off of air...and that's not at all how they achieve flight. Rockets propel by Newtons third Law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's the same reason a gun recoils, it's not the air, it's the bullet pushing off the barrel and vice versa...they push off of each other. You can demonstrate this pretty simply with a simple experiment. Imagine you're skating on some ice, in your hand is a 20 lb medicine ball. Now stay in place so you're not moving, skates parallel to each other, now put the medicine ball at chest height and toss it as hard as you can with both hands away from your chest. What happens? You go one way and the medicine ball goes the other, essentially pushing off of each other. Action, reaction...simple physics of motion. Now, pick up the medicine ball and do the experiment again, except this time, don't throw the ball, but push it against the air in front of you as hard as you can. Now, what happens? Nothing...you don't go anywhere this time. See it's not the air the fuel is pushing off of...the tank is pushing off the fuel, the fuel is pushing off the tank, they push off of each other, to propel the rocket up. The air does very little to help...in fact, it's actually doing more to slow the rocket down, thanks to the drag force it's creating.
It's actually easier to propel around in the vacuum of space, because there is no air resistance. But Ok, I hear the crickets in your ears from here, so I won't leave you hanging without a demonstration. https://youtu.be/T8MOoUuLnug?t=356 Notice how this can of pop when it explodes, doesn't require any air to push off of. It's in a vacuum, and the moment it explodes the can moves violently. Action, reaction, Newtons third law confirmed. Many different ways you can verify this...it's simple science. Rockets don't just propel in vacuums....they propel BETTER in vacuums. They do not require air to make this propulsion possible. You're thinking of a jet engine, which uses air to generate thrust, which then uses the surrounding air under the wings to generate lift. Air is needed for airplanes and jets...not rockets. Easy science to confirm for yourself.
"...that something will have an effect on signals"
You're right, atmospheric conditions absolutely do have an effect on many wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, especially certain frequencies of radio...just like it does visible light when it bends and refracts it. It's also how radio propagation works. You should know what radio propagation is...being in communications as long as you claim you were. This is when you bounce radio signals off the upper atmosphere (mainly the ionsphere) and back down to surface...so you can send radio communications further. Now, if the Earth wasn't curving, why exactly would bouncing radio signals off the upper atmosphere send them further? Those signals would be traveling further technically...so wouldn't they crap out much sooner then direct radio signals? That is, if radio signals had a limit to how far they went....Hmmmm. Radio has a limit yes....because of curvature. Little hard to hit a receiver and interpret a message...if the Earth is curving away and blocking those receivers. But...guess we'll just go with your assumption, that radio signals have their limit...just because.
The thing about space that's great...there is no air in space. So signals have NOTHING to stop them, reflecting them, slow them down. So unless a radio signal hits a solid mass, like a planet, star, asteroid or any other solid space debris...it will travel indefinitely. We know this, we bounce signals off of the Moon and other planets. We receive signals from satellites. We receive signals from probes we've sent out into deep space. We build radio telescopes that help us see things regular telescopes can't pick up....so they're seeing further than regular telescopes that have a known light visualizing distance.
You speak of these people faking science...but then explain none of it, just give me snarky, holier than thow responses that are open ended and don't verify your claims one bit. Meanwhile, I'm falsifying each point you make, with evidence and logic. Giving you explanations for how the science works...giving you simple experiments that verify them. You just don't seem to get it, science isn't hard...physics isn't a made up curriculum to fool the masses, it's the study of the natural physical world around you...and when you learn this stuff, they don't just talk about it, THEY DEMONSTRATE IT! Through practical experiments that prove their conclusions.
School starts out by telling you how things work...but the further down the line you go in the educatoin system, the more they demonstrate things to you and PROVE IT with experimentation. Even further down the line, they don't just demonstrate it for you...they ask YOU to demonstrate it for yourself. Then later, before you graduate university level courses and get your degree/diploma, they ask you to CHALLENGE something old or DISCOVER something new. You do this in the form of a THESIS paper. These require you PROVE the science or falsify it, through your own means. Nobody holds your hand and tells you what to do or what to think. YOU make the calls.
1
-
1
-
@April85... It's always amazing to me how religious people throw out these proud school yard insults that involve their brand of fiction...as if it should mean anything to me. You might as well just say "best of luck when Thanos comes and snaps his fingers", do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Well that's what you sound like from my perspective, it means about that much to me. I've falsified pretty close to all of your points with evidence and logical explanations that anyone can test for themselves...and you can't reply back with a counter rebuttal, because you know I'm right and you have nothing.
I'm not trying to be a dick (well, not all of it anyway), I just don't like bullshit and people who spread it. If you had any actual arguments, they would stand up to review...you wouldn't have to be cryptic about anything, you would just rebuttal my points with evidence and logic and then I'd maybe agree with you if you successfully falsified anything I said. I don't think I'm being unreasonable at all...if you're going to make claims, you should be able to back them up with something. Instead, you spouted gibberish and never even attempted. Just ignored, deflected, ignored, deflected....the same bullshit from every modern science denier.
1
-
@April85... Then by all means, refute something for a change. Instead of deflecting to the next argument, pick something and stick with it and refute my science. Should be easy, I've given you plenty of opportunities to verify your claims as accurate and to falsify mine. Don't get mad and hissy at me for being checked on your claims...falsify my counters with your own science and explanations, that's all you had to do. If you can't, then it's more then likely because you're wrong...and it just hasn't set in yet. It's pretty simple.
Instead you just danced around everything I said and then rambled off a bunch of nonsensical, cryptic (as you put it), jargon. If I "cling to my silly information"....it's because it's undeniably true and you people do NOTHING to change that. You want science to change....then ok, prove the current science is false, prove your positions are correct with FACTS and logic and evidence. It's that simple. Otherwise, we have no reason to listen to you or accept your bullshit claims....why you think you can just rattle off empty claims one after the other and we should just believe you blindly, is insane.
1
-
@April85... Oh no Mark, I'm WELL AWARE that Flat Earth "claims" all the photos from NASA are fake....you guys won't shut up about it. But just because an image is touched up in photoshop....does not mean it's fake. I take REAL photos all the time, then I color correct them in photoshop to adjust brightness, saturations, colors....does that now mean my REAL photo is fake? No, it doesn't....photoshop does not imply fakery, but you only think in black and white absolutes, and so too you it does.
And they don't do this to every single photo....that's an empty claim that flat Earth makes. A lot of the pictures they take and have taken, are regular single frame photographs...that have never been touched up in photoshop. Heck, Himawari 8 takes a new photo like this every 10 minutes or so. None of these photos are rendered in photoshop, they are high resolution single frame images, taken by a digital camera. But...I bet you'll say digital cameras take fake photos, cause it's digital...cause that's how your brain works. Even though your phone takes digital images too, it's the same technology.
The real trouble with you people, is your tendency to think in absolutes...AND to make assumptions when it suites you. You did both right in the first paragraph of your last comment here.
First you ASSUMED that I've "never heard that NASA photos are all fake and composites", nope, heard it a million times from Flat Earth...you people won't shut up about it, it's one of the first empty claims we learn from Flat Earth. What was new information to me, was your claim that "cameras don't work in space"...THAT was a new claim to me, I hadn't heard that from Flat Earth before. But, you just respun what I said to fit into your narrative you have for me and now you have this opinion that I've never heard of the faked images claim before. Starting to see how your broken brain works yet? You pick and choose what you want to hear and then spin empty claims about people and things using the fragmented information you have chopped up and respun into your bias.
Then you said with ABSOLUTE certainty, that ALL THE PHOTOS are composites and fake....and that's not true at all. They're not ALL composites. These photos here for example https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 none of these are composites, these are single frame photographs, taken on film. And you've done NOTHING to prove that they're faked...yet you'd probably say that they are anyway. On top of that...composites aren't even fake photos, they are REAL photos stitched together to make a full image. So you really need to get your facts straight on what constitutes fake and real.
I'm guessing if you were to show me this video where you learned that "cameras don't work in space", I'd learn that you took those words out of context....like Flat Earth always does. Then I'll learn that this claim isn't true at all...that you just heard him wrong. So go ahead, find me that video please, and I'll be glad to take a look to see if it's not just another false conclusion you reached, from misinterpreting what was actually being said.
The thing is, photos can be faked today, so it's near impossible to know if they were or weren't. So for this reason, I don't argue photographs for very long...because it's true, with photo rendering technology, it's nearly impossible to know for certain now, unless you're an expert on faked photography and CG rendering. But here's the thing...I'M NOT GOING AROUND SAYING THEY ARE FAKE, WITH 100% CERTAINTY! That's what YOU and flat Earth does. Without doing ANY work to prove that claim....you just say it, as if saying it enough times makes it true....and it doesn't. Stop saying these photos are faked, unless you know for DAMN SURE that they are, and you can prove it. I'm just tired of all the empty claims from Flat Earth, with ZERO backing evidence to support them. If you're going to say a photograph is fake...THEN PROVE IT! Or don't make the claim...because you really don't know then if you can't actually prove it. It means you reached that conclusion on assumption.....which means you're lying. THAT is what I hate about you people the most...making empty claims, with no backing....and then you think we should just nod and agree and then you get mad at us for questioning you.
I ONLY CARE ABOUT SOLID EVIDENCE! Which is why I focus on science. Science I can verify or falsify MYSELF, with my own experiments and observations. So that's why I focus on the science, because I can prove it wrong or right with absolute certainty. Like much of the physics you butchered...I can prove that wrong easily and then there's NOTHING you can say to refute it. And you haven't so far...that's why I focus on the science. Cause you can make all the empty claims you want about NASA, about JFK, about Angels and Demons and God and faked photos....but science, you can't weasel your way out of that with bullshit.
So let's talk some science, cause I don't care about empty claims....that's what I've been trying to tell you. Evidence to back up your claims, that's all that matters to me.
1
-
@April85... A fisheye lens that happens to get the continent of America exactly right, without distorting it? Hmmmm...nope, not seein any logic in that. Besides, a fisheye lens doing the trick you're referring too will have visual anomalies on the outer edges and will always render a perfect circle. I know exactly the trick you are referring too...this does not explain these photos here at all. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
As for the claim they're taken from an aircraft cockpit...ya, a space shuttle...which is a type of aircraft. You have not sufficient evidence in your claim that falsifies that the photos are taken from a space shuttle cockpit....you're just saying what you want, and calling it done. At least I'm willing to admit that I don't have sufficient evidence either for it being a space shuttle cockpit, doesn't change the fact that neither do you, and you're just making more baseless claims.
Laugh all you want, but you don't even realize you're just making speculations....which is not evidence. This is what I was talking about in my last comment...baseless claims is NOT evidence, it's just empty speculation, nothing more. I don't want to focus on bullshit like this.
This is why I don't focus on photographs, because I know you people. You'll just make empty speculations "it's a fish eye lens", or "it's an airplane cockpit, can't you see the brace?"...and then you think this is good enough. It's not...it's just speculations, empty conjectures without sufficient evidence to support it.
I can falsify your first claim of a fisheye lens though, that's easy, because these photos do not fit that description. There would be visual distortions that are easy to pick out in this kind of trickery. There is no bending or warping near the edges, so it's not a lens effect....so you're just grasping at the ol' Flat Earth excuse manual. What ever bullshit fits.
Do you like being proven wrong again and again Mark? When do you learn the difference between speculation and evidence I wonder?
1
-
1
-
@April85... Jesus...you are a by the book Flat Earther. Just consuming all the same stuff they all do and nodding and agreeing blindly to all of it. You REALLY think, I've been in this mess for as long as I have (3 and a half years now) and you think I've never seen this interview? You people man....just always assuming the reason we don't agree with you, is because we must not have seen the same "evidence". I'VE SEEN ALL THE SAME STUFF YOU HAVE! For the most part...I bet that's true. The only claim you've said so far that I am not aware of, is a scientist saying "cameras don't work in space", which I'm still waiting on evidence of.
Alright, so what is your point here? It's ONE guy who works in NASA's composite image department, explaining what HE DOES at HIS JOB. He doesn't speak for the entirety of NASA, and he's not claiming that ALL photos ever taken by NASA are composites.
He even explains here, that every composite is comprised from data taken by ACTUAL satellites in orbit....little hard to get satellites in orbit, if the Earth is not a sphere with gravity influencing it. An orbit is not possible without these two conditions.
Second, by "data" he's likely talking about the digital hard code that those photos get sent to him as, when they're taken. A digital camera doesn't print images on film, it stores it in the form of data...high resolution jpegs or PNG's, it's all data...but they are REAL PHOTOS none the less. A camera has to get into position above the surface, and then take a photo, with a regular viewing lens, the same as the one on your smart phone...and then that photo is stored in the form of data, on a harddrive. Which is then sent to this guy, after they've taken enough photos from these satellites.
He then puts them in photoshop to stitch the photos together, to render a composite image. He adds clouds, because they unfortunately move a lot...and if he doesn't edit the image at all, then the image will look like this. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76674/global_vir_2011328_lrg.jpg
So there's no choice but to edit them in Photoshop, if you want to render a composite image as it's supposed to look.
So you just keep acting like I don't know any of this stuff still.......MARK! Pay attention bud! I know what you're fucking talking about....I've been in this Flat Earth mess a long time. This is some of the first shit you learn about in this kooky conspiracy.
Composites, are images of Earth taken from low Earth orbit.
This is that guys Blue Marble image from 2002. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76674/global_vir_2011328_lrg.jpg
Here's the Apollo Blue Marble image from 1972. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble#/media/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
The first one is a composite, the second is a FULL image taken at 27,000 miles distance, using a single frame of film...on a regular color camera. They didn't have Satellites back in 1972. There were no low earth orbit satellites back then taking digital photographs and sending them too anyone for composite work.
You're CHOOSING to believe what you want when you read those kinds of interviews. You seem to think this is evidence of something, but it's not. You're just choosing to ignore what's being said and then spinning your bias on it.
This is now considered low hanging fruit in this whole Flat Earth argument and it's kind of insulting that you'd bother sharing it, assuming I've seen seen it or heard his other interviews. "It is photoshopped...but it, has to be" Ya, exactly....FOR A COMPOSITE! Which is what HE DOES for a living. :/
This DOES NOT mean ALL the photos taken by NASA are composites. You need to stop claiming that they are....and PAY ATTENTION!
1
-
@April85... And yet, I've showed you several photos from space of the Earth, that are not CGI and not composite images...that you hand wave aside and just make excuses for and I've heard them all. But again, get this through YOUR mind...speculations are not evidence. It is difficult to verify a photo these days, that's why I focus on science I can verify. I also don't cherry pick quotes from people, to falsify an entire archive of photography. People misspeak all the time, and then fools jump on their words as if it actually means anything, blowing them out of proportion, waving it around as "evidence", while they ignore ACTUAL evidence.
You focus on only what confirms your bias, I focus on ALL the evidence. I do look at both sides Mark, that's how I know the flat Earth has no working model and no functioniong map for navigation. I know they can't explain a sunset, the southern hemisphere, star trails in the South, 24 hour sun the South, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, earthquakes, the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth, satellites, gravity, orbits, coriolis...the list goes on and on. Meanwhile the globe answers for all of these AND has the evidence to back them up.
While you have cherry picked quotes that you spin out of context and misinterpret, and misunderstood physics that you lie about and make empty claims with that you can't back up. Flat Earth is a model that can't explain anything...and you cling to it for ONE reason, because if all the science goes away, then YOU can go on believing your book of superstitions without any interruptions to that fantasy.
The simple fact is, nobody is navigating the planet with a flat Earth model...that's a fact, not an opinion. You need to wake up, Flat Earth is putting you to sleep with bullshit...and you're missing reality.
1
-
1
-
@April85... Compared to you, I might as well be Einstein. If you want to refute the physics I've shared, then do it. I can't do anything with whining. Share evidence that I'm wrong, or stop crying about it. You sure do ramble a lot and make empty claim after empty claim. Share real evidence please.
Real evidence includes: observations made in the real world, experiments that are conclusive, data, calculations, technology that applies the science. As a bonus, explanations with logic behind them doesn't hurt either.
What is not evidence: Quote mining, empty claims with no backing, delusions of grandeur, speculations, conjectures, the bible, nonsensical rambling, crying.
Really simple stuff. Stop wasting both our time.
I'll give you a topic. Explain a sunset on the Flat Earth. Should be simple, give me an explanation you can form into a hypothesis for how the sunsets on a Flat Earth. Then show me your evidence that verifies your hypothesis. Simple stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Several experiments exist that have tested mass attracting mass, the most important and well known experiment being the Cavendish experiment, which is also easily repeatable. Here’s the best demonstration I’ve seen so far for this experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. It was also used to measure the force of gravity, here’s a high school student recreating the experiment and using it to measure the constant of G https://youtu.be/jkjqrlYOW_0. This measurement is used in many equations, from orbital mechanicse to aeronautics, so it’s very much an applied science today.
You’re getting a little tangled in the linguistics here, a scientific theory is very different from the regular use of the word theory. In science, hypothesis takes on the role of a theory in the regular use, while a theory in science, is the highest level any concept - that describes how something works - can achieve. Nothing graduates to theory, until it’s been proven beyond any doubt, through rigorous experimentation and data collection, even then it has to go through peer review, which can sometimes take years. Not to be confused with a scientific Law, which only describes WHAT is happening, not HOW it’s happening, that’s what theories are for. Also not to be confused with facts, which only make up the foundation’s of Laws and Theory.
So it’s not “just a theory”, saying that, kind of let’s us all know that you’re not very scientifically literate, no offence. It’s fine though really, science has a system it uses and it’s understandable how it could be confusing. But, hope that information helps, or at the very least you find it interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@outoftime7740 Classic…when you can’t refute something, just deny it exists. 🙄 Plenty of video evidence for the 24 hour Sun in the South, thousands of tourists go every year to see it. I assure you, it’s very real, your denial does not change that fact. And how can anyone think denial is a valid argument anyone should take seriously…like are you people okay? Cause you’re certainly not very rational.
Also, did you bother researching your other claim of no vegetation before spewing it? Look it up, Antarctica has lots of WEEDS and other foliage growing there! 😄
And again, even if you don’t believe in the midnight Sun down South, what about the 17 hours of daylight in Southern countries like Argentina? You gonna tell me nobody actually lives in these countries? I’ve been to New Zealand twice now myself, during their Summers, I assure you the days get pretty long! So how exactly is that possible? 😄
Your model is cooked bud…it doesn’t match reality, sorry, that’s just a fact.
The physics of water is that water is inert, and will conform to any force’s that are present and capable of containing it. You should see what the surface of water does when under a constant centrifugal force, the surface will remain curved for as long as the centrifugal force remains constant. Gravity is a radial force (attraction around a central point) so what shape would you expect something to form, with a force squeezing everything in towards a centre equally in all directions? 🧐 Gee..I wonder why everything we observe in the cosmos is spherical? Hmmmmmmm…🫠
It only appears flat to us, because we only experience fractions of a degree, even at great elevations, we barely experience much more than a few degrees…out of 360 degrees…you really think you’d notice fractions of a single degree ?
You’re not very bright are you…certainly would explain a lot.
1
-
@outoftime7740 Okay, I understand perfectly fine what you’re saying, but like I said, water is inert, it doesn’t “seek” anything, it just conforms to whatever forces are acting upon it. So your conclusion ignores the physics of gravity, it ignores what forces can do to a surface of water. That’s why we disagree with your conclusion, it ignores physics.
I know Flat Earthers would love to argue there is no downward force we call gravity, but it’s quite frankly the easiest force in nature to verify. Do we observe a force pulling everything to surface? Yes, we do, things aren’t put into motion without a force to cause it, that’s the most basic principle that defines a force. Things fall when you drop them, that’s clearly a motion, okay…so force confirmed. That’s as simple as it gets in physics.
So a force is most definitely present that attracts us (and water) to surface, do we observe that same force everywhere else on Earth? Yup, you’ll fall to surface at the same rate no matter where you are on Earth, Australia, America, doesn’t matter, it’s always present.
So it really comes down to Earth’s shape, because whether Earth is flat or spherical, there’s clearly a force present that would contain and influence the water of Earth. Pointing out that “it’s level everywhere” isn’t really an argument, when you consider how massive Earth is…because we’d expect to only ever interact with fractions of a degree of curvature at any given time…which is going to appear flat from our tiny perspective. A skin cell probably thinks (hypothetically if it could think) it’s living on a flat surface too…it’s just how geometry and perspective works at small vs massive scales.
So you’re not really making an argument against the globe, you’re just making an observation that is part of a larger puzzle, while reaching a conclusion that has to ignore some pretty basic physics in order to fit.
Gravity absolutely could form the surface of our oceans spherical, and we absolutely would perceive that as flat, simply because of how small we are by comparison, making us experience only a fractions of a single degree of 360 degrees, at any given time.
For me it’s pretty simple, what model do pilots and sailors use to plot pinpoint navigation routes with? The globe…okay, so Earth’s a globe. Which means gravity is a radial force, pulling everything equally in all directions towards a centre. What shape forms from a force like that? A sphere…bubbles form spherical for the same reason, because of the surface tension of the liquid, and a radial pressure force (atmosphere) squeezing it equally inward from all angles. The surface of s bubble is just water and soap…yet it’s very spherical. So forces can very clearly have more of an effect than you’re bothering to realize, or research.
So do we make other simple observations that verify Earth is spherical? Yup, we sure do; the Sun sinks under horizon, doesn’t shrink and then converge at a vanishing point like Flat Earthers claim it should due to perspective. Mountains and tall buildings sink below eye level by hundreds even thousands of feet depending on distance, something art students —who study perspective fundamentals— will tell you is impossible if surface is flat. We observe a midnight Sun in both hemispheres. We observe two very different night skies. We observe stars that drop a consistent 1 degree to horizon every 60 nautical miles travelling South. The 60th parallel in the North is the same distance around as the 60th parallel in the South (so two equal hemispheres, look up the Vendee’ world boat race sometime, it’s a race that circumnavigates Antarctica every 4 years, it’s quite interesting).
The list goes on, there’s plenty of evidence for the globe if you’re actually willing to look. So you have to understand why we disagree with you, we get what you’re trying to say, we just have lots of information that refutes every claim you’re trying to make.
You might think it all sounds “magical”, but heck everything in existence is kind of magical if you really think about…how the heck does any of it exist? Do you know how the Sun burns, or how it got all that mass to keep its nuclear furnace going? It’s all pretty nuts when you really ponder it…so is gravity really all that impossible to imagine existing? We experience a downward pulling force every day of our lives, so it really shouldn’t be. All science did was define what constitutes a force, observered a very clear force that fits that definition, then gave it a name. And since that discovery it’s helped us unlock the secrets of everything from how planets and stars form, to how nuclear fission and fusion works (which we recreate in reactors all the time now), and how water and atmosphere remains tethered to surface.
You have to ignore quite a lot of evidence (especially in physics) to believe Earth is flat. So please understand why we disagree with you, we have every reason too.
1
-
@outoftime7740 I’m sorry…but do you think gravity just shuts off, or something, the moment things start to fly? 🤨 Why do so many Flat Earthers not understand gravity?
What do all of those flying things have in common? They’re alive for one, so they’re able to generate energy they can then use to help them overcome forces such as gravity for periods of time, and they have wings that they can flap to make use of the surrounding air to overcome gravity. Gravity is still very much effecting them while they’re flying…what happens when they stop flapping their wings? They fall. All life has that in common, we burn energy we put into muscles to overcome forces like gravity…that’s the part you’re not understanding, gravity isn’t a very strong force (here on Earth at least), it’s just the only force present. Really only takes a little energy to overcome it…life does that every single second of every day. But stop using energy, and guess what happens. What else is out there that would pull us or anything away from gravity? Nothing…so guess what force wins?
Flight actually requires gravity as well, lift is achieved by gravity pushing down on the wings, to put a pressure force on the air, it’s a balance between gravity and forward velocity, both forward velocity and gravity are what forces air under the wings to generate lift…that’s how flight is achieved. That’s why gravity is included as a variable in the equation for weight to thrust ratio, the equation real engineers use to help design planes.
And weight as well doesn’t actually exist without gravity…in physics, weight is actually just another word for gravity. What you always have is mass, that never changes, but your weight is determined (and caused) by your mass times the downward acceleration of gravity squeezing against the surface…that’s why you’re considered weightless in free fall. You can understand this very easily with a scale; how does a scale measure weight? Simple, you press DOWN on the top surface applying a FORCE, that generates pressure, that the scale measures. So it doesn’t read anything without a downward force being applied to it, no downward force, no pressure…no weight. See how this works yet? So when something is just resting on a scale…how exactly it applying a downward pressure force, if there’s no force according to you? 🧐 You see the problem there?
Weight requires gravity…that’s why it’s also a variable in the equation fir weight; W=mg, mass times downward acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2).
And gravity isn’t being picky, it effects all matter with mass the same, but more mass means more molecules being pulled down at the same rate, means more weight. So smaller things have an easier time overcoming gravity, because they have less mass…so the smaller something is, the easier time it has with gravity. The larger something is, the more it’s effected by gravity…hence why planets and moons and stars are so easily kept in orbits. Because both objects are generating gravity, so the larger something is, the more gravity there is between both objects. That’s Newton’s law of universal gravitation in a nutshell. (Yes, gravity is both a law and a theory in physics)
All basic physics my man…you learn this in any physics 101 class.
Point is simple; you’re misunderstanding gravity physics…and reaching a great many false conclusions because of it. You seem to think it’s a powerful force…but it’s actually the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces.
Also, some more basic physics for you; buoyancy actually doesn’t exist without gravity either. Buoyancy force is actually directly caused by gravity, it’s the end result of a chain reaction, that starts with gravity. Again…that’s why gravity is a variable in the equation for buoyancy force; Fb=Vpg, another very real equation that real engineers use to build things like the ballast tanks in ships and submarines, and even blimps.
It works like this; all matter has mass, no two molecules of mass can occupy the same space, thanks to electromagnetism (another fundamental force) they repel each other. The mass with the greater density will occupy a space before a mass if lesser density, this is the part Flat Earthers agree with science on…now here’s the part they don’t or are not aware of. If there’s no other forces present, then buoyancy will not occur…it’s not until gravity is introduced into the system, that motion between these molecules truly begins. Now everything is put into motion towards the same central point, the densest material will occupy lowest potential energy state first (closest position to centre of gravity), and everything else is pushed out of its way. We observe that pushed out of the way motion as buoyancy force. That’s also why buoyancy force is in the direct opposite direction but same exact vector as gravity force. That’s not just coincidence…it’s because gravity causes it.
That’s basic physics…and something every engineer and scientist in the world agrees upon. Proven in countless different drop experiments, the moment you put a density column into free fall, buoyancy force disappears and all the different matter of varying density begins to mix and becomes chaotic. It’s not until the density column is placed on a surface, then gravity takes the reigns and begins ordering the molecules, through buoyancy force…always in the same vector; densest material closest to force of gravity.
This is why it’s so frustrating talking with Flat Earthers…you’re so very close to reaching these same conclusions that physicists solved centuries ago, but you’re do damn stubborn and want to beat modern science so badly, that you’re not really LISTENING to what we’re trying to help you with. You want very badly to prove you’re smarter than every other person that’s come before, and that desire blinds you. None of what you’re arguing is new science…these questions are 500 years in the past, that’s the reality.
You’re reaching false conclusions from a broken understanding of physics…physics that real people out there are using everyday, to help them build every technology you see around you. This isn’t just theories you’re attempting to argue with here, it’s applied science. :/
That’s how you tell real science from pseudoscience actually…which one can actually be applied and will work when applied? That’s kind of the nice thing about pseudoscience…it reveals itself by how absolutely useless it is. It’s no coincidence to me that no Flat Earther I’ve ever met is an engineer or scientist actually developing and designing new technology…that should be a red flag for anyone. You people aren’t stupid…but damn are you stubborn.
Do some actual research, read a physics 101 book.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really? EVERYTHING is a lie? Or maybe you just weren't paying attention enough to realize how they were right? Were they lying about 2+2? Were they lying about how to read and write? Were they lying about the scientific method when they taught you the steps? They didn't have too teach you these things...your ancestors sure didn't get that kind of knowledge given to them, most people throughout history didn't have any education, they couldn't read, write, do basic math, and they certainly had no concept of the best method for deducing how physical reality works step by step. But you do...because of school.
Let's keep going, were they lying to you about how vinegar violently reacts to baking soda in your simple volcano science fair experiment, which demonstrated some basic chemistry to you? Were they lying about how electricity works when they were teaching you circuits in your physics 101 class or mechanics class? Were they lying about the Laws of nature, such as conservation of momentum and the Laws of motion, which you demonstrate every time you get into a moving vehicle of any kind? Throw a ball up in the air next time you're a passenger in a vehicle...did the ball smash you in the face, or did it go straight up and land straight back down in your hand? They run pretty clear demonstrations of motion like that as well in your science classes, were they lying to you then, or trying to help you see how things actually work? I think you should maybe go back to school and this time pay attention.
1
-
@jeffss04 "The earths SPINNING 1000mph and no one can feel it. Lie"
Consider the possibility that maybe you're just overlooking something...just cause you don't understand it yet, does not mean it's a lie, there's is always the very real possibility that YOU just don't understand something yet. So below is some info I'd like you to consider, feel free to ponder it or question it if all you'd like...or ignore it, it's up to you. I'm just here to share information.
When you're traveling in a plane going 500 mph at cruising altitude, you may notice that you are able to get up and walk around the cabin of the airplane just fine. Why is that? 500 mph is pretty fast, but at no point you're sucked to the seat. In fact, you barely feel anything in this instance and if there were no vibrations from the engines, no hum from the friction, or the wind resistance of the air outside, you wouldn't hear or feel ANY motion at all. Earth doesn't have engines causing a friction vibration and there is no air in space to cause a drag force...so what do you have now to help you feel the motion exactly? Truth is you don't have anything, motion is felt by your body in the form of inertia, inertia that is caused by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. But once your body is moving at a steady constant rate, with no drastic change in forward velocity over time, with nothing to slow you down or stop you, then truth is, you won't feel any motion...because there won't be any inertia upon your body anymore. That's the science and physics of motion in a nutshell, conservation of momentum and relative motion. It is tricky to understand a little bit, but we're not lying to you when we try to help you see what we're seeing, we're trying to help you realize this science as well as best we can. It's fine to disagree still though, but first consider all the variables first before you do, that's all anyone asks of you.
"The earth was FORMED by NOTHING FUCKING nothing 13 billion years ago and no one saw it. Blatant lie"
Big Bang cosmology is just the leading theory currently, because that's what has the most evidence supporting if currently, nothing more. And NOBODY is quite certain on the starting details. Some people say it came from nothing, some people say its a constant never ending loop of creation and destruction, others in science are perfectly fine with concluding that a higher power created it, which is where I actually fall on that spectrum as well. Your error here is thinking in absolutes, science is happy to admit it doesn't have all the answers...but for some reason people seem to think they are all in agreeance, 100%, all the time, about everything. No, that's not how science operates...Big Bang is the leading theory currently, because it has the most evidence, until something else comes along that can trump that evidence, then it will continue to be the leading theory in cosmology, that's how it works. If you're curious, we called that evidence for Big Bang the 4 pillars of the big bang and you should give them a look sometime before writing them off and assuming things...though if the basic physics still isn't quite there yet, then I wouldn't personally suggest you learn to run before walking, but now you know where to look if you want to learn more about it. Or not...it's up to you.
God still fits within that framework, nobody is saying he can't exist, some would just prefer they had solid evidence before making that conclusion, that's all. I really don't get why people can't see that as rational. I know that your logic concludes that everything must have a creator, but there is very good evidence and arguments now that give us reason to question that conclusion, we're not just going to ignore that evidence, because some people would rather we don't ruin their fantasy. On the flip side though, science will likely never disprove the concept of A God and that's not really its goal either. Science just works to figure out how physical reality operates at the mechanical level, so that we can use that understanding to invent, innovate, engineer, navigate and discover more...that's all science is, it's a tool more then anything else, not much different from any other tool. And it works...your computer, your internet, your wifi connection...science made all that possible, the same science you were taught in school, that others listened too and learned more about, so that they could make these things for you. If teachers were lying to you...then nobody would be inventing anything and none of this technology you enjoy today would exist...that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Trust me, I didn't reach any of these insights above by not thinking about them. I think about them constantly and that's also why I'm here commenting, to put what I think I know to the test and challenge it, by talking to people of a different perspective. My apologies if you didn't want the discussion, but this is a public forum, so if you're going to make claims here, then expect to be checked for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chris Monk Sellye What an absolute load of bullshit. It’s funny, cause you’re basically demonstrating why science requires a system of checks and balances like consensus and peer review. Because people like you exist...ego driven, led by bias, spiteful...an individual will make errors because of these things (and more), often times without realizing it. Peer review weeds out those errors. You’re not falsifying anything, you’re just cherry picking information that you misinterpreted. They’re great questions, but you’re not really looking for the answers, you assume they have no answer...you’re just holding your questions up as proofs. You’re being bias, effectively demonstrating why we need peer review.
Peer review isn’t perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. If any and all information was allowed to join the body of knowledge, then we’d be royally fucked...cause unfortunately stupid people exist, con men exist, ego and bias and narcissism exist. These are flaws of mankind that will poison the well of knowledge, if we don’t have some system in place, that can counter these things. So peer review is necessary, we’d get nothing done without it.
Yes, it does mean we have to slow down the flow of information, which slows us down...but it’s far greater than the alternative, which is humanity’s progress grinding to an absolute halt. It’s not perfect, but it works...that proof is all around you.
Muttonchops has answered your questions, I suggest you don’t ignore them.
1
-
1
-
Is the canned food gonna be what it says it is? Yes. Can you trust that you won’t die immediately after eating what’s inside? Unless you have an extreme allergy, then Yes. You’re trying to argue the nuance…acting like we’re all taking a risk every time we eat a can of soup, when even you know that’s not true. You don’t fear for your life every time you buy a can of food…do you? No, you trust that it’s edible and not a can of arsenic, probably 100% of the time.
So that’s her point. Is the content inside a can the most ideal and healthy food? No…but that’s not her point. You trust that it’s EDIBLE, 100% of the time, right? That requires putting faith in a 3rd party who handles the food making process and packaging, without your involvement. We do this more than people realize…and we really have no choice. Trusting our fellow man is something we do quite regularly, and it’s a big part of our success as a species actually, being able to cooperate as a society for mutual benefits, putting faith in others is required of us, quite often. That’s her point.
1
-
Ya, see, that's your problem. You won't even look at the science...because a book of made up superstitions, has convinced you that it's lies...even though you really have no reason to believe anything that book says is true. Blind faith, over actual tangible evidence. You don't know the evidence is tangible, because you haven't really taken a look at any of it, because you're afraid if you do...that you'll lose that warm fuzzy feeling your blind faith in that book gives you. Ignorance is bliss...but it's still wrong at the end of the day. That book just keeps you from participating in the world that is RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU and keeps you from learning and understanding how it works.
The bible didn't create your computer, it didn't connect you to the internet and didn't send your comments through the wifi that connects you to people....SCIENCE did that. Man accomplished that...WE BUILT THESE THINGS, from studying the natural world and deducing how it works. If God provided everything for us, then great, but I very much doubt he'd give a shit if we didn't believe in him...he's given us no reason too, or at least no reason to believe in bibles, that could have just as easily have been written by man, scamming people by exploiting our natural tendency to build superstitious ideas around the gaps in our knowledge, all for the purpose to gain control over others. God might be real, science isn't out to destroy the concept of a God...but I VERY MUCH DOUBT that any of us have that interpretation correct.
Science is just a tool, an extension of ourselves, a method of thinking we use to figure out how things work...and it works. You'll never know that though...because you'd rather stay ignorant and believe it's something to hate and fear. What sux the most is that you'll still reap all the rewards of mankind's collective efforts...all while never really knowing how any of it works. While you whine about evolutionary biology...doctors are using that knowledge to engineer cures for you. While you whine about the shape of the planet, scientists and astronauts are using that knowledge to put satellites and rockets into space. While you whine about the Big Bang cosmology, scientists are figuring out how to manipulate the fabric of space time, so that we someday get off this rock and explore the cosmos in greater depth.
If God gave us life and free will, then he's now created life that he is responsible for and must respect...just as much as he demands respect, he has to respect us...or he will never get that respect. Respect is earned, not given...my parents gave me life, doesn't mean they own me, that's the mistake lots of parents make and that's how they lose their children's respect. I believe a true God would not just understand that, he'd be well ahead of me, not expecting anything of me, except for that I don't squander the life I've been given.
Maybe he's testing you, seeing if you'll fold and become a slave to fear, rather then reach for the stars and become something greater, a being with self respect.
Maybe give science a try sometime, it's not your enemy and you don't have to be afraid of it. Most scientists are actually theists, not the other way around. God becomes even greater to them, just knowing how vast this universe is that he created! THAT is a truly powerful creator, wouldn't you say?
1
-
@karolyapostol7213 Yes, I've noticed that Flat Earth helps a lot of people get closer to their faith, and I'm sure that must be a very powerful feeling, finally having something that gives you a bit of hope that all that time and bible study wasn't wasted. But it is your bias...even if it were true, it's still a bias that leads you and sometimes even takes the reigns completely. What I mean is, I think it keeps you from looking closer. Rob Skiba, Mark Sargent, and especially Eric Dubay, have been outed many times to be con men...Eric Dubay being the worst offender, bordering on cult leader.
They're very convincing on the surface...especially when you allow them to take you on the ride they've prepared for you. But if you remove all bias and look at what they're claiming objectively, you find out pretty quick...they're lying and they're damn good at it. Eric Dubay is the best at it, he seems to have learned a lot about hypnotic suggestion and he uses that skill effectively. Which keeps you from realizing...that he's crazy, he's a Nazi sympathizer and an extreme narcissist, with psychopathic tendencies as well. Just watch Bob the Science Guys break down of some of Eric's videos of him losing it when he learned that people were following other Flat Earth researchers instead of him...it's pretty eye opening how crazy and narcissistic he really is.
Anyway, I'm not saying you can't have faith, of course you can, I actually find faith in a higher power to be a very noble practice and many religions harbor and teach a lot of really great values, that are starting to fade away in society and that's sad. So religion of course has it's pros, even for a guy like me who has never been religious, coming from a 100% atheist community. And of course you should ask questions...I just think people should recognize when they have bias and realize that some really shitty people WILL use that bias against you, to sell you all kinds of lies. My bias is my trust in science, I'm aware that I can tend to treat it with a bit more faith then I should. Thanks to recognizing that bias though, I can then keep it in check a lot better, so that's really all I ask of people, to be aware of their bias, identify it and learn to control it.
In my experience, it's not NASA that's been lying to you, it is the people cutting up these videos and digging for things they can pull out of context and respin for you, packaged with empty speculations, that you will confuse as truth...if you're not careful. Give me any NASA faked space video and I almost guarantee, I can point out how they've conned you.
But personally, I don't focus on NASA, because at the end of the day, I'm not an astronaut and I don't work for them, so I'd rather not speculate on things I really have no first hand experience with. Instead I prefer to focus on the Earth that is right below your feet, it's not hard to verify the Earth is a Globe for yourself, with very simple observations and experiments you can do right in your back yard. So that's what I prefer to focus on, cause it's a little hard to lie about something I can touch and test directly.
That's what I focus on, the science, because THAT is something I can verify or falsify directly, for myself. When it comes to NASA, all I can really do is speculate...but so can they, that's all they're doing, is feeding you speculative claims, that could be bullshit and likely are. It's important to know the difference between speculation and actual evidence...MOST of the claims made on those NASA faked space docs...are just speculation and conjecture. One good way to disprove their claims, dig up the full video that they cut up...there are a few occasions where they intentionally edit certain parts out, to help sell their speculation to you even more. If they were really trying to be truthful, they would not need to resort to such deceitful tactics.
I'd just like to make one more point. Your computer, your internet, your wifi...this stuff didn't happen cause scientists were lying to each other, its made possible because they're sharing information openly and honestly, networking about every discovery made with complete transparency. It does not benefit society AT ALL to lie about the shape of the planet. There is more technology and infrastructure that relies heavily on our knowledge of the shape and scale of our planet being accurate, then you probably realize and there are just to many people working on it directly, to cover something like that up. So I'm just saying, it's worth your time to question Flat Earth just as much as you now question the mainstream. Yes, some of the things they claim are very convincing...but only if you're not aware of how they're lying to you. Sometimes it's not lies though, sometimes it is just simple misunderstandings that they run with, cause they don't realize how they've gone wrong. Rob Skiba for example, I think he just leans on his bias to much and he doesn't know enough about physics to know where his errors are. Mark clings to speculations, attacking the conspiracy with more conspiracy...but when does he ever get his hands dirty and do experiments? He sure talks a lot, feeding you reasonable doubt and you'll fall for it because he's great at making things sound logical...but most of what he says, is just speculation, smoke and mirrors, clever misdirection designed to dazzle you...and he's gotten damn good at it.
Eric Dubay though...that guy is an absolute liar and I would be very cautious about the things he says. In my honest opinion, that guy is a psychopath, so be cautious.
Anyway, I'm more then happy to share more information if you'd like, I've been looking at this particular conspiracy for a long time now, I've identified where they go wrong and where they lie, on just about every argument. At the very least, you'll learn a different perspective, so up to you really. I also don't mind learning more from the opposing perspective, so feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look. I don't claim to know everything, I just don't like potential misinformation spreading unchecked and unchallenged. Thanks for the civil dialogue thus far, it's nice to find level heads in these more heated topics.
1
-
@karolyapostol7213 That's fine, I get that, and my intention is not to discourage you or mock you in any way, only to share some information from the opposing viewpoint, so that you have a broader range of the facts to reach a conclusion from. I think it's important to try our best to recognize our bias and then remove it as best we can and it's important to look at BOTH sides of an argument, not just sit firmly in our own echo chambers of information. So I'm just sharing information, the rest is up to whom ever is listening.
Well, ol' Rob Skiba is at least trying, he at least goes out and tests things for himself...but he is led by bias just as much if not more so, and it's clear when you really dig into his work, that he seems to intentionally keep some details from people. He'd have to be, because if you look at his work and review it, a lot of what he claims becomes pretty easy to spot the errors, when you don't allow the same bias that led his conclusions to get in your way. Which I don't have, I'm not religious, so it's pretty easy for me, I don't share the same bias. There's always some detail he leaves out, and I think it's intentional...though I give him the benefit of the doubt, because he does appear more honest then the others at times, but it could just be a clever rouse, peppering in a few instances of honesty and kindness, to help you trust him more, it's a tactic used by police sometimes during interrogations...the good cop they call it. Allow me to show you a few places on his own front page there, where he intentionally hides some details.
If you scroll down to the part where he starts talking about composites and the size of continents he says this "Yet, when you do a search for "earth from space" you find very few "authentic" pictures of our own planet." Then he shares a few pictures he's dug up, one a composite of thousands of images taken from low Earth orbit, the other a composite by color filter, the GOES image is a full image, the only part that is composite is the colors. I see them sharing these same odd looking photos a lot...yet I NEVER see them sharing photos like these ones below.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657289512883
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
This is an archive of the thousands of photos taken during the various Apollo moon missions. They're not hard to find, a quick google search looking for the Apollo photos will bring you to several online resources that archive these photos. Do these photos I just shared look fake to you? These are not hard to find, yet when do you ever see Rob Skiba or anyone else in Flat Earth sharing them? They just repeatably say it's difficult to find, all while sharing the most odd looking photos they could find of Earth, composites, that are typically not full images of Earth. Then they'll often even make the claim that ALL images are composites, that no true images exist. Again, do those photos I shared look like composites to you? Do they look as wonky and fake as the photos Flat Earthers share? No, I don't think they do, they look very authentic to me...which is why you never see Flat Earthers sharing these kinds of photos...which is a red flag for me personally.
Then they'll pepper in little things like this, as Rob Skiba did on his page quoted here "To make matters worse, when fabricating the "blue marble" pics of our earth, they can't even get the proportions of the continents or color of the water consistent from one rendering to another". He's making the claim that because the continents and colors vary from photo to photo, it must mean they're all faked. But I'd like to share a video with you that demonstrates what perspective can do to the shape and scale of the surface of a ball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEzcPJsDohA Here is an image that does the same thing, that's a little quicker and easier to understand https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg.
Perspective can and does change the scale of those continents quite a lot, as those resources I just shared demonstrate pretty clearly. What I find truly odd, is that Rob NEVER mentions this on his page...he JUST tells you that it's odd the continents and colors are different in each photo, without providing any further context as to why. For as long as Rob has been doing this for, he would be aware that perspective and distance can alter the continent sizes...yet he never mentions it. Why doesn't he mention it? Because he's trying to lead you through a bias thought process. Showing you what he wants you to see, to help sell you a bias conclusion, in hopes that you'll be roped in by it. Some people follow his thought process there, completely unaware of what perspective can do to the surface of a 3D ball, and then they reach a conclusion without factoring that information in. Once that conclusion is reached...it becomes very hard for them to go back and take a look at what they might have missed. Rob knows this, that's why he doesn't share that little detail.
He does it again slightly lower in his argument, with the Galileo video of the rotating Earth. This is what he says about it "This is supposedly a time-lapse video of a 25-hour period of Earth's rotation and yet none of the clouds are moving or morphing at all?" If you take a look at the video he's provided, it's a very low resolution, very grainy copy of this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs. Watch the entire video if you could but pay attention to the last 20 seconds or so where it zooms in, and shows you a much clearer view of the clouds moving and shifting.
Rob no doubt has seen the higher resolution video (it's still a little grainy, but much better then his video he shared), and he is then no doubt aware that the higher resolution makes it MUCH easier to notice the clouds are moving...yet he makes that claim anyway on his website, while sharing a much lower resolution video? So he's lying then...cause there's no way he hasn't seen the higher resolution video, he would have had to have pulled from it, to create his lower resolution copy. Again, intentionally misleading people...does that sound like the kind of person who is being honest with their research and presentations?
Believe what you want, but if you don't pay closer attention, these people will lie to you and take you on a ride of their design. It make their claims VERY convincing on the surface...but ONLY if you stay on the surface and don't go digging where they don't want you too. If Rob was an honest researcher, he would not intentionally hide things from you. Here I have pointed out just a short sample of some things he's lied about, right on his own web page. So I hope that helps to illustrate why you should also question these people, just as much as you now question the mainstream. Don't just listen to them blindly either.
Now I hope you can see why people like me are here constantly commenting...some of us are just trying to help people, and keep them from falling into these traps. Rob is not the only Flat Earther that does this...pretty much ALL the larger channels do this, spinning information to fit their narrative, they are far from objective. So I hope this information is at the very least interesting to you, thanks again for the civil discussion. Stay safe out there.
1
-
@-Redemption- Alright, I think I see your position a bit better now. If I understand it better now, you’re not saying atheists started the spread of flat Earth, in terms of directly championing that belief and science, they helped spread the misconception that surrounds our knowledge of the past, pertaining to flat earth. And I do agree, it is a common misconception that people of the past thought the Earth was flat. In reality the majority of scholars and even society has believed it to be a sphere for well over 500 years, even longer if you go back to ancient Greece, though I’d argue after the burning of the Library of Alexandria, mankind probably took a step back on that knowledge for at least a few hundred years, but I digress.
I can see that, atheists and agnostics did/do have motive to slander religion, so I’m sure a few non theist historians were bias in there retelling of history. Though Scott is right, and any person who’s spent a lot of time chatting with flat Earthers would agree, that the modern belief in flat Earth is largely due to the work of Samuel Rowbotham, who was plagiarized by Eric Dubay in the modern day, who is one of the larger perpetrators for today’s renewed interest in the idea.
Rowbotham was Christian and used flat Earth as a way of verifying his religious beliefs. Dubay is just a conman looking for attention, I’m not certain what his beliefs are at present, but what I do know is his work is stolen directly from Rowbotham.
I think I just misunderstood you a little, but then feel free to respond and let me know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don Traub Nothing really works with them, but that’s really all you need to disprove a Flat Earth. The Sun would never set on a Flat Earth, you would always see it. Even if it could set due to perspective (as they claim), we’d expect it to shrink in angular size before it ever reached the vanishing point at horizon, among many other problems they create with their circling Sun explanation...that they refuse to look at. Ignorance is a sport for them, so you’ll never really win with them, they’re not listening, but that is a great proof either way, whether they like it or not. Our setting sun makes zero sense on a Flat Earth, no matter how many ways they try to ram that square peg into a round hole, the Globe is still the only model that fits with reality here.
1
-
1
-
@barrymitchell5831 Could you perhaps share this Encyclopedia entry where it states the Earth is Flat? I’ve seen no such entry and I used to have a full set from before that time, given to me by my great grandmother, who lived to be 104. She was big on education, she used to teach me some history, science being my favourite, so she taught me a lot of science history. She taught me about how we discovered the Earth was spherical thousands of years ago, mostly from paying attention to the geometry of the sky, world navigation being a big factor to that discovery. Then she told me about how Copernicus and Galileo discovered we were orbiting the Sun about 500-400 years ago. The church at that time, being the foundational institution for pretty much all education systems at that time, was in full agreement the Earth was spherical and that’s what they taught their scholars, but they persecuted Galileo and a few of his colleagues for their discovery of the Sun being the centre. So it’s well documented that even the church agreed a pretty long time ago, that the Earth was a sphere…that’s what I was taught, by someone who lived and went to school long before this entry change you’re claiming occurred.
My great grandma was born in 1904, her school years would have started around 1910 and ran into the 20’s. So if Encyclopedias, which were basically the Internet of that time, were saying the Earth was flat in her time, why then did my great grandmother not teach me about Flat Earth? Encyclopedias held pretty much the entire general collective knowledge of mankind, anything they said was pretty much taught in schools at that time…so again, why was my great grandmother taught different from encyclopedias?
Feel free to find any official Encyclopedic entry claiming the Earth was flat, because I’m certainly not about to believe empty claims like that, without a record to back it up. I don’t expect you to believe my story, no matter how true it is for me, I can’t very well prove any of that to you, it’s just how I personally know what you’re saying isn’t true, but you can verify your claim with just a single source, a place where I might be able to find proof of what you’re claiming. So feel free.
1
-
@iRecordOS 1) It’s a sloppy experiment, it’s that simple…you think science is done with single data points? Then you have no idea what is required of an actual experiment, to reach a conclusive conclusion. Look at the Rainy Lake experiment sometime, it shouldn’t be difficult to find the official research blog…that’s how you conduct a proper experiment. That is recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, it’s conclusion is conclusive, the Earth is curving.
I’ll give you one simple falsification of the original Bedford level though, there are several errors, but I’ll give you one for now. 8 inches per mile squared is the math he used…it has absolutely no variable for height of the observer. As you’re well aware, you see further the higher you are…but that equation gives the same exact figure, no matter how high you are in elevation. So think about it…if that math is saying the same amount is hidden, at 2 feet or 1000 feet, then don’t you think the math is perhaps not the correct math to use here? 🧐 Ya…very much so. He basically pulled a sleight of hand trick, used the wrong math, but told everyone it was the correct math…and for some reason, many didn’t bother to check! Flat Earthers are still using that math…and I can’t face palm enough. 🤦♂️ It simply does not represent line of sight, so it’s the wrong math…use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion. If you’d like to know the correct math, or if you’d like more reasons why the original Bedford Level experiment is inconclusive, I can keep going…I’ve dissected it many times now, and I don’t mind doing it again.
2) That’s fine, it’s not really the job of science to convince everyone, its role is merely to conduct observations, collect data, and report on what’s been discovered through that research. If you’re not convinced, most the time it’s because you’ve never actually looked at the research. But most of that research is public domain, so YOU can research how these conclusions were reached at anytime. I’ll tell you this much, when astro physcists and astronauts are actively putting satellites, space stations and probes out into space…you think they really give a fuck about what you believe? 🤷♂️ That’s a hard no. But actually, it’s more Pyhagoreans cousin trigonometry that you can thank for how we determined the Suns distance. Plenty of data you research, I’d suggest looking up a user here known as Jos Leys, he’s a mathematician that’s taken the time to simulate the data in some pretty clear demonstrations. And it’s all data you can acquire yourself, and mathematics that’s pretty simple…so your arguments from ignorance don’t really count for much against evidence that anyone can access and obtain.
3) Eric Dubay is a Yoga teacher…who’s never stepped foot in a research lab in his life. And that’s the guy you’re gonna follow? Pay closer attention to his rambling sometime…let me know when he shares any actual evidence for anything he says. He makes a lot of empty claims, he’ll flash a few diagrams in your face, and then speculate endlessly…..but what actual evidence does he ever share, that can help to verify any of it? Just pay attention next time, keep in mind the difference between speculation and evidence…then try and spot when he actually shares evidence. You might be shocked to find, he mainly just rambles…empty claim after empty claim, but that’s about it. In debating circles, we’d call his method of argument a gish gallop, essentially quantity over quality, dumping a shit load of weaker arguments all at once, to make the core argument appear more bolstered, while giving your opponent a mountain to climb…but each point can be easily falsified with little effort, if taken one at a time. A gish gallop dump is a deceitful tactic in debates, and it’s often stopped before it’s allowed to continue. It’s his bread and butter…just something to keep in mind.
That said, you didn’t answer the question…how does a lunar eclipse occur, on the flat Earth? 🧐 The globe model gives a perfectly logical cause for this event…more than that, it can be used to predict them decades in advance. So what reason do we really have, to go against that conclusion? 🤷♂️ Because a yoga teacher said so?
4) Alright.
5) Try actually plotting that flight path, on an actual globe…you’ll see why they stopped in Alaska, and maybe you’ll also learn why the Mercator map is not accurate. That’s the problem here…you plotted the path on a flat map, to falsify a globe….where’s the logic in that? 🤷♂️ You never once thought to try mapping it on an actual globe? Go on Google Earth, use the ruler tool, and place one marker in Taiwan the other in LA…and you’ll see the shortest path go right over Alaska. I’ve mapped it several times myself when I first stumbled on this Flat Earth mess almost 6 years ago…it’s incredible this one still snags people today. You gotta stop blindly listening to people like Dubay, and start actually questioning these people. :/
6) So what obstruction do you have over water exactly? Isn’t all water level? So why can you only see 3-5 miles to horizon while at 6 feet viewing height at shore, but then see for hundreds of miles when you go say a thousand feet in elevation? A curvature can explain that with ease…but what’s your excuse exactly? I don’t feel you’re thinking about this very well at all.
7) My point was that it formed a sphere, due to the forces acting upon it that all create an equilibrium, applying an equal force from every angle inward…like how gravity works. A sphere is the most rigid shape found in nature and they’re actually quite common…I mean everything we observe in space is spherical. My other point was that level has many different definitions depending on context…it doesn’t just mean flat.
8) I don’t think you quite understood my point about elevation, I was simply trying to explain how it works on a sphere…the true reference point for all elevations is measured from centre, since the sea is roughly all at equipotential distance from centre, it’s a perfect benchmark for us to work from, because obviously we can’t go to the centre of Earth every time we want to determine an elevation. The point is, you’re misunderstanding what’s being implied by Kansas and Florida being “flat”. It means the topography is all at roughly equal elevation…it’s not implying that the Earth is flat.
9) Composite images they create from data collected by low Earth orbit satellites, is compiled and then created using photo editing software. But not every photo they put out, is a composite…and they’re very transparent about that, they will tell you when something is a composite and when it is not. The old Apollo photos though, none of those were composite…and they were all taken long before CGI was even possible. They took hundreds of photos of Earth during those missions, if you bother to look, you’ll find them, they’re well documented and archived…just one of many examples. Today, we have geostationary weather satellites, at much further orbits (25,000 miles to millions of miles) taking round the clock photos of Earth…none of these are composites, they are single frame photos, taken on high definition cameras. So no…I think it’s YOU who didn’t do their research here…you likely just watched a flat Earth video, that cherry picked that ONE interview, of the director for the 2002 blue marble photo, explaining how THAT photo was created…and you then filled the blanks to make it mean he was talking about every photo NASA puts out. Ya…real good research. 👌
9.5) Go ahead, look up a user named Okreylos, he’s actually done that with a smaller piece of topography data from California…demonstrating very clearly how it’s curving. Or talk to any Geodetic surveyor…that’s pretty much what they do for a living, it’s in their job title…they deal with Earth curvature specifically. An example of a construction job that would have employed them, are the LIGO stations…look them up sometime. It states right in their Facts section on their website, that they had build up both ends of each laser channel, to keep them tangent with the receiving stations…because of Earth curvature.
10) Then you have no idea how to video edit, because doing it under water would be the dumbest way to do it. You could do it a lot simpler with wires and green screen…then you wouldn’t have to remove anything in post, you’d just add. That’s the most efficient way to edit in post…the more you have to remove, the more time it will take, the more errors you’ll make. It’s just a stupid way to do it…no studio would ever film something like that under water.
Were they bubbles, or ice debris? 🧐 Did you even bother to consider other possibilities, or did you just blindly agree it was bubbles right our of the gate? Ever seen how many bubbles spew out of those tanks? Ever notice they always follow the same path upward? I’ve seen these “bubbles” in space videos…but what I saw was just a few chunks of debris, flying around in multiple different directions…how did you get bubbles from that? 🧐 Here’s the real problem with that argument as far as I’m concerned though…all you can do is speculate here, so why bother? 🤷♂️ And it’s not even a great speculation, I falsified it with very little effort…but either way, what a waste of time. I much prefer tangible evidence…like actually learning to navigate and then applying that knowledge. Seriously, why waste your time arguing with me and watching videos from a yoga teacher on a beach somewhere…..if this topic truly interests you, just learn to navigate. You’ll learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth actually is.
1
-
@iRecordOS For the same reason you can jump while upon any moving vehicle, and you will (in most cases) land right back in the spot you jumped from, because of conservation of momentum. Basic physics of motion, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force, that’s the first law of motion, the law of inertia. I’m sure you’ve heard it before…it’s the first thing you learn in physics 101.
Motion is tricky like that, Einstein learned a long time ago, that if everything is moving together, at the same general rate of motion, in the sane steady direction, then it will appear like it’s not even moving at all…it will all move together in a relative state of motion, hence the term relative motion. This creates an environment that feels and behaves as though stationary, it’s why you can get up and walk around the cabin a passenger jet flying at 500 mph, and never feel like you’re moving. Because we do not actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion, or an unbalanced force acting upon us, like drag force, wind resistance. In the case with the helicopter, the atmosphere is actually moving with the Earths rotation as well, so there’s no drag force to slow it down (no unbalanced force), so it will just continue forward indefinitely, along with Earth’s rotation. So it’s actually more accurate to compare Earth to the inside of a vehicle. You’re right to say we’re not inside the Earth, as in under its crust, but we are inside its atmosphere, so technically, we are inside the Earth. Think of Earth more like a vehicle, transporting us through space.
It’s pretty easy to test relative motion, get a toy drone helicopter, fly it the next time you’re in a moving vehicle, you’ll notice it will be almost effortless to hover it in place, even though the vehicle is moving forward at speeds your drone likely can’t fly at otherwise. Even simpler tests are stuff like tossing something straight up while in a vehicle moving at constant velocity, from your perspective it will appear to go straight up and straight back down into your hand, but to an observer outside your reference frame, it actually makes an arc forward, moving in perfect motion with the vehicles forward velocity, to land right back in your hand.
It’s one of the most rigorously tested fundamental laws of physics, and one of the simplest to test and learn for yourself…there’s probably thousands of different ways to test it. That’s why it’s one of the first things you learn in physics, it’s always there, just gotta start paying attention to it. I think there’s a great many misconceptions like that today, all stemming from a lack of knowledge in basic physics.
Anyway, let me know if that’s helpful. This doesn’t help to verify Earth’s motions mind you, but it does help to make sense of how it’s possible. If you’d like to learn of the experiments and observations that led to the conclusion of Earth in motion, I don’t mind sharing more.
1
-
@iRecordOS No I did not, I even mentioned drag force. The bug outside the car is hitting all the air that’s not moving with it, this causes drag. That’s the unbalanced force which can cause a change in the bugs state of motion. It’s not comparable, because with the helicopter, the air surrounding it is moving with it, it’s all moving with the rotation of the Earth, so there’s no drag force. The bug is experiencing a lot of drag, the helicopter is not, see the difference?
Trust me, you’re not falsifying 500 years of science in a comment thread on YouTube, you’re just making a false comparison. Earth is more comparable to the inside of a vehicle, not outside, because just like the vehicle with all the air moving with it, the Earth does the same, the atmosphere moves with Earth’s motions. If you’d like to understand a bit better how the atmosphere rotates with Earth, learn a little about fluid dynamics.
1
-
Alright, here's a few good ones I found in a quick google search. Is your search bar broken?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGYYqDDfRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMfQHzjNvRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlURVCK5ujo&feature=youtu.be
These are all showing footage of rockets being launched, uncut, from ground to space. However, these are still only low Earth orbit launches, to get a full picture of the Earth, you need to reach a geostationary orbit (about 25,000 km). That takes hours to days to achieve, so any footage like that would be super long. I think the shortest time they can put a Satellites into GEO is about 5 and a half hours, so if you're willing to watch 5 and a half hours of raw footage, be my guest, I'm sure it exists online somewhere, but these are good enough for me.
1
-
@ee.es00 Just search 24 hour sun in Antarctica…you’ll get tons of videos. Does your search bar not work or something? 🧐
Perspective has rules…rules you have to ignore if you’re going to slot it in as answer for why the Sun sets, or stars change. For example; Perspective drop follows inverse square law, objects appear to drop to horizon, that part is true, but the apparent angle decreases with distance that’s inversely proportional to the square of the distance. In reality, the stars drop to horizon at a steady 1 degree ever 69 miles…you can test that yourself. It’s how the lines of latitude are determined. This consistent drop would only occur if the surface were curving at a consistent rate…like on a sphere. It gets worse for you, in that the South doesn’t just have its own stars…it has its own rotation of stars, a perfect circle rotation around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. Flat Earth model has absolutely no answer for this observation…that has been photographed by countless astronomers and astrophotographers. But it’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a rotating globe, with TWO hemispheres.
More on the point of perspective, if it were perspective causing a sunset, then we’d expect the Sun to shrink in angular size the further away it gets. Objects don’t just lower to horizon due to perspective, they also appear to shrink…the Sun does not do this. For evidence of this, check out a user called Wolfie6020, he’s done many very clear, high resolution, full day, time lapse observations of the Sun, using his solar filter telescope, with locked exposure settings…proving the Sun does not shrink at all throughout a full day. The observation is also very repeatable, you don’t require as much equipment or effort as he put in, but he even teaches you how to repeat the observation.
Another problem perspective has is that anything above your eye level will never drop below it due to perspective alone…any art student could tell you that, perspective causes convergence at eye level…but will never drop something below it. The Sun is clearly observed to sink into and under horizon…every day. Perspective would not do that.
So perspective is just an ad hoc explanation, it’s barely even a hypothesis…yet you jump straight to conclusion anyway, even though it’s very easily falsified with minimal effort. :/
And even if you could slot that answer in to make it work (effectively ramming a square peg into a round hole), it still does nothing to falsify the globe…which accounts for every observation with absolute ease, especially sunsets. The Earth rotates away from the Sun…there, explanation over, no mental gymnastics required.
Flat Earth is a lesson in total ignorance…stubborn layman, resentful of science, just looking to put some dirt in the eye of an authority they’ve come to distrust. :/
You want a great proof of the Globe? Just learn to navigate. Seriously…..if you honestly believe that millions of sailors and pilots, can successfully navigate the surface with pinpoint precision, without knowing for certain the true shape and scale of the surface they’re navigating….then you need a slap upside the head. :/
Flat Earth is a hoax…don’t be another sucker please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scubadaddy3217 Typically anyone arguing against evolution, is a creationist, or at least leans towards that conclusion. I’m not currently aware of any other theory, so it’s a spectrum from evolution to creationism, you’re either one or the other, or if you’re undecided, then you’re in between the two. If there is another theory, feel free to share, but I’m not currently aware of any. So what do you want me to conclude? It’s one or the other, or undecided…those are the categories. Generally anyone making the argument you have, is a creationist or learned it from a creationist, so it was a safe assumption I feel.
Fossils are created in many different ways, and there are many different types. Most fossils are just impressions of life, like a foot print or leaf print in the mud that’s long solidified. Any actual fossils of life, that are millions of years old, don’t have any soft flesh remnants left, the bones are all that’s left, bones last a lot longer than soft tissues, I’m sure you’re aware of that. But even they have petrified, they’re not really bones anymore, they’re basically rock. For a fossil to form like this though, the creature had to have died in a way that buried them, either by sinking into something that placed them in a state of being completely submerged by something (mud, tar, quicksand, etc), or by being buried by a volcanic eruption, etc. If the body is buried under a layer of something to begin with, then it’s in the proper conditions to form a fossil. Exposed to the elements, even bones eventually break down…but if preserved, by being completely buried, then they’ll last a lot longer, giving them enough time to petrify. Same can happen for soft plants and such, if buried by something that can preserve them, then they’ll leave what’s known as a carbon film fossil, where traces of the biological life are left, but it’s still technically just a mold of the plant or animal.
Since most creatures don’t die by being submerged by something, they’re not gonna form a fossil, that’s why fossils are pretty rare. But that’s also why fossils are found a lot in areas where there once was conditions to create them, large ancient tar fields, or old dead volcanoes, or old sea beds.
You seem to have this assumption that land animals can’t fossilize, because EVERY land animal would die on the surface, and then would be completely decomposed before being buried, so I assume you think this means fossils form much quicker than scientists have concluded. Is that a safe assumption, is that your thought process here? If so, why would you ever assume something with such absolute certainty? Animals drown, they fall into caves, they’re sucked up by Earthquakes, and volcanoes, they sink into mud beds, tar pits, etc…there’s so many ways they can die, where they can be preserved for longer periods of time. And again….we do have fossils, lots of them, all carbon dated to be millions of years old. And it’s well understood that petrifaction takes millions of years…it can’t occur over just a few thousand years, there’s no evidence that suggests it can.
Either way, the fossil record exists, and it does show an advancement in life over time…no layers of sediment contain a mix of life from different periods, the further back you go, the simpler the life. Like it or not, this is evidence for evolution. Not understanding how a fossil forms, is not an argument I feel, questions do not equal evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alienrenders Here’s a fact, it’s really easy to lie online, and confirmation bias is a real thing. Those are facts I feel are pretty common knowledge. So if your sources are not accredited, and have zero oversight or peer review system, then they’re not likely a trust worthy source. Anyone can type up an article and shoot out a bullshit statistic like “60% of HadCRUT data is fabricated”, but does that mean it’s true, cause it’s in an article you found online?
I’m just saying…it used to be pretty common sense not to believe everything at face value, or by someones word alone. Yet you’re expecting me to blindly agree that you have “established facts” that support your claims….but then you can’t even take a second to share even ONE source that helps confirm that? 🧐
Just frustrating is all, I’m trying to see your perspective, or help you see mine, but climate change deniers are all typically the same…they don’t want to talk about it. Why exactly? Are you afraid you could be wrong? I could care less if I’m wrong…but I’m not going to agree to empty claims, without evidence to support it. I’m trying to search for what you’re saying, but I’m not finding anything….would be SO MUCH easier if you just shared a source.
1
-
1
-
So what would you prefer, that they didn’t teach us some basic knowledge? You learned how to read and write, you know how many of your ancestors were illiterate? You learned how to count, how to do basic math, you know how many poor saps throughout history couldn’t even count to ten? You learned some history so that maybe it hopefully won’t repeat. You learned a bit of science from every core field of science, so that maybe it could peak some interest and you’d be inspired to join in the help for innovating our technologies. You think it was all just to make subservient workers? Just look at it without that paranoid lens for a change and be rational. Your ancestors and mine, were poor and uneducated, unable to elevate themselves up past their peasant status…they would have killed for the opportunity to receive a basic education. Today you have FAR MORE opportunities, thanks to the basic education you were given. I think it’s sick how many people take that for granted….life could have been a whole lot harder for you, if you didn’t know how to read or write, let me tell you.
We need more education, not less…and the fact that Flat Earth is even being discussed today, is proof of that.
1
-
1
-
You’d be right…if we set our clocks by a sidereal day, and not a solar day. A sidereal day is one complete 360 degree rotation…a solar day is a full rotation, plus a little extra rotation, to account for the Suns position, so noon lines up each day. We timed our clocks by the solar day, heck we determined the length of a second by the solar day. A sidereal day is about 23 hours 56 minutes long, the solar day is 24 hours. Wasn’t hard to do either, because we used to literally use the Sun as our time keeper, with the sundial.
Best not to jump to conclusions until you have all the facts. This isn’t common knowledge, but any astronomer or astrophysicist could have told you this. Research the solar day, learn the difference between sidereal day and solar day. I hope you find this information helpful. Take care.
1
-
@KevHarkins1 Can’t see why I’d give you the valid reason why we’re not facing away from the Sun at Noon every winter? 🧐 You reached a false conclusion, I simply shared the information you were missing…not sure how that’s difficult to understand. You’re just mad, cause you know I’m right. Solar day is a full rotation, then a little extra rotation to line up with solar noon again the next day…it keeps us facing the Sun throughout a year. It wasn’t difficult to clock, we started keeping time with the Sun…modern clocks were set by sundials. So now you know.
I’m looking at a diagram right now, that states very clearly; “Sidereal day equals 360 degree rotation, taking 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds. Solar day equals 360 degrees plus 1 degree, taking 24 hours.” Every diagram and explanation I search says the exact same thing. So I’m sorry bud, but you’re just wrong…sooooo, I don’t know what else to tell ya. Nice try at gaslighting I guess. 🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KevHarkins1 It doesn’t change the rate of time, it’s still 24 hours…they timed the second to the solar day, meaning the amount of time chosen for the length of a second, coincides to the solar day, the 360 degrees plus extra rotation. That’s why a solar day is a perfect 24 hours, even though it’s a little extra rotation, every second is timed to line up with that geometry. I think that’s another part of what you’re not getting.
You are aware of the leap year though right? Ever wondered why that occurs? Because the days don’t line up perfectly with our orbit, we chop off a full day every 4 years in the calendar, because of the reason you’re describing somewhat. We actually complete an orbit around the Sun every 365 days…and roughly 6 hours. Which means we’re off by a full day, every 4 years. So to make sure the seasons don’t fall out of alignment with our calendar, we chop a day off every 4 years, to essentially reset it. That’s why we have leap years. But even that’s not perfect…we still have to slice yet another day off every 30 or 40 years or something crazy like that…that’s why the Gregorian calendar was so frickin hard to make, which is the modern calendar that replaced the Julian calendar…which didn’t have the extra leap year every few decades. Seriously…you should really go into the history of how difficult it was to create the modern calendar system we all use, it’s nuts.
I understand your point completely, of course this doesn’t prove the model…but you were attempting to falsify the model, by pointing out a geometry you felt didn’t work for that model. I’m just explaining to you that it does actually work…you’re just misunderstanding it. So I’m falsifying your falsification of that model, I’m not making any attempt to prove that model, I’m just pointing out the holes in your argument against it. Is that clearer now?
1
-
1
-
@KevHarkins1 “Why does the Earth do this, but no other rotational device” because we needed to devise a way of keeping time, so that noon was always lined up with the Sun at zenith…for the reason YOU even gave in your initial comment. If we didn’t set our clocks to that extra rotation, then noon would become midnight in winter…allowing for that little extra rotation each day, ensures that TIME doesn’t fall out of sync. It’s like you kind of understand, but you’re not quite there yet. Of course a rotation is a rotation…but time is independent of rotation, so we can set time however we like in relation to a rotation. If you count the seconds so they add up perfectly to 24 hours, after a full rotation and a little extra, you now have a clock that can account for the Suns zenith, while Earth orbits the Sun at the same time as it rotates….and that’s exactly what we did.
It’s just geometry man, if the Earth is rotating, and also orbiting, then to line up with zenith again each day, a little extra rotation is required. Again…I’m looking at a diagram right now, that explains and shows this very clearly…..this is standard knowledge. So please search it when you get a chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinensunsa That's not the only actual picture of Earth, the Blue Marble photo was one of THOUSANDS of photos taken during the Apollo missions...why people think they took just one photo, is just odd to me...why would you think they'd only take one photo? These photos are archived all over the internet, here's one such archive. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157656739898544 And that's just the Apollo missions, then you got the Galileo spacecraft footage, the ISS, the Sky Lab footage and all the geostationary satellites (Himawari 8, GOES 15-17, DSCOVRY) that are in orbit right now that take round the clock footage of Earth from space. We have more than enough footage of Earth...it still doesn't do anything for these people. They are delusional...we're not dealing with rational people here, we're dealing with paranoia and ignorance. Nothing short of launching them into space will convince them...but even then, they'd find a way to rationalize it.
1
-
We don’t have to physically travel into the Earth, to deduce its inner composition. Ever heard of seismology? Look up the study of S and P waves, which are seismic wave patterns that travel through the Earth during Earthquakes, that interact with materials differently. These waves are then picked up at seismic stations on opposite ends of Earth, that can tell us quite a lot about the inner composition of Earth. How do you think oil and mineral mining companies find what they’re looking for…you think they have to drill holes everywhere to find what they’re looking for? Nope…they send a seismic crew.
Your ignorance is not an argument….you can learn all about how science came to the conclusion of Earth’s inner composition, in just a few short minutes of searching. You live in the information age…you have questions, then seek the answers.
The difference between science and religion, is that science is repeatable and provable. They can only teach so much in your general science classes in high school though, so you typically only get the foot notes….but if you bothered to delve deeper into any of it, you’ll learn how the conclusions were reached. If you never bother to extend your knowledge though…you risk reaching ignorant conclusions, about things you really know nothing about, but pretend you’re an expert anyway. :/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magicvide0 I’ve been chatting with Flat Earthers off and on in comment threads since 2017 (it’s a sad hobby of mine that I indulge when I have time), so I’ve most definitely thought about it…I’m confident enough to say I know their arguments, probably better than they do at this point.
If you want to get philosophical about it, sure, there’s actually very little we can outright prove, except for that we exist. That’s why René Descartes's famously said “I think, therefore I am.” Because he struggled with that concept too…this could all be a dream for all we know.
So that’s not a new philosophical or even ideological position to have…that’s why scientists no longer set out to prove things, only falsify. It’s also why they chose to call their conclusions “theory’s”, instead of facts. Because facts are rigid, theories however allow a lot of wiggle room as new information is obtained.
For me, it’s whatever knowledge can actually be applied. Do pilots and sailors use a flat model of Earth to navigate with pinpoint accuracy? No, they do not. Do they use a globe model? Yup, every single one of them, it’s called the geographic coordinate system; lines of latitude equal length for two hemispheres, and lines of longitude intersecting at two poles. This is spherical geometry, not Euclidean. If Earth was flat, then this geometry simply would not work when applied. Doesn’t get simpler than that. Because you can’t interpret 3 dimensions with only 2 dimensions, you lose depth, so you lose distance. This effects navigation…these people absolutely require accurate knowledge of the surface they’re navigating, in order to do their jobs. This used to be common sense…but here we are.
Navigation isn’t all that difficult to learn, you can learn how they do it pretty easily with a few hours of your time. Then you can even apply that knowledge yourself. That’s the real crux of true science…can the knowledge be applied? If not, then it’s likely bullshit. Flat Earth isn’t used for anything, okay, then it’s not reality.
That’s how you spot real pseudoscience…it reveals itself by the fact it’s absolutely useless and cannot be applied. So you’re wrong, plenty of people know what shape the Earth actually is…they couldn’t do their jobs with any level of proficiency if they didn’t.
Flat Earth is a con, I’ve talked to thousands of Flat Earthers at this point, and that’s not an exaggeration. You’re being had by huxters who love pissing in the well of information, and who resent real experts who actually do things. That’s the reality. Don’t be just another sucker please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Like what? Sure it’s probably not the most nutritious meal, the preservation process of that form of canning does remove some of the more nutritious content, so it shouldn’t be the ONLY thing you’re eating...but you’re treating it like it’s a poison, as if death or sickness is pretty much guaranteed. The point was that canned food is safe for consumption, you can eat the contents and be just fine, it’s not going to kill you instantly, or even at all. Of course there’s nuance there, people have allergies, the preservatives used can have negative effects over time, she wasn’t arguing that they were perfect...but canned foods are safe for consumption, I’m sure you’d agree it’s far from eating a can of arsenic.
Too much of anything is bad for you. If you ate only bananas for a week, you’d likely get potassium poisoning. We can all likely agree that bananas are good for the body, but too much of even a good thing, is harmful. That goes for everything we eat. Point is, I think you’re being a tad nit picky.
1
-
The math doesn't work because it's the wrong math, It's really that simple. 8 inches per mile squared is a simple parabolic arc equation and it only measures a drop from a tangent line at your feet....it doesn't represent horizon or tell you where it is, it doesn't represent line of sight and doesn't derive a figure for what is hidden from your line sight, it doesn't include variables for height of the observer, height of the object being viewed, tilt angles, arc length, refraction index, etc. So it is simply the wrong math to use for what Flat Earth uses it for, it is missing a LOT of variables required to make the observation conclusive. Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math for the wrong job and you will reach a false conclusion. It's important to double check your equations to make sure you're using the correct ones. If you're curious what the correct math is, here's a blog that can help you. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
If you click this link, pay attention to the diagram you see in the first post. Notice the dotted line labelled "Surface Level", that is the tangent line 8 inches per mile is measuring from, now notice the solid black line going down from there to surface labelled "Drop" , that's the drop that 8 inches per mile squared is calculating for, the numbers it gives you are from that tangent line down to surface (though it even does that poorly, it's only accurate for about 100 miles, cause it's not a spherical equation it's a parabola equation). Now pay attention to the observer labelled "Eye" and the solid green line coming out from there down to the horizon labelled at X. THAT is your actual line of sight, notice how that green line is able to see WELL UNDER the "Surface Level" line? Flat Earth claims you can't see anything below that surface level line, that's what they're bad math is basically telling you, anything under that surface level line, is not visible...but in reality, we see WAY BELOW that tangent line...the horizon is way below it and so is your line of sight, and so are objects within your line of sight.
I hope that helps illustrate things better. It is the wrong math, it's really that simple. Most people are not mathematicians though and don't know where to even begin looking for the correct math. Flat Earth knows this, and they use peoples general lack of math knowledge against them. It's basically the equivalent of a slight of hand trick. They tell you "this is the math for curvature" you believe them, keeping your eye on the math they're waving in front of you, rather then questioning it to make sure they're not just lying to you. But they are lying, so it should be the first red flag for anyone, that these people are huxters. They don't really care about what's true, they care about what they WANT to be true. These use bad math to convince people of a great many things....what's sad is people generally don't have the time or knowledge to refute them, so they fall for it.
Not the general public's fault really, math is hard and kind of boring, it's these flat Earther people who are to blame...many of them know full well their math is wrong, they still push it anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tbrown3356 This isn’t difficult man, try getting a 0 degree angle from a right angle triangle, on a flat surface. 😳 The angle will never reach zero and it will not be a consistent 1 degree every equal distance travelled. You measure the angle from a tangent line on the globe, the stars drop consistently…because the surface curves consistently, changing the angle of that tangent line, relative to the star. This isn’t difficult…but you’re sure doing your best impression of a head trauma victim to make your conclusion work….and worst of all, you’re trying so hard to get us to agree, when your conclusion is so incredibly stupid and ignorant of basic geometry.
It’s cute to pretend you’re having any effect on modern science, with these sad little bouts of attention you seek online, but no…everyone in the entire field of navigation uses the globe model…that’s a fact, not an opinion.
1
-
Clouds are moving if you haven't noticed and there absolutely is parallax occurring in the stars...that's exactly how they measure their distances from us, using what's called the parallax method. If you were a trained astronomer who actually spent their nights observing and recording the sky, this would be common knowledge to you...but you're not, because if you were then you wouldn't be so damn ignorant. You're just another layman making assumptions, based around a lack of knowledge and experience, doing what layman do best. Chase bias, jump to false conclusions and over estimate themselves.
Learn some physics, start with the Laws of Motion and Relative motion, it explains the movements of the planet and how they're possible. Look up the parallax method for measuring the distance of stars, it's just a quick YouTube or google search away and it's one of many methods they use. Then if you're still not satisfied, try recreating the method...actually LEARN about these things first hand, instead of assuming you know everything already. Then maybe you won't be so damn ignorant.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 You gotta do a lot more then just watch a time lapse in a single night. They measure the parallax in arc seconds...which is a measurement FAR to small for your crappy human eyes to see alone, you gotta look a lot closer to see the parallax but it is there and any amateur astronomer would confirm this. You know, actual experts who know what they're talking about. It is also typically recorded months apart from each other, while the Earth has moved significantly over several months, making these arc seconds of measurement much easier to see. Again, if you were an astronomer, you wouldn't be making these sorts of ignorant arguments...but you don't have to be, maybe just take the time and talk to one.
"And if the earth is a spinning ball, rotating at 1024 mph at the equator, it would create strong winds in one direction." Ever heard of the jet stream? That's how they believe the jet stream occurs, or at least part of the reason. But no, you're also reaching a conclusion based around an assumption you have, an assumption born from a lack of knowledge and understanding of both motion and the atmosphere. You don't really know, you just think you know, filling the gaps in your knowledge with assumptions. This is an error in reasoning.
"Also you can't have a pressurised atmosphere and a vacuum alongside each other" Says who? I think you've spent too much time listening blindly to Flat Earth con men, telling you some bullshit about how atmospheric pressure works. First of all, space doesn't suck, it's not a vacuum cleaner, the word vacuum has two definitions, one being this "a place void of matter", which is all space is. It generates no suction force, it can't physically do that, so it can't pull on our atmosphere. There is entropy, but what Flat Earthers don't tell you is that entropy is a constant but it can be slowed and contained. A simple thermos you use to keep your coffee hot is perfect example of that, slowing entropy. Earth does that as well, but much more efficiently. Entropy will always win, but it's going to take billions of years in the case of our Earth, because new gas is being generated constantly and not much ever really escapes, thanks to gravity.
There is also a difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. One is created by a container forcing gas into a smaller volume causing more collisions between molecules to create a consistent pressure throughout the container, while the other is created by the weight of the gas above pressing down on the gas below to create a gradient of pressure, going from most pressure at surface to least pressure at the top (more molecular collisions at surface, less and less the higher you go). This is confirmed, the atmosphere is measured to grow thinner as you climb higher in altitude, anyone hiking up a hill with a barometer in hand can confirm this. This is because as you go higher, there is less and less molecules of air, matter stacking on top of matter...so what happens when you run out of matter to stack? You essentially have space and we've measured it, there is empty space up there...yet no container to be found. Gravity is the container, gravity causes atmospheric pressure, it starts the motion of these molecules DOWN towards the surface, beginning the stacking of matter which generates pressure. This is a measured pressure gradient, which is not seen in containers undergoing gas pressure, only our atmosphere has this gradient...and it correlates with what we understand about gravity. GRAVITY is the container. And since space has no means to trump gravity, that gas has nowhere else to go except towards the only force in the area attracting it.
You're reaching a false conclusion based around a lack of knowledge again, basic lack of understanding between the difference of gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. We have measured the vast emptiness of space, so there is evidence for it. On the flip side we have never found a dome, there is no evidence in support of it. Yet you have chosen to accept this dome, even though there is ZERO tangible evidence for its existence, only a lot people misunderstanding physics. Meanwhile we have measured the atmospheric pressure of our Earth and it reaches zero eventually. So what do you want us to conclude exactly? It's not from lack of trying, but we have no evidence in support of a dome. We have not interacted with it in anyway. It is a physical object correct? It would have to be in order to be this container you seem to think is there, so why haven't we been able to bounce lasers or radar off of it yet? We do both with the Moon and we even bounce Radar off of Venus to clock its distance....why haven't we hit a dome yet? We're talking hundreds of thousands of miles, still we have not hit a dome with either lasers or radar. So we have no evidence for this dome, so why are you so quick to assume it's up there?
Have you ever considered the possibility, that MAYBE you're just misunderstanding how physical reality works? That MAYBE the very people you listen to blindly, ALSO don't really know shit about how reality works and are LYING to you? Does that thought ever cross your mind?
I have researched deep on this topic, been doing so for 3 years now, and I didn't just stop once my bias was confirmed, I kept going. So don't mistake me for a person who is new to this topic, on the soul basis that I did not reach the same conclusion as you did.
The Flat Earth is convincing on the surface, but that's all. Once you REALLY go through it, you find where it goes wrong every single time.
The artificial horizon has what are called pendulous veins, these are designed to correct it while in flight to remain level with the surface. The way they work is by dropping hinges that open up channels of air, that let a sensor indicator know that it is not level with surface anymore. This then kicks on a motor, which applies a torque, which corrects the gimble. It uses gravity vectors to achieve this, as you travel along Earth, you shift in gravity vectors, which are always pointing down towards center of mass. Gravity causes the hinges to drop, so they use gravity to correct the gyros in an artificial horizon. If the Earth wasn't curved, they would not require these pendulous veins. Do some more research on artificial horizons, you're reaching more bias conclusions based around a lack of knowledge on their mechanics.
That's the trouble here. You're not an expert on any of these subjects...but you HAVE to be, in order to REALLY see how Flat Earth is conning you. They've gone down deep, deeper then most people are willing to go and there is so much science you have to learn to figure out how they've lied to you.
I commend people for asking questions, that's exactly what science is all about, asking questions. So don't let me discourage you, it's completely logical to question what you're told. But I believe you're assuming a lot and chasing a lot of bias, so all I ask is that people learn to counter their bias and maybe for a change question the people feeding you all this Flat Earth info. Don't just listen to them blindly either, question everything.
I'm more then happy to keep going if you'd like to have a civil discussion from the opposite perspective. I do not do this to mock your efforts, but I don't pull my punches either, I'm just here to offer some information you may have not come across as of yet and I'm here to help you challenge what you think you know, in the process I hope to do the same for myself. So feel free.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Just one more point I missed I'd like to give some explanation for. "And there is a reason why a helicopter can't give hover over the equator and wait for its destination to arrive." Sure, a Flat Earth can explain why a helicopter doesn't hover away, but so can a Globe, because of the Laws of Motion, most notably Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion, which is real physics that does occur in our reality. Are you aware of this physics? Do you understand it? If not, then it's pretty simple to see how you've reached the conclusion you have above. Without an understanding of this physics, of course you're going to assume the Globe doesn't make sense.
A helicopter took off from the surface of the Earth and so it was conserving the momentum of the Earth, it is moving relative too the Earths rotation. The same physics can be seen while in any moving vehicle. Next time you're in a moving vehicle of any kind, toss a ball up in the air and catch it...did the ball go smashing into your face, or did it go straight up and then drop straight down back into your hand?
Here's a pretty good demonstration of conservation of momentum and relative motion, to help confirm this science a little more for you. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Notice how this guy keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though it's being pulled out from under him by the tractor while he's in the air? By your understanding of motion, he should fall behind and the trampoline should pull ahead, but that's not how motion works in reality. He will forever conserve the momentum of the surface he left from and that he is moving relative too. This is true of all things in motion, it is the first Law of Motion. All things in motion stay in motion, the only thing that will slow him down is an apposing equal or greater force or mass. In his case wind resistance (drag force), because the air is moving relative to the Earth, while he is moving relative to the Trampoline, so he's moving through an apposing mass. But it's pretty negligible at his speed, so there isn't much drag force occurring here, so it's a great test for conservation of momentum.
A helicopter is no different, when it takes off it is conserving the momentum of the Earth, moving WITH its rotation at all times, so at no point will the ground shift beneath it, because it's always going to be moving with it. Which is the case with our atmosphere as well. Here's another great experiment demonstrating conservation of momentum with a drone in a moving vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIycHlAsDZk&t=152s Here's another with a helium balloon on a moving train. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Dyl2msozc
Does this prove motion? No, of course not, it's just a short explanation on the physics of motion. But it does explain how the motions of our planet are possible, that is just a small sample of what the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion can help you understand about motion in our physical reality. You probably heard all of this before in high school, it's physics 101, but did you understand it at the time? Do you even really remember learning it? We do learn this stuff in school...but very few of us absorb it and understand it I feel.
So the Globe does account for its motions, so this is not a hole of the model like so many seem to believe. Again, people are just reaching false conclusions, due to a lack of knowledge of physics.
But it is fair to ask for proof of a rotating, orbiting Earth. Like I said, nothing I said above verifies the motions of the Earth, it only explains how it's possible. So if you'd like I can share a few of the ways we've verified our Earths rotation.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 No, I'm not just reciting from books, I've learned a lot of this stuff first hand, but you sure are reciting a lot of the same things from Flat Earthers. Which is ironic, I think Flat Earth should really look up the definition of indoctrination, if they would like to keep using that word, they better make sure they're not falling victim to it themselves. With a good enough telescope and just a few months of your time, ANYONE can measure the parallax and drift of certain stars. The further away they get, the harder it gets to use this method, requiring stronger telescopes, but there are a few choice stars pretty much any amateur astronomer can track and measure parallax with. Look up Barnard's star, this is a great star a lot of astronomers begin tracking when they're just starting out. You can notice it's drift from opposing stars in just a few years of tracking and parallax within a couple months. Here is a great research paper done on this very star, should help give you some further info. https://vanderbei.princeton.edu/tex/BarnardStar/BS.pdf
1
-
@rayrayner4426 "They disappear into the "vanishing point" and any good zoom lens or telescope will show that." Is that right, tell me if you think zooming in any closer will make the bottom of this boat return. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw&t=20s Or these boats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA. These turbines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=21s. Just a small sample of the hundreds of examples that exist today, that I'm sure no Flat Earth channel will ever show you. Leave the camera on while you have it zoomed in, these boats will still disappear bottom first, doesn't matter how much zoom you apply. So the simple explanation here, is that if you can bring a boat back with a zoom, it has not reached horizon yet, it has just reached vanishing point. They are not the same thing.
This is an avenue where I do feel patronized a bit, because I am an artist for a living, illustration is my profession, so I don't just understand perspective, I practice it, I study the fundamentals of it (including vanishing point), and then I apply that knowledge in the work that I do for a living. Of course you couldn't have known that until now, but just know that I'm far from a slouch on that topic. It's what got me into this whole argument in the first place, because I knew right away they were bullshitting about perspective and the vanishing point, filling the gaps in peoples knowledge with the bullshit of their choosing...like they've done with most things. These are concepts I work with directly and have worked with for decades now. You might have learned about the vanishing point a few months ago, maybe a couple years ago....heck maybe even yesterday, but I've been practicing these concepts for a very long time. So in this avenue, I would consider myself an expert on the topic. Not saying I can't still learn something, I don't claim to know everything, just try not to patronize me here, when it comes to perspective or optics in general.
The vanishing point is not the horizon, they are two separate things. Vanishing point can happen from any angle, it does not always converge at horizon. Vanishing point is just the point where something has shrunk so much in angular size due to perspective and distance, that it is has gone past your eyes visual limits to render that light visible to you. People assume it always converges at horizon, because most of the time we observe it happening with objects relative to the surface with us...but with objects that are high in the sky, if they were to keep going perpendicular to our eyes in a direction that is not towards horizon, they will reach a vanishing point here as well, without ever coming close to the horizon. If the Earth were Flat, then we would expect certain things to NEVER reach the horizon, they would reach vanishing point long before then. This rule would hold true the higher they are. A perfect example is the Sun and the Moon.
Your vanishing point argument is great and all, but it ignores the Sun and the Moon. With how high these objects are (even on a Flat Earth model), clocked at several hundred to thousands of miles off the surface (for them to make any logical sense), at these heights they would never reach horizon due to perspective. Even if I agreed they could, they would shrink immensely before ever getting there, and they would do that because of perspective. So I find it convenient that some fundamentals of perspective are called upon to explain one occurrence and then ignored when talking about another.
When we model this in 3D to scale, this is exactly what we see occur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=85s This is a model demonstrating a Flat Earth with a Sun traveling above in a circle. Notice how the Sun never comes close to the horizon? There's even a point where they place the Moon directly on the surface, looking at it from a 6ft elevation and it never sets, even while placed directly on the surface at thousands of miles from observer.
Perspective could MAYBE do what you're claiming to boats that are on the surface with us. Refraction is a bitch and makes it very hard to determine a lot of things in our atmosphere, especially close to horizon, but not the Sun, not the Moon. These objects would never set on a Flat Earth, perspective and vanishing point, not even mirages or refraction, these do not explain sunsets and sunrises for a Flat Earth. I'm open to people attempting to look further into these concepts, but I do think they're ramming a square peg into a round hole here.
You're leaning on a bias with your boats over the horizon argument and my guess is you're also using some bad math, cause even that argument is not very sound if I were to get into it. Flat Earth has been using bad math with curvature since the beginning, the 8 inches per mile squared math being the worst offender, but there are plenty of other examples. There is a rule of thumb in mathematics that I think is pretty common sense. That being you ALWAYS make damn sure you're using the correct math for the correct purpose. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it's that simple. 8 inches per mile squared is absolutely the wrong math for what Flat Earth uses it for, so it generates the wrong figures for them...and then they wonder why they can still see objects further then they think they should. A good researcher would re-examine his math first, and see if maybe it's his math that's wrong...but I don't see any of that occurring with Flat Earthers. They still use the 8 inches math, doesn't seem to matter how many times people tell them it's incorrect for what they're using it for. I can explain it further if you'd like and point you towards the correct math, even go through some examples if you'd like, so feel free to ask.
Anyway, I hope this information is at the very least interesting to you, feel free to let me know if you feel I have overlooked anything and if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Again, I don't think it's stupid or illogical at all to question what you've been told, it's quite logical in fact, I just hope people remember to be just as skeptical for all information they hear second hand, that includes what they learn from Flat Earth. Even question yourself from time to time, there is always the possibility that YOU are just misunderstanding or lack the details of a concept, to fully understand it. So that's why it's good to review and open up to peer review as well, over confidence can lead down some dark rabbit holes.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 That's fair to point out, but my argument with Barnard's star wasn't to say that I have tracked it, it was just to point out that neither have you, yet you're making absolute claims about the stars anyway. My guess is your only real experience with the stars is the few nights of your life you spent gazing at them for a little bit, and now you think you know everything about them? I may not have tracked Barnard's star (yet), but I have done a lot more then just look at the stars from the ground with my naked eye. I'm what you'd call an amateur astronomer and I have done a few of my own observations. You are likely not an astronomer, you have not actually gone out and tracked the stars or tested and recorded their parallax, so you can't say with any certainty that they do not parallax, and yet that's exactly what you're doing here. You're asserting then that you know more than actual astronomers, while meanwhile arguing with non astronomers or amateurs just getting started (like in my case). Talk to a real astronomer, somebody who has done this research first hand, and see how far that argument will get you. Until then, you're only half right, because I can't make any certainties either without testing it directly myself, so it's a moot argument to make with me, because we're in the same boat at the end of the day.
However, I have done some light astronomy myself, I have observed Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus on many occasions, I have seen their phases and their moons and correlated them with the position of the Sun. I have also traveled to the Southern Hemisphere (New Zealand on two occasions) and observed their different constellations and I have seen the Southern celestial rotation for myself. All of these are problems for the larger Flat Earth model as well, but you'd be correct in saying that I have not tracked Barnard's Star for myself or conducted any 6 month parallax tests of my own, just a lot of second hand research from others who have. But I do plan too actually and more then that, I'll be tracking a few other stars as well, that are also good stars for any amateur astronomer to track to test parallax for themselves. That's the nice thing about this, anyone can do it, they just have to put in a little effort. I'm not lying to you when I say it's a common practice, join up with a local astronomy forum and you'll likely find a section on people tracking parallax. So ya, I'm going to believe these people, over random people on YouTube, who clearly are not astronomers.
The point wasn't to say I have, the point was to make it clear that Flat Earthers make a lot of speculative claims, from the position of a non expert, while meanwhile having zero real training or experience on the subject they argue against and they do that with pretty much every argument. It's not me who is making the claim that the Stars don't Parallax, it is Flat Earthers and they say it as if they know for certain. The difference is, they have not made the observation for parallax, while astronomers have. Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, so what's boggling to me is that they haven't gone out and become amateur astronomers and TESTED anything for themselves, before they make their claims. There are astronomy clubs you can join in pretty much every community, you don't even need to own the equipment yourself, just tag along and join them sometime, it's very easy to get started. Maybe go out and meet some people who actually HAVE tracked that star and many others. If you know of any Flat Earth astronomers currently doing this, feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look, but to my knowledge currently, there are none...and it's not hard to see why, because then they can't be as ignorant about this. But prove me wrong.
All I'm saying is, If it means that much to Flat Earthers and yourself, then why aren't you doing more? There are many different observations like this that you and anyone can make, that can help confirm or falsify a great many things about our reality. So give it a try, I am just getting started with my astronomy journey and have confirmed a few things already for myself, give me a couple years and that will be one more thing that I have tested for myself.
So I just find it odd is all, that for a group of people who claim to have "done the research", you're really not doing a whole lot, except making speculations. It's not my job to prove the Earth is a Globe to you, only you can do that, I'm just here to share information and have a discussion where ideas are challenged, nothing more. You can take the information or leave it, it really doesn't matter to me, but I do believe you're spreading ignorance, so I'm sharing the information I feel shines a light on that ignorance.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 It's not the only star with visible parallax and there a lot more factors that have deduced these objects to be stars. Planets don't give off their own light, only reflect it, this creates phases that can be visualized. There is also luminosity experiments that tell us how far these objects are by their brightness alone. There is also spectroscopy that can identify that light given off and tell us what the object is made of at a molecular level (stars, like our Sun, are mostly Hydrogen and Helium, it's the same for every star).
Spectroscopy is a very repeatable science in labs, identifying molecules of gas, simply by what patterns of light they absorb. This method works for thousands of light years of distance, as those patterns of light do not change, only shift more and more in the red spectrum the further the stars are...which makes it another useful method for helping us determine the distance and it also confirms a lot of General Relativity, as red shift in stars at distances is predicted under GR.
Spectroscopy is taught in entry level science classes at college and universities (it's also touched on briefly in high school physics) and there are tons of videos on it here on YouTube, so it's not hard to learn about and very simple to reproduce, purchase a spectra emissions spectroscopy kit online or talk to a physics teacher, they'd be happy to show you. Here's a great video explaining what it is and how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uPyq63aRvg&t=248s and another one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMCzA9rqJy8. It's settled science and very well understood today, light can be (and is) used to identify gases out in space.
We can't touch a star or planet directly, but we can interact directly with its light, which can actually tell us a LOT more about these objects then most people are aware. Spectroscopy is used to identify gases in laboratories and it helps us identify stars at great distances. Stars are all made of the same components, planets are different, we know when something is a planet, an asteroid, or a star, by identifying what they're made of.
Spectroscopy was used to tell us what our Sun is made of (Hydgrogen and Helium), with that knowledge combined with our understanding of gravity under General Relativity, we were able to deduce how the Sun produces energy, through fusion reactions. Now we use that knowledge to reproduce fusion in labs. When you fuse two molecules of Hydrogen together, you create Helium...what a coincidence, almost like scientists know what they're doing.
So again, there's a lot of science you need to catch up on and stop being so ignorant about. Barnard's star is not the only star that shifts, they all do. Barnard's Star is one of the closest stars to us, which makes its parallax far greater than most, which makes it a great star for amateurs to track, because you don't require much to get started and it doesn't take long to see some motion from this star.
Yes, Orions belt is interesting, the belt itself won't shift out of alignment for millions of years, but the rest of the stars surrounding it that make up the greater Orion constellation, are shifting a lot actually. Astronomers are mapping these motions, and they've plotted future predictions for where they'll be should those shifts continue the way they have since we've been tracking them. But yes, they're well aware Orion's belt shifts slower.
This can be for a lot of reasons, its distance, its path around galactic center relative to us, most likely it could be moving along the exact same ecliptic plane as our Sun, which would make it not much different from cars on a highway traveling at the same speed on a perfectly straight patch of road, in the same direction, at night. You wouldn't see much shift from a cars headlights off in the greater distance, if they were traveling under these conditions, so why do people think the same wouldn't be true for Stars at great distances? From what I understand the rest of the stars however are moving a lot more rapidly, they'll still take thousands of years to make any drastic shifts, but compared to the belt they're shifting a lot more.
I think you're wrestling with your own expectations and making a lot of assumptions because of those expectations. You seem to think the stars should move a lot more then they do, but you are aware how parallax works right? The farther something is, the less it will appear to move, that's parallax in a nutshell. Put Trillions of miles between you and a light source, meaning trillions of miles also separate every other star in the sky, why would you think you'd see more movement? We can only measure the stars in arc seconds, that's all we're able to notice...do you know how far an arc second is in terms of distance, when we're talking about these stars and their distances? I don't exactly know either, but the best information I could find still clocks the average at trillions of miles.
The Earth sweeps a diameter of only 8000 miles, and has only moved about 10 million miles (along with the Sun and solar system) around galactic center in a 24 hour time frame. Sounds impressive to you and me sure, the microscopic life that lives on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who seem to think a mile is a measurement of significance. But to the Stars, this distance is comparable to moving a nano meter in the grand scheme of things, probably even a lot less then that actually.
You're not thinking about this from the galaxies perspective at its true scales, you're thinking about it from your tiny perspective and so these big numbers sound impressive to you...when in reality, they're not at all. Millions of miles is nothing compared to Trillions of miles.
If you REALLY were to think deep on these scales, the stars not moving in our lifetime is actually exactly what you'd expect to see, if the stars actually are at those distances.
So really, what you need to prove to yourself or falsify is those distances, so why not do that? Start the same way we did, start with Moon, figure out all the ways we've figured out that distance, start with the stellar parallax method, then seek out a university doing radar bouncing methods sometime, or even contact someone on an astronomy forum, I guarantee you'll find someone with the equipment who can help you out with laser or radar methods, tech savvy people live everywhere these days. Then do some further research on how we figured out the Astronomical Unit (distance to the Sun, shortened to AU in formulas). There are simple experiments you can try that can help you verify these distances first, then you can move on to the bigger picture, the galaxy and the stars.
There's not much I can do to convince you of anything really, you have to do these experiments for yourself. Some of them we did back in high school, though I understand some people didn't have access to that sort of education...but then there's also a lot who did who just weren't paying attention, so which camp are you? The former can't be helped but the latter...sadly, is far to common.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 My apologies for these responses getting a bit long, I'll try and keep each point as brief as I can, but I like to be thorough.
You keep asking for proofs of rotation, so I'll provide some good ones that I am aware of. Thanks for sticking it out and reading these btw, I do enjoy the discussion, so glad you've found it engaging enough to keep goin. I got some other points on science as a whole, but I'll focus on this for now, just know I'm actually all for Flat Earths current questioning of things, that's exactly what science is all about and these people are not stupid from what I can gather, maybe a little under educated, but who knows, could be a good thing in the end.
So in a previous comment I explained and demonstrated the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion. This science explains how the motions of our planet are possible, but they don't provide proof of that motion, they merely just explain and verify how it's possible. So now here are some great proofs of Earths rotation, all of these are repeatable, some require a bit more time and effort and equipment, but they are all repeatable for the average person, who's willing to put in the time. Some are even done in high school. So I'll start with hardest to easiest.
Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=9s These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built sagnac interferometer (basically a stripped down laser gyro), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t=348s Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac Effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then travels along two alternate paths, arriving back at a detector. When not in motion, both beams of light arrive at the detector at the same time, when put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation, which is how it's used in planes. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=10s
Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate then your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it, ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a rate of precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they precess with the rotation of the Earth at the same rate, to achieve that. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that precession. So it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions.
Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=132s This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t=391s
I have 2 more experiments, so I'll post those in a separate comment, getting a bit long.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Here are two more I feel are pretty good proofs of rotation.
Measuring Centrifugal Force at the Equator - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=241s Many people are not aware of this, but you (and everything) actually weigh different around the world. The equator being the place where you weigh the least. This is due to the centrifugal force generated by Earths rotation, negating a small amount of gravity, about 0.3% at the equator, which causes everything to weigh slightly less. Which is about 0.5 grams difference from a place closer to the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn, not much, but the great thing here, is that it is measurable with cheap standard equipment. So what this guy above has done is a great little experiment anyone could repeat with a bit of travel. What he did was take the same 500 gram weight, using the same scale and then just simply weighed it over and over again, as he traveled closer and closer to the Equator. He took several data sets in a day, throughout the morning evening and night in each location and also over several days in each location, just to make sure he controlled for any flaws of the scale and to test for any time of day effects due to pressure variations in temperature, humidity, weather, etc. Before he left on his trip, he even calculated some predictions for how much Centrifugal force our Earths rotation generates at each latitude and then plotted his predictions onto a simple x and y grid. At the end of his experiment, the math predictions matched with the tested results. The weight weighed less and less the closer he got to the equator, as it should if the Earth were rotating at the rate that it is.
People assume that our Earths rotation should generate a lot more Centrifugal force....but they reach this conclusion, because they really don't know how Centrifugal force works or how to accurately calculate it. All they hear is the 1000 mph rim speed of Earth, and then jump to conclusions based around that. You can tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Flat Earth does, I've never once seen them attempt to understand the physics of Centrifugal force, they just make assumptions about it. Centrifugal force is caused by a sudden or rapid change in angular velocity and the biggest factor to its increase is not so much speed, as it is RPM's (rotations per minute). These are not the same, as you increase the circumference of a rotation, it requires more linear speed to complete the same rotations, but the rotations are still the same and the angular velocity decreases. The more rotations per minute, the more Centrifugal force, that's a good rule of thumb really. Distance and speed do play their rolls, but it's more the rotational rate that increases this forces output. The Earth rotates at a rate of 1 full rotation every 24 hours, which is twice as slow as the hour hand of a clock. So the Centrifugal force generated by our Earth, is not as great as many would assume...Flat Earth throws around the 1000 mph rim speed of the Earth, but pays zero attention to understanding the physics of Centrifugal force. When you actually figure out the science, you can then figure out how much our planet generates at it's peak (the equator), it only negates 0.3% of Earths gravity. Which is nowhere near enough to overcome gravity and toss you into space, but it is enough for us to be able to measure it. So this makes for a great experiment to verify rotation. If the Earth is rotating at the rate we know it to be, then those weights should decrease in weight the closer to the equator they get. When this is tested, that's exactly what we find. Here are a couple more of the same experiment, done by others, all receiving the same results. Feel free to repeat it, it only requires weights, a scale and some travel, pretty simple stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t=282s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agQnj1q2Y08
Coriolis Effect experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=16s You know what Coriolis effect is I'm sure, so I won't go into this one to much. This experiment is pretty simple to repeat, just requires some set up and if you want to get really crazy with it a buddy in the apposing hemisphere repeating the test to observe the opposite rotation. The video also breaks down Coriolis a little more in depth, cause I get the feeling a lot of people aren't even quite aware how it works. They know what it is, but very few seem to know how it works, so this video explains it pretty well. It's just a difference of distance vs speed caused by conservation of momentum while passing through increasingly shorter lines of latitude from Equator to pole. Objects conserve the momentum of the place they left from, but a rotating globe surface is going to be rotating increasingly slower the closer to the poles you get, meaning the object conserving a faster momentum is going to pull ahead of the slower inertial reference frame (the slower moving latitude), causing it to arc (or appear to arc, it's just pulling ahead really) and in the case of draining water, rotate in a specific direction. This experiment verifies the difference between the hemispheres, but you can verify at least one rotation on your own without a buddy, it's just better to have a buddy to really confirm.
So that's a short list of some great experiments and proofs that help to verify Earths rotation. These are the easily repeatable experiments, of course the larger science community has taken things even further, by placing satellites into orbit that basically confirms things at the visual level. There are also purely observational and mathematical proofs, that have to do with tracking the various planetary motions of our solar system and then calculating predictions...but these are not easy to reproduce, unless your math and knowledge of astronomy are way above average. Also included is the mathematics that predicts solar and lunar eclipses...they require our knowledge of the Earths shape, scale, rotation be accurate in order to accurately calculate, but again, not simple math at all to reproduce, not impossible for the average joe, but far from easy.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, it's all good, I suppose we're all a bit patronizing to each other until we really get down to what people know and have experience with. Gotta have a thick skin to have these discussions I find, so I don't take anything personally, I understand it's a heated topic and everybody has their shields up, I just enjoy sharing and discussing what I've learned and hopefully I learn something new in the process. Teaching was my other choice position before I decided to become an artist, so I've always enjoyed sharing knowledge and explaining it as best I can, physics and science especially.
Anyway, yes, I have looked into the other explanations, though I wasn't aware of the claim that the Aether moves at a steady 15 degrees per hour, I'd be interested to see what experiment verifies this claim though, as that is new to me. The Michelson Morley I feel is a very misunderstood experiment, that gets tossed around from one bias to the next. What's important to note with this experiment is that it's inconclusive, for any of the conclusions it was setting out to verify. It's main goal was to find the Aether, it failed. It also failed in its other possible conclusion, is the Earth stationary, Flat Earth seems to think it succeeded here, but that's not true, it's inconclusive as well. So the entire experiment is inconclusive, even Michelson and Morley agreed with that final verdict, so because it is inconclusive, it can't be used to verify or support any position...to do so would be applying bias. So here's what happened, back in that time (and still today) the Aether had zero evidence, only hypothesis, while the motion of the Earth had evidence and now today has even more. So it was a bit of a no brainer for the scientific community, they are going to support the position that has evidence over the one that doesn't. But others kept trying to find the Aether and they failed too, one experiment is even named for that failure (Airy's failure).
But science is all about peer review, so it's great that people are going back into the science and reviewing it.
I'm also aware that Flat Earth uses Electromagnetism to explain a lot of things...everything from gravity, to Coriolis, to pendulum rotation, to explaining what keeps the Sun and Moon in the sky. The trouble here is that magnetism is also well understood in physics and I've seen no solid attempts at proving that it is magnetism that explains all these occurrences, it's mostly just a hunch they seem to have, so it's a lot of speculative claims and not much actual evidence. I've even looked into the Thuderbolt project and all their claims...and boy do they got some wild theories about magnetism, yet still nothing tangible that has verified any of what they claim, just a lot of hypothesis that has not been verified yet. Have you heard of their claim that craters on the Moon are not actually from asteroids, but from lightning that is shot out from Earth? Even though no such occurrence has ever been documented...yet asteroids hitting the Moon has. Even though Mercury, Mars, Titan, Pluto, etc. all have craters as well. No, I think it's a lot of wishful thinking, to explain away these occurrences with magnetism. Especially since a Flat Earth can't even explain HOW our electromagnetic field is even generated.
Have you ever looked into the field of Seismology? It's pretty interesting stuff, because it's the science that we've used to figure out the Earths inner composition. Using the shockwaves of great Earthquakes, to help tell us a lot about our Earths inner core. Not only that, it also adds even more evidence confirming the Globe. We have thousands of seismic reading stations all around the planet, what's interesting is that when an Earthquake greater than 8.0 strikes on Earth, the shock waves from that Earthquake circumnavigate the Globe, and then return back to the epicenter of the quake. The only way these shockwaves could do that, is if the Earth were a Globe. On top of that, these shockwaves also travel through the Earth and ping stations on the other side of the planet, long before the surface waves arrive, because they took a short cut through the Earth. Again, they can only do that if the Earth is a Globe. While traveling through the Earth, these waves even behave differently, feeding us further information. There are 2 types of waves (body waves) that pass through the Earth, P waves (Primary) and S waves (Secondary). P waves are faster and can pass through anything, except they will deflect depending on the material they pass through. S waves are much slower and do not pass through liquids. This is useful because this creates what are called shadow zones, areas on the Earth were S waves don't arrive on the opposite end of the planet. The conclusion is because they have hit something that is liquid...the outer core. The P waves deflect and create interesting patterns that tell us what the core could be made of and its size and how many layers it has. This is how we've figured out what's at our core and they've been studying these shockwaves for over a century now. Here's a great video explaining it further https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA and here's a video focusing on these waves and how they paint a pretty clear picture of our planets shape and composition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr1jjl32iCU
This also correlates with what we know about Electromagnetism, because it doesn't just create itself. We know how to create our own electromagnets and they require some key ingredients. Energy looped around a coil made of a conductive metal (iron or nickle most commonly). If our Core is of a solid metal alloy, most likely iron because it's the densest and most abundant metal found on Earth, and if there is a massive hot liquid iron ocean rotating around that core...that would explain how our Electromagnetic field is created in the first place. It fits with what we understand about creating electromagnetic fields.
So it just seems to me like one side has a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to electromagnetism, slotting that answer in whenever it has hit a wall and has no further answers, while the other side has actual data and evidence for how things work. So I'm going to go with the side that has data. I suggest you check out the field of Seismology, it's further proof of a Globe. There is a great website that they use to archive all seismic data, going back decades, called the IRIS archive. https://www.iris.edu/hq/ They archive everything here, data for pretty much every Earthquake. Here's a great simulation the university of Princeton has done interpreting this data onto a Globe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRtQf70JDoU The shockwave circumnavigates the entire Globe and then returns back to the epicenter. This happens every time there is a quake around 8.0 or greater, so it's also worth looking into, because this data also confirms a Globe.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 So that's some of the problems I have with those explanations, not only that though, magnetism is pretty simple to manipulate (even negate entirely)...we already do it with the electromagnetic spectrum of light, that's how your wifi connection works, radio signals, cell phones...it's all magnetic manipulation and transference, stretching and compressing the frequencies to send data. Which by the way is exactly the work Tesla was doing, you can actually thank him for wifi and cell phones today, his science directly influenced those technologies. So he is absolutely recognized by the broader scientific community, I really don't get why people believe that he wasn't. He sure did get screwed by a few of his greedy peers (most notably Edison), I won't deny that, but his work is not understated in history, he is recognized as a genius and his work is recognized and taught as well. But a genius though he may have been, it doesn't mean he was right about everything. Same goes for Einstein, the man was a genius, but he didn't know everything and he was wrong about a lot as well. I think people kind of assume that genius implies these people can never be wrong about something and that's far from the truth...no single person knows everything, nor will that ever be the case. So everybody has gaps in their knowledge, and well, people don't really like that, the feeling of uncertainty, so we tend to fill those gaps with assumptions...and bullshit. Everybody does this, we all have our gaps we fill with assumptions, that goes for our great thinkers of history too.
I will also say this, Tesla was not a Flat Earther...so I don't get why Flat Earth holds him up as if he speaks for them. I've read some of his papers, and he often used Globe geometry in the framework for his experiments done with manipulating electromagnetic frequencies, so he'd likely be the first to tell them they're wrong about the geometry of the planet. He had a lot of gripes with GR, but not gravity...everybody accepted Newtonian gravity by this point, even Tesla. But you have to understand that in Einstein and Tesla's time, a lot of GR was not directly verified yet, I believe the only proponents that were really verified while they were both alive, was the bending of space (the Eddington experiment of 1919, which is what shot Einstein to world fame) and the red shift of stars, discovered by Hubble. Oh, and it helped solve the orbit of Mercury, which Newtonian gravity couldn't account for, there were a few anomalies it just couldn't answer well enough that GR solved.
Anyway, yes, I am aware of the counter positions of Flat Earth when it comes to the motion of the planet, but I feel those arguments fall apart when you start to ask HOW electromagnetism answers for those experiments. How exactly does electromagnatism cause the sagnac drift in laser gyros? If so, how are planes able to use them? They detect physical rotation, no magnetic interference is detected, so how does electromagnetism factor exactly? I think people are just slotting that answer in and accepting it with blind faith, I have seen no reason to believe electromagnetism can be the cause to explain anything they're claiming. Coriolis is also physically demonstrated pretty easy, with a ball on a carousel, so even IF they could (and they haven't yet) proven that it could be an electromagnetic occurrence, the Globe still would also explain it as well, same goes for pendulums, same goes for laser gyros and gyro compasses...so I'm sorry, but I'm personally going to go with the science that is verified and not just wishful arguments that have no backing.
On top of that, here's a group I found on YouTube that does something interesting. Hobbyists, tracking satellites, with their own home made radio telescope equipment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeah3fFYlnA Here's some of the crazy stuff they've pulled from some weather satellites in geostationary orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY
So Flat Earth is just a very wishful position to hold I feel, you have to deny a LOT of science to believe the Earth is flat. I get that people don't trust authority and that distrust is growing more and more, but is that any reason to toss the baby out with the bath water? No, I don't think it is.
But I do agree a little, I'm fine with people going out and reviewing and challenging what we think we know. There is a LOT that we still don't know, and there is a very good chance we've missed or overlooked a lot along the way. It's a lot harder for experts to go back and review that work, because it's really hard to unlearn what you've learned. So in a way, society is kind of demonstrating a strange sort of biodiversity of thought, covering all our bases and who knows, it might actually lead to something tangible someday. So for that reason, I'm all for it, and so long as things never get too heated where it leads into violence, then all the power to them. I don't think it will, I have come across some nasty people, but those people exist either way and they're just rotten people, they didn't need fringe movements to be that way, they always were that way. And they're a very small minority, for the most part people are just asking questions, and that's awesome, that's science at the end of the day, challenging what we think we know.
Anyway, this got long again, so I'll wrap it up.Thanks again for the chats, feel free to continue if you'd like to address more. Sorry if I've dumped a lot to address, I do tend to ramble...but I am still interested in chatting if you've got some more points to make, so feel free. From here I'll promise to keep things short.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, science is always under scrutiny, that's the true beauty of it. That's why they chose to call their end conclusion theories and not facts, because facts don't change, but theories can. So they were very wise to call them theories, because as new information comes to light, it always has the potential to change old information, that's the true nature of information gathering of any kind, because we do not know everything and likely never will. Science is happy to admit that, so it should be enlightening to watch actual scientists speak, because they're quite humble about knowledge, they all understand that there is still LOTS we don't know and so science tries its best to never think in absolutes, instead it thinks in margins of errors and percentages. The rest of society doesn't do that though, mankind tends to naturally think in black and whites, in absolutes. Nature operates that way too, but nature is complex, not simple in anyway. So complex, that we can't pin down anything with certainty, it's a fools errand to try. So because we don't know everything, it is smarter to think in shades of gray, rather then absolutes. That's what science tries to do, but the average individual does not, so that's a big reason why they clash, it's a difference in methods of thinking. I think society just up and assumes that scientists think like they do, when they hear Big Bang theory, they assume that science is 100% sure about it. When they hear Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they assume it's only being reported on because they're absolutely certain...but that's not the case at all, those two in particular are still just hypothesis, like the Aether was 100 years prior, it's no different.
So science is never 100% certain about anything and they're proud to admit that, that's the way they should operate, it's the most efficient way for us to learn further. However, they do operate in percentages and some theories are a lot more certain than others, the shape of the Earth for example. There is no debate in the community of science when it comes to the shape of the Earth, this debate only exists on YouTube and public forums between people that are not scientists or experts. They are probably about 99.9999% certain of the geometry of the Earth, because that's where all the evidence points, and that's what all our applied sciences use today, so if they leave a margin of error at all here, it's because we still don't even know what the universe is and how it got here, could be a simulation at the end of the day and there are new theories sprouting up that the universe is actually a flat projection, so they reserve a little uncertainty no matter what...but there is no debate here, because it is a LOT more certain then other theories. Big Bang for example, is maybe only a 75% certainty, so there is still a lot of room here for debate, so it will continue until we're a lot more certain or until a new theory can come along that can replace it. Big Bang is just the leading theory, because it has the most evidence supporting it, that's all. Until something can come along that has even more, it will remain the dominant theory, that's how science operates when it comes to the fringes of known science.
The debate over the shape rages on here, because people at their core are confirmation bias machines, until they learn how to overcome that, which requires they recognize this flaw and then practice methods that best counter it. Trained scientists practice these methods, the average individual does not, so society as a whole is a few pages behind scientists, and this is one of the many reasons why. It's not that under educated people are dumber, far from it, but if you don't practice something...you're not going to be very good at it and it doesn't matter how smart you are, if you lack the pieces to a puzzle, you will never solve it, that's pretty common sense I feel. On top of that, the average individual doesn't work directly with these sciences and so they don't see first hand how things work, it's all second hand for them and that's not nearly as convincing, which is understandable. But I find also, these are questions most people have never thought to ponder, until recently and so now people online are just filling the blanks for them with paranoid bullshit, because people have lost trust in authority, but they will always trust people like them, people with no connection to the authorities they are growing to distrust by the day, so they're going to believe these people over authority, because they trust them more almost by default.
It's sad really, but most people don't know or understand a lot of physics, even though they were taught it in high school, most weren't really paying attention and at that time they didn't know why this knowledge was important to know (teens have a lot of other things on their minds), and so they didn't bother to retain that information or even listen to it at all the first time. So now when somebody tells them "the Globe Earth model tells us the Earth is spinning at 1000 mph, whizzing around the Sun at 66,000 mph and blasting through space at 500,000 mph" the average person looks at those big numbers and goes "that's impossible!", simply because they have no idea how it's possible, because they have no concept or experience with speeds so vast, all they know is, extreme speeds cause G forces...but they don't know HOW or even WHAT a G force is. So they form an opinion before they even consider the physics. They tend to jump to conclusions. Had they paid attention in highschool when they were being taught about the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion, they wouldn't have been so quick to jump on board the Flat Earth train.
But now since they also don't trust authority or anything connected to authority, it's all just indoctrination...even you hit me with that above a few times. The trouble is, indoctrination implies that we can't demonstrate anything, it's all just words we believed blindly, that's what indoctrination is. What these people don't get is that the only time in school where they really just tell you how things are, is in kindergarten. After that, they don't just tell you, they SHOW you how it works...they demonstrate it. People would realize that if they paid attention in school. Then in highschool they ask kids to do their own research, to demonstrate these concepts to themselves and that continues even more in college and university. NOBODY holds your hand in secondary education, they lecture sure...but while they lecture, they SHOW YOU how it works, they don't just talk about it. Then they do labs in secondary science education courses, labs are basically where they recreate the big experiments...like bouncing radar off the Moon, or measuring the universal constant for G. Here's a great example of a lab Physics Core Practical, having students run their own gravity drop tests, to measure the 9.8 m/s2 acceleration rate of gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcT_zUb3wis This is basically a run down of what they do in advanced physics classes...you'll notice here, they don't tell them anything, they just ask the students to measure gravity acceleration using the drop test (which is one of several ways they measure this)...and then it's up to the students to figure it out. This encourages them to try their own ways of doing it, or even to question it if they think they can. This exorcise teaches them the entire scientific method, by making them perform it themselves step by step on their own and failure is just as useful here as succeeding. That's the point of this practical in particular, these students know the scientific method...this practical teaches them to UNDERSTAND why it's the most efficient method for deducing reality and it does that on their own terms.
That's the difference between indoctrination and truth, one is just known the other is understood. Knowing and understanding are two different things, anyone can repeat knowledge verbatim...understanding why that knowledge is correct, that's much harder and that's what separates indoctrination from truth.
The only level kids are "indoctrinated" is kindergarten, from there teachers begin SHOWING them how that information is true, not just saying it to them, but demonstrating it as well. So conspiracy channels throw around that term "indoctrination" in hopes that you'll bite and stop looking deeper at the explanations that the scientific community has. It's a buzz word to stop you from looking at what we have to say, essentially closing your minds off to that information...what's ironic, that's how they indoctrinate you to Flat Earth, by making you feel like the rest of us are brainwashed and that you almost were too. That's brainwashing...that's how it works, by telling you that everyone else is indoctrinated, lying, shills but that THIS knowledge will help you break free of that. That's brainwashing 101, throw in a little hypnotic suggestion and methods used by hypnotists like a bombardment of information in quick rapid fire videos, with loud overly dramatic music playing that puts you in a more suggestive state of mind and overloads your brains ability to process, then you can feed a person just about any information and if it's not something they have any experience with prior, you're going to rope them pretty easily.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Anyway, that's a bit of why I feel this debate continues online between the layman. I do agree it's a bit wrong that YouTube would censor them, but not entirely. I look at it from a perspective where if I were to create YouTube, I would have preferred it be a place for entertainment mostly, a place where less fighting occurred and more creative expression blossomed. But I'm an artist and I prefer to focus on creating things, so I suppose that's why I'd be a bit let down if my website intended for entertainment, suddenly just became a big conspiracy network. But here's the logic on their part I feel, this website has to look at its bottom line as well, if the site were to be completely overrun with conspiracy videos or hate videos, then most people would eventually stop coming here. The bottom line is this, the site has to appeal to a wider audience or it will die, the online market is very competitive, so it adheres to the majority...and well, the majority is a bunch of drones who just want to be entertained, so to do that, it has to regulate what gets put here so that it appeals to a wider audience. Flat Earth is a small minority, but they were loud, for awhile there, all I was seeing was conspiracy videos spreading potential misinformation day after day, and it did get a bit tiring...when all I wanted to do was unwind and get some light entertainment for a bit.
It is also a knowledge platform though, which is something else I love about YouTube, and if I have gripes with their current censorship of Flat Earth, it's that I do prefer that freedom of speech and expression of ideas never be censored...but a company still has to worry about how it's going to keep the majorities interest, or it will eventually die, that's true of any company, so unfortunately I do see why they did what they did.
Could it have been a cover up like you're suggesting though? I don't think so, but I do see the reasoning there, it's not lost on me.
1
-
@rayrayner4426 Yes, Jtolan has taken some pretty incredible infrared photos, in fact his pictures are some of the best Globe proofs available because of how clear they are. One of the most successful cons of Flat Earth, is the 8 inches per mile squared math, it's not the correct math to use for what Flat Earth uses it for, but very few in Flat Earth have realized that. A basic rule of thumb in mathematics, make damn sure you're using the right equations for the right jobs, or you will reach a false conclusion. Use the wrong math, get the wrong figures, it's pretty simple. 8 inches per mile squared is the worst offender of bad math in Flat Earth and it's successfully convinced a lot of people that there is no curvature to be found. What's odd to me is that instead of checking to see if maybe the math is wrong, people just conclude the Earth is flat. Well, not that odd actually, that's how confirmation bias works, do just enough work to seek out the information that supports a bias, then stop and never review. The same is done with Jtolan photos, when he cuts through the haze of our atmosphere and brings mountain ranges back...in this case, people don't even bother to do the math sometimes, they're convinced by this simply by him bringing mountains back from the haze, coming back with a new idea that things just fade into the distance and that's why they appear to disappear...but no, doing the math again is important, things don't just fade, they also drop. Those mountains are still missing thousands of feet at their base, doing the correct math here reveals that.
Here's a great video I found not to long ago that uses one of Jtolan's photos of a place called Mt. Jacinto and makes some observations of his own, using topography data of that same area and then demonstrating just how much that mountain range is dropped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU What he's done here is he's taken the topography data for that area and then placed it over satellite imagery of that area and then basically simulated/rendered it in a high resolution 3D mapping program, that basically recreates the landscape using topography data. Then he's placed a camera at the same location and elevation where Jtolan took that photo and then what's great about this program here, is you can then look at the landscape from the ground using either a flat surface or a globe to scale surface. The Globe to scale rendering matched the photo, while the Flat rendering revealed just how much of that mountain should have been visible if the Earth were flat. It's a pretty interesting experiment, worth a watch if you're curious to see just how much higher mountains would be if the Earth were flat. What people don't seem to get, is that there is thousands of feet of mountain missing at the base of all long distance photos of mountain ranges...that doesn't just happen on its own, and on a Flat Earth that wouldn't happen at all. So it's more smoke and mirrors and confirmation bias from Flat Earth. Just because Jtolan made mountains visible that weren't previously, does not mean you can conclude they just fade into the distance, more work has to be done here, you can't just stop once your bias is confirmed.
What you're describing with the fading or blending of color of distant objects is called distance fog in art. In the real world it happens cause you're looking through more atmosphere the further away things are too you, the atmosphere gets denser and denser and so the air is essentially washing out distant objects. The trouble is this wouldn't create a solid horizon on a Flat Earth, at least as far as I'm concerned, things would just appear to fade away as they got further away, not descend into the horizon like they do. It's not just that things appear to vanish at horizon, they also descend into it, they drop...a lot. The Sun especially, even on Flat Earth models, the Sun is hundreds to thousands of miles off the surface, so it makes zero sense that it would ever set on a Flat Earth. And it clearly doesn't fade away either, if things just fade away like you're now suggesting...why doesn't the Sun or Moon do this too? Why do they set? How do they maintain the same angular size all throughout the day and then how do they set under the horizon on a Flat Earth? These are good questions Flat Earth should consider more.
It's not that this isn't important though, this is an important thing to note about atmosphere at distances and it has to be factored as well. Over the ocean for example, the horizon isn't actually where it appears to be, for this very reason, it's actually a bit higher then it appears, because the dense atmosphere has miraged on the surface of the water making the actual horizon line pretty much vanish. But this would occur whether the Earth is flat or round, it's the thousands of feet of missing mountain at their base that would never happen on a flat Earth and as I keep mentioning, a sunset or sunrise would also not occur the way that it does, on a Flat Earth.
Anyway, if you want to know more about why the 8 inches math is incorrect, I can help you with that a bit more and help point you towards the correct math. The 8 inches math is the worst offender of bad math in Flat Earth and it is troubling to me that confirmation bias is that powerful, that it keeps people from reviewing their math to check it for accuracy. In the case with Jtolan though, people don't even bother with math, they stop looking as soon as they see mountains coming back into focus, concluding exactly what you have. Jtolan has taken some great photos, but despite being told his math is wrong countless times, he still persists in telling people otherwise, but, as I said, he actually provides some of the best proofs of curvature, because lots of people have taken the time to analyze and review his photos, using the proper math and the figures match the Globe perfectly. Here's a couple good channels that have done this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoQFXSIOHA4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z62WGtePCc
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deptfakex7472 No, cause those are weather balloons collecting data from inside our atmosphere...they are not the same thing. What you're doing is making an empty speculation, an empty claim that fits a bias you have, not much more. These balloons are required still because they are something a satellite can't do, cause satellites reside outside of our atmosphere. Little hard to collect accurate pressure, humidity and temperature data, when you're not within that environment. So weather balloons are still used to collect that data.
Let's just look at this a bit deeper. Many satellites are in geostationary orbit...meaning they orbit at the same rate as Earths rotation, meaning they are fixed to one side of the planet, meaning they're always in the same position in the sky. This makes things like satellite tv possible, weather satellites are typically in geostationary orbit as well, for the same reason, so networks can always have a line of connection to these satellites. So how exactly does a balloon stay stationary in the sky? Wouldn't the air currents be constantly shifting its position? How does it remain in the sky indefinitely? Wouldn't it eventually need to come down?
Then there are the low orbit satellites that are travelling around the Earth several times in a single day, the ISS for example makes about 16 orbits around Earth in a single day (which you can track and photograph by the way), do you know how fast that requires they be travelling? Thousands of mph. So how exactly does a balloon move that fast? Even the best aerodynamic planes in the world can't reach those speeds...do you really think a balloon can move that fast? Let's assume it could, how does it move that fast within our atmosphere without burning up?
Furthermore, what evidence do you have these are satellites? Do you work at these facilities? Do you build these balloons and know what they're for? Do you at the very least spend your days tracking them? Here's a group of hobbyists who build their own radio telescopes, that they then use to track and pull data from geostationary satellites in orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=309s Give it a look sometime, the data they pull is pretty interesting.
Just saying, did you really think this through...or did you just watch ONE video on YouTube, from a conspiracy channel making speculations, and then nodded and agreed with them blindly and without question? Learn the difference between speculation and evidence please. We don't reach conclusions on speculations...that's how we wind up following bias.
1
-
Flat Tarn Helium rises due to buoyancy, which is caused from the downward force of gravity, causing a displacement of matter by density. Proven time and again in density columns put in zero G environments and within vacuum chambers, where things like smoke, helium and other lighter gases actually fall...instead of rise. And no, you are responsible for the pick up and the release, but when something begins to fall, that is a motion completely free from your influence. You are not the cause of that motion...and yet, things fall anyway. The question is what causes that downward motion? Why that direction? Why at the same constant rate? Flat Earth has no answers, it just has taught people to ignore and deny any facts of reality that are inconvenient to their bias conclusions.
Learn some actual physics, then you’ll learn how Flat Earth cons the scientifically illiterate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, but it’s not just about whether God exists, in many cases it’s what version of him is correct. Your end conclusion is looking at it thinking in 50/50 odds...when in actuality there are thousands of different religions, all with their own interpretation of God and the after life, many of which believe with absolute certainty that you MUST believe in THEIR version of God, not just believe in a God.
So that actually lowers your odds quite a lot...to 1 in thousands, cause who’s right? Could be any of them...or none of them, who really knows? Every single one of them thinks it’s them...sone will even kill for that belief. Which means it’s either a sick game gods playing on us, where only the winners of the religious lottery get into heaven...or it’s all bullshit and you have nothing to fear.
Given the scientific evidence that’s revealed more and more that most of religion is just made up fiction, shining light on the stories that once were true now are false, I think it’s a safer bet not to waste possibly the only life you have, on praying too something that most likely doesn’t exist anyway, or if it does is most likely indifferent to us. But to each their own, spirituality can have a positive effect on ones life, so by all means, don’t listen to me, I don’t really know shit either. Just live a good life however you choose.
1
-
Conservation of momentum is a thing whether you're outside of a vehicle or inside...but yes, there is a little bit of wind resistance while outside, but at low speeds, it's quite negligible. Here's a great experiment demonstrating conservation of momentum in much the same way as the truck example. https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/b6mn9k/just_bouncing_along/ Notice how this person keeps landing in the center of the trampoline, despite the tractor moving forward and pulling it out from under him. That is conservation of momentum in action. What this does is create an environment that behaves almost as if stationary.
Another good example is on a plane. While at cruising altitude, a plane travels at roughly 500 mph, but at no point are you sucked to the seat, in fact you are allowed to get up and walk around the cabin just fine...your entire body moving at 500 mph relative to the plane. If you were to throw a ball around inside that plane going at 500 mph, throwing that ball would be effortless and it would be no different then if you were tossing that ball around, while on the ground and stationary. You could throw it in any direction, it won't speed up or slow down depending on what direction you throw it...it'll just behave as normal...but you can't throw a ball at 500 mph can you? No, even the best pitchers in the world can only throw about 100 mph...so this is a perfect example of Relative Motion and Conservation of Momentum, just like the trampoline example I shared in the link above.
Relative Motion and Conservation of Momentum are occurring right now, while the Earth rotates and orbits around the Sun...and it does the exact same thing in those movements, it creates an environment that we perceive as stationary, even though we are moving. What this science has taught us, is that WE don not feel motion, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. This creates inertia and inertia is what we feel, but if speed is constant and if change in velocity is gradual enough, which it is in all our movements through space, then we will notice nothing at all...not matter how fast we're travelling. Pretty neat eh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaptainkrampus2856 If it’s a clear observation of curvature you’re looking for, I’ll give you one that requires no math, just a basic understanding of geometry and perspective, which you seem pretty well versed in.
https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk?si=pu2A0BTqI1_jl6YT&t=234
That’s a great observation of a tower viewed from various distances, from roughly the same observer height each time. As he gets further away, the tower is clearly observed to sink more and more below horizon…by hundreds of feet. At the end he creates a handy comparison shot of each observation, and the tower is clearly dropping with each observation. He zooms right up to it, so the angular resolution is the same for each observation, so it’s not just perspective causing this, the base of that tower is clearly disappearing under horizon, being obscured by hundreds of feet.
No math is required here, that’s what’s nice about it. You can crunch the figures if you’d like…but Flat Earth has fooled a lot of people, by providing the wrong math for these observations. The worst offender being 8 inches per mile squared, which doesn’t represent line of sight, doesn’t have a variable for height of the observer, or horizon distance, or refraction, and can not tell you how much something is being obscured by horizon. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion…it’s really that simple, that’s why a rule of thumb in good experimentation practices, is to always double and triple check your math, especially if it seems off for any reason. Cause the error could be yours, nobody is infallible. So when people go around saying “no visible curvature”, my first question is always what math did they use to determine that? I guarantee they’ve made an error, cause whenever I do the math, it fits the globe just fine. When flatties bring up the 8 inches formula, then I know that’s exactly what the problem really is…it’s the wrong math. I didn’t go to deep into the calculator you mentioned, so I can only assume for now, but my point here is that you should always make sure your math is accurate before you reach a conclusion. Most Flat Earthers don’t…and that’s their problem, probably 80% of the time.
This observation though requires no math, just some simple reasoning; why is the building sinking under horizon more snd more, the further away he gets? If you know your perspective fundamentals, another question you can ask, is why is the tower dropping below eye level by hundreds of feet? Things converge AT eye level due to perspective…they don’t drop below it. A curvature would absolutely account for this observation though…that’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a curved surface.
So give the observation a look, if the link isn’t working try just searching the Turning Torso Tower observation, even in google images, shouldn’t be difficult to find the end comparison shot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doesn't work like that and if you continue to think it does, then you're never going to understand it. It's not an instant change, a horse does not just become a dog for example. Think of it this way, in just a few hundred years we've taken the wolf and created the chiahuahua...something that appears closer to a small rat, than it does a wolf. If we keep going, it'll eventually become something new, something we can't call a dog anymore, but that has a new distinction, something completely new that has never existed before. That's more like how evolution works. We speed that process up through selective breeding, but nature does that as well through a much longer process of natural selection, usually brought about by a change in environment, and we see it happen everywhere.
If you want some proof, just spend some time actually looking at the science of evolutionary biology, instead of ignoring it, misunderstanding it and concluding there is no proof, before even giving it an honest look. Tons of videos here on YouTube to get you started, or if you really want to step things up, go out and actually talk to an evolutionary biologist sometime. I'm sure they'd be happy to show you what they do for a living, if you're patient and open enough to actually listen.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 That’s all well and good, I don’t doubt that you have reached a conclusion from your own research and deliberations. That’s great…but stop for a moment and ask yourself, does flat Earth have any scientific knowledge or working models, that can actually be applied? Cause that’s how you spot bullshit science…just ask yourself “does it work?” and “can it be applied?”. The end goal of science is to acquire accurate knowledge, so that we can then use that knowledge for our benefit. We currently use the globe model for navigation…that is a fact, not an opinion. So that’s an application of that knowledge…so it’s an applied science. And it works when applied…if you don’t think it does, then I’d ask if you’ve ever tried crossing an ocean before…without using the current system of navigation to help you do it. Give it a try sometime…if you’re so confident the Earth is flat, then surely there’s a working map or model of FE that can be applied. I’ve not seen any, and every pilot and sailor I know uses the globe for navigation…so is it really so difficult to see why people would question FE?
I’m not saying you’re dumb for questioning consensus, on the contrary, it’s quite admirable, logical, and reasonable. I’m not arguing with you to be a dick here, I’m just asking if you’ve ever really thought to turn that skeptical lens around on Flat Earth? Do the same standards of review and skepticism not apply to Flat Earth and their arguments? Because personally, I don’t feel that anything is above the burden of proof…and come on, you don’t see ANY flaws at all in the FE position? I can look at one sunset, and understand the geometry doesn’t quite add up, or travel South and observe the other hemispheres night sky is vastly different, with its own rotation, around its own polar axis…exactly like we’d expect on a globe, but to this day, after years of asking Flat Earthers, I’ve not heard any valid explanation for how FE accounts for that geometry. And as I keep pointing out…FE has no working map or model, that can actually be used in applied sciences, such as navigation…that should be a HUGE red flag for you or anyone.
I don’t claim to know everything either…but I do know how to spot bullshit science, just ask yourself if it has ANY working applications at all. If not…then it’s very likely not true. That’s actually the one nice thing about pseudoscience, it reveals itself simply by how useless it is…making it pretty easy to spot most of the time.
1
-
Any psychologist knows that the human mind is actually pretty fragile and paranoia and delusions can manifest in pretty much anyone. Flat Earth is a bit alarming for that reason, because it could be linked to a mass paranoia that is spreading in society through misinformation spread on the internet. It could be leading to (or be an early warning sign of) a very delusional and unhealthy society, where our peace and safety is at risk if we don't discuss, get to the root of the issue and then do something about it.
So I think videos like this aim to dig deeper into the roots of what's happening, from a philosophical stand point. Yes, this channel is mainstream and leans towards the mainstream consensus of a Globe Earth, but it's still good to have these discussions, no matter what side you lean on, so that we analyze the problem from a more philosophical or psychological angle, to see if maybe conspiracies are becoming more popular because society as a whole has been degrading in mental health over the last few decades. Wisecrack often tackles the disconnect that has been occurring in society since the rise in social media, Flat Earth could be a symptom of that larger disconnect, through our addiction to the online world consuming our normal human interactions...turning us to these dark rabbit holes of misinformation that slowly consumes us, turn us from rational people...to deeply paranoid, angry and bias.
In short, Flat Earth is a bit alarming, but I personally don't see it as alarming for being possibly true...I see it as alarming because so many people DO actually believe it's true, even while all evidence points to the contrary. It's interesting, but also troubling. After 3 years of researching the topic, I did what Flat Earth asked of me, I did my own experiments and research and kept an open mind...but all I found were a lot of people grossly misunderstanding even the basic fundamental physics of our reality and I also found a lot of what appeared to be huxters and snake oil sellers, conning people with the same tricks they did in the old days. Half truths, over confidence and misdirection, while preying on peoples growing distrust in authority and their general lack of knowledge, filling the gaps in their understandings with lies they knew would be hard to uproot once they were set in. Essentially, all I found were scammers and the scammed...and I was shocked at how many there were!
But that's my perspective currently, I don't think it's wrong to question reality, in fact it's quite logical. Flat Earth asks some good questions sometimes, but from my perspective, as somebody who now understands the science of the Globe far more then I once did, it is alarming from my perspective...cause I'm blown away that others were taken by this apparent scam so easily, and it is alarming, cause after talking to so many Flat Earthers over the years...I worry about these people. They're angry and some are very clearly not well. I personally don't want that spreading to anyone. But that's my perspective on things...I can only speak for my perspective. Globe Earthers are alarmed by this whole thing, because we see it as a scam that has been spreading and we're worried it could fester if it goes unchallenged and unchecked, so that's why many of us are here doing what we can do to discuss and challenge this "movement". It's not exactly something that should just be ignored and allowed to fester...if it's potentially damaging society as a whole, then it needs to be discussed and not allowed to go unchecked.
1
-
inquizative44 It’s important to remember though, that just because we’re taught something from a young age, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Putting value on information based on who said it and when you learned it...that’s a good way to become bias, and bias can get in the way of critical thinking. Critical thinking is all about being objective, analyzing the evidence for what it is, not who said it and when they said it. That information shouldn’t be ignored either, but it shouldn’t be the foundation for your thought processes...because that can lead to bias. It’s almost like Flat Earthers are hipsters of information, if it’s fringe enough, if it’s not mainstream, then they’re into it and they’ll eat it up on that basis alone...worst is, they don’t even notice they’re doing it, but I see it all the time...not a whole lot of critical thinking there, just putting more value on information based around how new and on the fringes it is.
Also, I’m not 5 anymore...I get your point, but your acting like Santa Clause and the Earth are the same thing, some magical lie we conducted to keep people in line. I see where you’ve made that connection, but they’re not the same thing. The difference is that one of these things breaks the laws of physics (Santa)...while the other does not (Globe), it’s actually the only thing that makes sense and fits with the physics of our reality and observations we make in the real world.
So I feel it’s either paranoia or a lack of knowledge that drives your Santa - Globe comparison...if you never went outside and actually tested the world around you, that would be a logical comparison to make maybe, but the difference is that I can verify one to be true for myself, while the other...is not physically possible by any known physics. So they’re not the same...which should be obvious.
One last thing, I’m an artist for a living, one of the best things my parents ever did for me was fuel my imagination with wonder and magic when I was a kid. I create worlds for a living now and it brings me a lot of joy...so god forbid adults tell a little lie to fuel their childs imaginations and bring them some frickin joy once a year. Most people can still separate the difference between fantasy and reality once they’re older, can you?
1
-
1
-
What gives you the feeling of down? Gravity...gravity creates inertia on your body as it pulls every cell in your body towards the ground beneath your feet, giving you a feeling that we call weight. Your brain and body has evolved to recognize that inertia as down, we balance ourselves upright in accordance to that inertia. The pull of gravity is in the same direction everywhere on Earth, towards the center of Earth, creating the same inertia upon your body towards the ground, no matter where you are, orientating you upright, so long as your feet are on the ground so you can feel and interpret that inertia as down. Gravity always pulls to center of mass, your body is constantly balancing to center, we call that center of gravity.
So if gravity pulls to center everywhere and creates your feeling of upright everywhere, where on Earth is the top? Nowhere...there is no top or bottom to Earth. Upright is an orientation given to you by gravity, down is towards the ground, up is away from the ground...that's how it works. America is not the top of the Earth...Australia is not the bottom. You're conditioned by world maps to think this (namely the Mercator map), but in reality, that's a man made interpretation and it's not true.
We chose North to be the top on world maps, because that's where the most landmass is, that's where the higher population is, and that's where England is...the country that pretty much created the standard maps the rest of the world uses today. But again, there is no real top or bottom to Earth, you are always upright, so long as you are aligned to gravity, your feet on the ground.
1
-
@JonALewis “There are many anomalies that work on both models but nothing works solely on a globe.”
Pretty ignorant statement, tells me you really haven’t been looking very hard. Confirmation bias tends to do that. Here’s some things FE has to ignore, to believe that claim.
1. Lunar Eclipse - heard a lot of ad hoc bullshit about a third object that’s “invisible”, but somehow blocks light...somehow. But still nothing substantial in way of actual evidence. Just empty claims and ad hoc bullshit, no empirical evidence. Globe makes perfect sense of this occurrence, with ease, no mental gymnastics required.
2. Southern Hemisphere - everything from the different stars, to the lines of latitude that are equal in distance to the opposite hemisphere, to the southern star trail rotation, never heard of any FE model proposed so far that can accurately account for the second hemisphere. And yes, it exists, I’ve been there several times, so good luck trying to claim it doesn’t.
3. Coriolis effect - a well documented and well understood phenomenon, that FE has no answers for. A rotating globe accounts for this perfectly. Don’t believe me though, hear it from a marksmen https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs and a pilot https://youtu.be/eugYAfHW0I8, explaining how they account for this effect.
4. Satellites - they’re in orbit, how exactly does an orbit work on a flat Earth? Simple fact is, It doesn’t, orbits require gravity, a spherical geometry and an empty vacuum of space for objects to maintain forward velocity within. Again, I’ve heard a lot of bullshit claims for them not existing, and yet I can look up there transit times and positions and then spot them with a telescope https://youtu.be/PRgLlLtF4hs. I can even do what these guys did https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY, building my own radio telescope to spot AND pull image data from these satellites. Funny how you can point a radio receiver at these orbiting objects, and pull data off of them...gee, I wonder why?
5. Sunsets - FE will just say it’s perspective that causes a sunset, then they pat themselves on the back...but they’re ignoring some pretty basic rules of perspective, in that ad hoc explanation. A simple one being angular size, objects shrink in angular size due to distance...so why doesn’t the Sun before it sets? The transit time would also change, speeding up as it gets closer, slowing down as it gets further...problem is, the Sun tracks a steady 15 degrees per hour, never deviating. Sunsets make zero sense on a flat Earth...seriously, you have to hit your head pretty hard to think that would work at all over a flat surface, where line of sight is never lost. It’s basic geometry.
6. 24 hour Sun in both hemispheres - again, the geometry makes no sense...show me an FE model that can accurately account for both midnight Sun occurrences. Remember, I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere, I’ve experienced the longer days in their summer, even just 17 hours of Sun down South makes no sense on FE at all, so don’t tell me “it doesn’t exist”.
7. Sun angles and transit path - the data simply does not fit a Flat Earth. Here’s some examples you really need to contend with.
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=905
https://youtu.be/W1al9aGartM
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
8. Flight Paths - I know you think you know everything about flight paths, but they do not work on FE I’m afraid, you’ve been fed a cleverly crafted lie. They’ll be relatively straight on a Gleason projection (but not really)...for the North hemisphere, but have you ever seen any for the South? https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho These are real flight routes, the only model they fit is a globe.
9. Sextant navigation - the stars have been used to navigate for centuries now, with the help of a sextant, measuring the angle of known stars like Polaris, against the horizon, which helps determine latitude. Trouble is, on a Flat Earth with a domed sky, the stars would not drop to horizon at a consistent rate, they would drop less and less the further you went (you’d also see a lot more parallax). Stars drop consistently to horizon...that’s how sailors are able to find their latitude. Seriously, do you honestly think this geometry is possible? https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/bp8rrt/why_cant_polaris_be_seen_from_these_observatories/.
10. Gyro compass - most accurate non magnetic compass, used on most modern sea vessels today. Little known fact is that it actually uses the Earth’s rotation and its spherical geometry to function. Here’s a video going in depth into how they work https://youtu.be/d1tQcGAgYMc.
Just a short sample of things you have to be willing to ignore, in order to continue believing there’s nothing supporting only the globe model.
Point is, I get that you’re invested in this, you’re trying really hard to win something here...but you’re not being very objective and honest with yourself. There’s a lot more evidence for the globe than you seem to be aware of, we have every reason to question the claims of Flat Earth, so don’t pretend like we don’t.
1
-
@JonALewis Ok, but you didn’t address any of the points I shared. Point was, Flat Earth is not as air tight as you seem to think it is. Those are some examples of things I feel you have overlooked. Do you think ignorance is the best way to reach truth? I’m sure you don’t, but then why are you ignoring these points? It’s a good question you should ask yourself. These are simple observations anyone can make, and they matter to the larger conclusion here. If you can’t provide an answer for these observations, then they stand as evidence against the model you’re currently supporting. Doesn’t have to be much more difficult than that, I just prefer remaining objective.
You said the evidence falls within three baskets, Flat, Globe, or both. So can you explain how these points fit in both models, or explain how they make better sense in FE? If not, then they fall in the basket of only working on the Globe.
Just using your logic, so you have a choice, either ignore them, or really think about and consider them and be honest while you do. If you ignore them though, then it’s clear you’re not really looking for truth, you’re really just looking to confirm a bias...which means you only care about what you want to be true, not what is true. Just trying to keep people honest, so feel free to rebuttal the points I’ve made, I don’t mind discussing.
1
-
@JonALewis When you make a claim, the burden of proof is then yours to prove that claim...that’s how a rational discussion of ideas works. It’s not my job to prove your claims for you. I don’t mind discussing claims, I’ll research anything you provide, but it’s a waste of my time to do YOUR work for you. You want to convince someone, then it’s only logical you provide the evidence for your argument, that’s just common sense. If you can’t...then it’s more likely that you do not have any, and that’s what I’ll conclude if you do not. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean I’m automatically right of course, it just means you forfeit yourself from argument...that’s the structure the majority has agreed upon when it comes to debate. Burden of proof, it’s very simple stuff. You might have noticed when I made a claim, I provided video evidence in support of that claim...that’s how you prove a claim, with evidence...that’s how it works.
So, you have provided some information on a couple points, so the ball is now in my court to address them if I can. So I will, because that’s how a rational discussion works. I’m not just going to believe a person blindly, so stop trying to strong arm me into agreeing without question. It’s only rational to question, Flat Earth is not immune to the process of peer review, the same standards of review apply to them, so that’s what I’m doing.
Ok, so your point on the Moon being a luminary, you didn’t provide any evidence for that claim, so it’s just an empty claim currently. What evidence do you have that has led you to that conclusion? This is the problem...it’s the same ad hoc responses without empirical or verifiable evidence. You briefly touch upon seeing stars through the Moon...but where’s the evidence for that claim? A video, a picture, anything? Sure I could go hunting for the evidence myself, and I have before...I’ve heard this claim many times before, but nothing so far that holds up as verified evidence. But feel free to show me what evidence YOU have that helps your claim. But understand this, you’re not falsifying anything through empty claims. Meanwhile, universities around the world regularly bounce lasers and radar off of both the Moon and Venus. Venus and Mercury also regularly transit the Sun...as does the Moon during a solar eclipse.
https://youtu.be/2r_nX3hui10 - bouncing lasers off the Moon to confirm both distance and it’s physical properties.
https://youtu.be/MW99qNiM7bA - Venus transit.
https://youtu.be/fAGCwitHWgE - Mercury eclipse.
Here’s the facts so far, your claims are void of evidence, so they do not falsify the heliocentric conclusions, it’s that simple. I know you think simply calling the moon a luminary means your work is done...but it’s not, you’ve made a hypothesis, that’s all you have. We do not conclude science on hypothesis, so you do not have a substantial claim, it’s that simple.
Consider this as well, if the Moon is a luminary that you can see the stars through...then how exactly does it block the Sun during a solar eclipse? How does a star shine through it, yet the Sun can’t? It’s not adding up. Meanwhile, the heliocentric model makes perfect sense of both solar and lunar eclipses, and the math and geometry fits...it fits so well, that the heliocentric model can predict an eclipse down to the second and square mile. And before you say “they predict eclipses from the Soaros cycle”, explain to me how that cycle predicts location and exact time, because it barely gets the days right, let alone shadows location and perfect viewing time. Here’s a website that breaks down the math for how they really predict eclipses http://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEdecade/SEdecade2021.html. You can find the information for how it’s really done, from this website.
So here’s the score as I see it. Flat Earth has a hypothesis of the Moon being its own luminary...but nothing substantial that verifies that claim. If you have data and evidence confirming that claim, by all means present it, but so far it’s just an empty claim. That’s not good enough...so that’s why it will be questioned.
Meanwhile the heliocentric model has evidence, some of which I’ve provided and the information fits, it makes perfect sense. So as far as I’m concerned, lunar Eclipse only fits the globe model.
Now I’ll address your other rebuttal in another comment.
1
-
@JonALewis Alright, so your other rebuttal was on the Southern Hemisphere observations. Your argument hinges on one premise, that the stars should change periodically on the heliocentric model, due to the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. This is correct, the Sun should come between certain stars during certain periods of that orbit, so the stars should change periodically. So the question is, do they? Yes actually, any actual astronomer will tell you the same.
There are two kinds of star classifications, the circumpolar stars and the seasonal stars. Circumpolar stars are the stars locked to each polar axis, and they’re seen all year round due to them never being blocked by the Sun, because the polar axis never points directly at the Sun. Seasonal stars however are closer to the ecliptic plain, and so they are periodically blocked by the Sun https://youtu.be/zo_gg9GmSvg. You even know most of the constellations that reside here, they are the zodiac constellations.
It’s very basic knowledge within astronomy, you can even test it on any clear night. Find a list of seasonal constellations not visible during this monthly period, then go out and try and find them. Then do it again a few months later and find the constellations with ease.
It’s an easy one to debunk...the fact that Flat Earthers assert the stars never change, shows just how much they don’t actually understand about the things they argue. Which also reveals your willingness to conclude things...on pure assumptions, rather than actual knowledge, experience and evidence.
Perspective is another problem...cause that geometry just does not add up. There’s a second rotation of stars in the South, it’s not just that they’re seeing different stars in each hemisphere, there’s a whole other rotation around a central pole star, Polaris for the North, Sigma Octantis for the South. How exactly does that work on a flat Earth? There should only be ONE rotation of stars on the FE model...but two exist in reality. That’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a Globe that’s rotating, the Globe model accounts for this second rotation of stars with absolute ease...but I’ve seen no model of FE so far that can account for this.
So no, your arguments here on this point are VERY easily debunked. Learn some actual astronomy, it’s very easy to confirm these observations for yourself.
THIS is why we have every reason to question FE. You’re a group of non-experts, with no real first hand knowledge or experience, trying to tell actual experts how things work. Reaching conclusions from empty claims and assumptions...then you wonder why everyone keeps pestering you. It’s pretty simple why, because you’re bullshitters...you are lying and spreading misinformation, THAT is why we’re questioning Flat Earth. We have every reason too.
1
-
@JonALewis The shape is important...if THAT’s the lie you’re saying is being fed to us by the “mainstream”, then wouldn’t it seem pertinent to see if that claim is true or not? Of course it would...so what are you even talking about? Do you even listen to the bolder dash YOU are saying? I’ve successfully debunked your points and instead of listening to me and considering the information I’ve shared, you’ve decided instead to ignore everything I’ve shared that directly refutes a Flat Earth. Then you basically just told me “it’s not important, pay no attention to the fact that Flat Earth is paper thin and doesn’t hold up to review, it’s the lie that matters!” What lie? If I can easily show someone how wrong Flat Earth is...then why should I just ignore that? What reason do I have to believe there’s any lie at all, when it comes to the shape of the Earth?
You’re wrong, I would consider any information you shared, but I’m not just going to agree to it blindly. Fact is simple, you know I have some good points. You can’t keep going in this discussion...because I think you and I both know, you don’t really have any answers to these questions. I’ve seen that glass dome trick FE thinks is good enough to explain the southern rotation...and again it’s not evidence, it’s just another untested hypothesis. One that’s easily falsified, the moment you start paying attention to the angles, the geometry, the fact that perspective does not really work the way they’re claiming it does. That glass half sphere demonstration...is basically akin to a slight of hand trick, that’s the reality of it. It’s designed to fool anyone looking to confirm their bias for FE, anyone not willing to look through how obviously paper thin the explanation is, but for anyone looking objectively, they will immediately recognize how unscientific it is, how unproven it is, how little it fits reality. Things I can not just ignore...simply because a few people online are so certain they’re right. Doesn’t matter how right you THINK you are...can you prove it? That’s all that matters to me. So far, no, you can’t...so guess what, I’m not going to be convinced...shocker. Meanwhile, the Globe model CAN prove its accuracy, with absolute ease, hence why it’s the dominant model of reality, hence why I and many others agree it’s the true shape of the Earth. It’s not complicated.
You know what I think...I think you don’t really care about what’s true, I think you just want a reason to justify hating institutions of authority, like the scientific community. I think the REAL lie, is from Flat Earthers, who fabricated this fantasy, so they could place real blame on the things they resent. I think it’s a fiction you tell yourselves, so you can feel some sense of control over everything, gives you power over authority, even if it’s fabricated. I think it’s psychological, an extreme group paranoid delusion.
Just my opinion, but you should REALLY consider that very real possibility.
1
-
@JonALewis Why would I step into an echo chamber, full of drones loyal to a madman, who will just mute and then shout at anyone who attempts to voice an opposing viewpoint, or make an opposing argument? Nathan Oakley is a classic narcissist, he only appears convincing, because he never shuts up long enough for anyone to demonstrate how he’s wrong. Little hard to get a point across, when you have a snarling dog barking over every word...wouldn’t you agree? Do you really think shouting at people is how information is best discussed? Cause I sure don’t. Seriously, I don’t know how anyone can admire that nutjob, but to each their own I guess.
I’d love to see him step away from the safety of his channel and join a REAL debate sometime though. A moderated debate, just him and one other opponent, with rules of engagement, where he can’t shout at people, or mute them. THAT is something I’d love to see. Then we’d see how well he really does or how convincing he really is. When he can’t shout over someone and strawman their arguments, wonder how convincing he’d be then. If you’re a fan of his, I’d be curious to know why you guys aren’t pushing for that? If he’s such a great debater, then why doesn’t he ever step out of his channel and challenge people on other platforms?
I think that’s a good question, personally. But no, I’ve seen enough from Nathan to know he’s just an attention junkie. He forces his opinions, he does not have real arguments.
1
-
@JonALewis Allegedly Dave is a bit better, he’ll at least listen and discuss...though he also drinks his own urine, and thinks air is all you need for sustenance, so bit of an oddball. But, I suppose he’s more of an experimenter of alternative lifestyles, so can’t fault him for that really. I strongly disagree with his conclusions, but he’s far more civil, so that earns some respect.
As far as I’m concerned, Dubay is a con man. From what I’ve seen, he lies like breathing, it’s effortless for him. I’ve taken the time to debunk his 200 claims, and it’s shocking how paper thin each argument really is....shocking that people actually fall for it. Most are just repeats of the same argument, spun in a different way, so it’s more like “75 ways to completely misunderstand physics and lie about Earth science”...but at its core, it’s just gish gallop, several weak arguments compiled together, to make the larger argument appear more impressive and substantial. Essentially quantity over quality. He’s also a Nazi sympathizer and an anti semite...so far from anyone to admire, in my opinion.
I know David Weiss, but not well enough to form an opinion yet. He seems to be gaining traction lately, so perhaps I’ll check him out more.
Owen Benjamin is a comedian with a bit of a superiority complex, thinks he knows everything and doesn’t really listen to anyone but himself. He tends to go off on tangents, that appear rational on the surface, until you question him...then he snaps and you’re auto banned. If he’d just shut up for a second, and LISTEN to an opposition when they try to explain something, maybe he’d learn something then...but he’s not the best listener. I watched his spiral down the paranoid rabbit hole a couple years ago, and honestly it was a bit troubling, looked like a man losing his mind. Haven’t checked in with what he’s up to lately, but he’s still Owen Benjamin I’m sure, probably just as crazy as ever.
I’ve been looking at this mess a long time now, not to many speakers or arguments I haven’t heard yet. Some are more rational, more open to discussion and the sharing of information, but I’ve been banned by both Dubay and Owen now, simply for asking questions and pointing out information they were ignoring or were not aware of. I can understand blocking someone for trolling or constant harassment, but simply asking questions? I get that I can be stubborn and I don’t just agree to things blindly, but that’s certainly not worth silencing me over, I feel.
I just prefer remaining objective, I’m not just going to ignore evidence, in favour of empty claims and speculations. You can claim I’ve not dug deep enough, but that’s just empty rhetoric, doesn’t mean much. Evidence is all I care about...so far, the Globe has it, while Flat Earth has empty claims and misinformation, that’s easy to falsify, with just a few simple observations.
1
-
1
-
@JonALewis I don’t argue NASA or the Moon landings, just doesn’t interest me as much. I understand the physics, I know the moon landings are indeed possible from a physics and engineering standpoint, but I feel theres very little I can verify for certain, because I don’t work for NASA and I’ve never been to space or the Moon. So most of the information, I can only speculate on, doesn’t matter how logical my argument is, I don’t have first hand experience, so I can only speculate. I choose to avoid chasing speculations.
Flat Earth is different, because I live here...I have first hand knowledge and experience here. I can test the Earth’s geometry whenever I want. I can test the physics, I can make my own observations, I can do first hand research. I don’t have to speculate here, I can reach more definite conclusions. Conspiracy’s tend to fester in ignorance...much easier to argue from ignorance, within conspiracies nobody can really verify the details for, unless they’re directly a part of it. Flat Earth is different, because we all live here, we’re all experts of Earth in our own little ways...hence why it gets more attention.
But just because its subscription base is larger than other conspiracies...does not mean it’s automatically valid. Still should question these things rather than agree blindly...simply because you don’t trust an authority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe you missed the part where it clearly states that there are satellites in orbit right now. If satellites are in orbit, then the Earth can not be flat, because it would be impossible to put them into orbit without gravity. The Earth would not be flat if gravity is as we know it to be, a globe is the only shape something as massive as Earth could be, with a force that pulls all mass to center. Thus creating a sphere Earth, thus making orbits possible.
Yes, only 5% of global communication uses satellites, because that's not what most of them are up there for. Most satellites are for private industry and military, research and data collection, satellite tv/radio services and weather. VERY FEW of them, are for dedicated communication networking, because to put a global communication network up into space, would require a LOT of funding and a LOT of satellites networked together...thousands of networked satellites, all doing the same dedicated job of sending and receiving communications. No company in the world has ever attempted this (yet), because of the costs and other challenges of doing so, it's much cheaper to lay cables in the ocean, so currently today there is no global network of communication satellites. Satellites are still a relatively new technology, so the infrastructure is still not there yet. But you're in luck, look up StarLink sometime. Elon Musk is currently working on this global network of satellites, but it's still going to cost a LOT and he has many challenges facing him yet, so it's still going to take time and at any moment something could wrong where it doesn't happen at all.
Why does this surprise people so much? Do you think it's easy to create a global communication network of satellites? Do you know ANYTHING about putting satellites into orbit? Why do you immediately just assume that it should exist already? Why does your bias assumptions lead you to the conclusion, that because it doesn't exist yet, that means the Earth must be flat? You didn't once think there could be other reasons why it doesn't exist yet? Again, read that article you shared a little closer...5% of communication IS DONE BY SATELLITES! What does that mean? That means there ARE satellites up there. :/ You overlooked that, cause you only see the information that confirms your bias, then completely ignore any detail that directly refutes it. And my guess, is you listened BLINDLY to some fucking stranger online, who fed you a lie saying this meant the Earth is flat. And you believed them why exactly? Did you think to even question their claims? Wake up bud...you're being conned by numpty's and huxters on the internet, who are just as ignorant and incredulous as you are. :/
1
-
@CHRlST101 Many of us have watched the same videos you have Chris, and done the same research that was asked of us…and we were still able to recognize Flat Earth is a hoax, created by clever conmen, and perpetuated by the suckers they’ve successfully scammed.
“All observable and testable science shows a level and stationary surface.”
No it does not, you’re only researching one side of the argument if you think this statement is true.
“Curvature has never been measured,…”
False, geodetic surveyors do this for a living…that job title would not exist at all if Earth were flat. It’s applied science today…if you honestly think pilots and sailors can do their jobs with any accuracy, without accurate measured knowledge of the surface they’re navigating…then you might need a slap upside the head. :/
“…and motion has never been proven with repeatable experiments.”
False, both the Foucault pendulum and Gyroscope experiments have successfully detected Earth’s rotational motion, and both are repeatable…they’re repeated in science all the time. Then there’s observations and experiments you can conduct for Coriolis and the lesser known Eotvos effect. You can also measure Earth’s centrifugal force, with a simple weight and scale…that experiment is very easy to repeat, just requires a little travel. Then there’s the ring laser interferometer experiments which detect and measure Earth’s motion. Then there’s the gyrocompass, which is a device that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function…meaning if Earth wasn’t rotating, then this device would not work as its designed.
And that’s just the experiments and applied science off the top of my head….YOU haven’t been doing very good research, if you truly believe Earth’s motion has not been proven in repeatable experiments.
“The only thing keeping the globe model together is unproven theories.”
Here we go again….another person who doesn’t know the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. 🤦♂️ And yet you claim to have a higher education, and an understanding of physics and chemistry. If you don’t understand the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, then you don’t even know the basics of science. I suggest you research what the difference is…because comments like that just reveal your true scientific illiteracy.
Flat Earth is a hoax…if you’re currently falling for it, then you’re not as smart as you think you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Alright, let's keep it civil, I'm just here to share what information I have, the rest is up to you really.
Here's a great observational experiment of Earth curvature, done many times over the last couple centuries, a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across 10 km of frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is quite thorough, but the conclusion is the same in every recreation, the Earth is most definitely curving and at the rate it is supposed too. Feel free to give it a look sometime. It is a lot to absorb, so will take a bit of effort on your part, but if this truly interests you and if you'd like to remain objective about things, then it's definitely worth your time.
If you'd like a few simpler observations, here's some great ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=34s - let me know if you think zooming in any further will bring the bottom of those turbines back into view.
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3166- Geodetic data measurements of the Lake Pontchartrain bridge...which are physical geometric measurements that pay attention to the angles between each measurement, which is used to measure and record curvature.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth - a few great observations recorded here, just click through the yellow tabs to watch the demos, the Soundly observation being the most interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU - An interesting demonstration of what we'd expect to see if the Earth were actually Flat.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544/with/21709833861/ - then of course our best evidence of Earth curvature, the physical photos taken during the many space operations. These are some of the best ones taken during the Apollo 16 mission, just click the "back to album" tab in top left to find hundreds more photos like these.
Radius is synonymous with spheres and circles, so no, you can't have a ball without a radius...of course you know this already, but you're just trying to be cheeky by declaring that we have never actually measured any radius, and that's just not true at all. Our Earths radius is measured in a lot of different ways today, from analyzing data from seismic activity, to measuring the distance of flight and naval paths, to analyzing satellite imagery, etc. but the first time it was achieved was roughly two thousand years ago from a guy named Eratosthenes, who had a really clever way of doing it, using a stick, a well and the shadow angles produced from the Sun. Well, more specifically he was looking to measure the circumference, but once you have that, you can calculate the radius pretty easily, it's simple deduction after that. I won't bore you with the details, here's a video that will do that for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6KOSvYHAmA&t=323s This video explains his experiment pretty clearly, breaking down the math he used.
Great part is that it is easily repeatable today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP3AwtXfZio
Now the crux to this experiment is of course assuming the light is hitting the surface of Earth parallel...but that's only if you were to use only two shadow measurements. If you take several more data sets, from various locations, at varying distances, then you can actually use that data to verify that the light is coming at us parallel AND you can also still use those angles to measure circumference and thus radius. Here's a great example that was done fairly recently, back in 2017. https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=488 The evidence here is pretty damning for Flat Earth...these shadow angles do not fit with a Flat Earth model. Here is that same experiment repeated in a different year, and this time remodeled on several different Flat Earth projections. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=465s Again, the Globe is the only model that fits with these measurements, confirming the circumference and the radius.
Many more I can share, so feel free to ask. If you have any questions or would like to point out any flaws or errors in any of these, I don't mind hearing out any rebuttals you may have. I don't share any of this to mock you, it's perfectly fine to question what you're told, even logical, I share them because I felt you might be interested to know there are actually many examples of curvature and radius being measured and recorded. I hope at the very least you find this information interesting.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Thanks for the reply, now I'll offer some rebuttals and some points I feel you have overlooked.
Firstly, you can't see curvature on the X axis (horizontal), while standing on the surface, that is true. And you shouldn't on a sphere at our size, that's just basic spherical geometry and perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Vz9r2yWO8&t But if the Earth is a sphere, then we would expect things on the Z axis (straight in front of you), to begin displaying signs of that curvature, by slowly dropping distant objects with that curvature at a predictable rate. Which you already know, it's pretty obvious stuff. Several of the sources I shared above make observations of this dropping, and all of them match with the math that is accurate. So it does occur, we see it visually and it matches with predictions. If the Earth were flat, then our math would not match with observation. If the Earth were flat, then thousands of feet would not go missing from the base of mountains, for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
So your argument here doesn't really hold up well, because it doesn't have evidence in support of it. You're claiming there is no visual curvature, but I've shared several examples that show that this claim is false. So you've offered no real rebuttal that's backed with evidence, only empty conjecture and ignorance because I don't think you really took a look at anything I shared. Feel free to take a look at any of those observations I shared above and absorb the info a little better and then offer me some counter evidence.
Second, a measurement can be taken in a number of different ways, all you've done here is denied that fact, because you feel personally that the only true measurement is one that we take physically by traveling to each point and touching it. It means you've decided to limit yourself and ignore the other methods you absolutely can use to make accurate measurements. If scientists and engineers thought like this, much of the technology that you enjoy today would not exist. Mankind has to get clever sometimes, and it has, you can measure the radius of Earth using the Sun's shadows and the surface....we benefit nothing by ignoring this clever method. You can do it with any sphere you hold in your hand, shining light upon it's surface, sticking sticks into that surface and then measuring the shadow angles...you absolutely can use this measure derive the radius of that sphere with great accuracy, so what makes you think we could not do the same with our Earth? And that's just one method as I mentioned, we physically measure it again every time an Earthquake strikes, and we measure how long the S and P waves take to travel through the Earth to rely stations on the other side of the planet. It's interesting stuff seismology, give it a look sometime, we can learn a lot about the shape and composition of our Earth, through studying the seismic waves that pass through the Earth on a daily basis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA&t=180s
All you've done here is developed ways to ignore valid evidence. So these are just arguments from ignorance, not much more. You are limiting yourself to a very short range of methods of observation, and again, if scientists and engineers limited themselves in the same way, we wouldn't have much of the technology you see around you today.
If I take 2 cakes away from YOU, do YOU still have 4 cakes? No, you only have 2, yes the other cakes still exist physically but YOU do not have 4, YOU have 2. If you were to eat 2 of those cakes, do you still have 4 cakes? No, you only have 2. It's the context that matters in a question like that...ignore the context and you will reach a false conclusion. We can not achieve much with ignorance, and that is all Flat Earth has taught you to do...ignoring the details that don't fit what you WANT to be true. Ignorance is not an argument I'm afraid and we can't advance further with that fallacious manner of thinking. Math is a very useful tool and we use it to build the modern world. All you're doing is finding ways to convince yourself that these things don't matter...while at the same time reaping the benefits of all of that work.
There is no argument against math, your computer does not run on magic...it runs on mathematical algorithms. The same math that we can absolutely use to make observations of curvature with.
Please offer counter evidence, not ignorance and empty conjectures. Ignorance is not an argument, it may fool some people to think that it is...but in truth you're just teaching yourself how to limit yourself.
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 False, flight simulators have to account for the Coriolis effect which is directly caused by both the Earths shape and its rotation. Pilots physically have to adjust their tail rutter to account for Coriolis and cross winds created by rotation, if they don't, then they will drift off course. SOME flight simulators don't require they account for Coriolis, because some flight simulators are more basic and are not specifically teaching for keeping a heading, so they simplify it a bit when they don't require it. Here's an actual pilot explaining how pilots adjust for Coriolis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYAfHW0I8&t=36s Flight simulators would need to account for this, if they are going to teach pilots how to stay on their heading and adjust for it.
Train tracks are not one continuous piece of metal, they are links, like a chain. You can't wrap a solid straight piece of metal around a sphere, but you sure can wrap a chain around one pretty easily. It takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on a sphere at our scale, each rail tie is about 2 meters in length, do you honestly think there couldn't be a minute angle of difference occurring between each link? All a train track has to do is keep equiopotential distance from center of gravity and a train will roll just fine along its surface. This requires you understand a bit more about gravity, but there is no trouble here as you seem to think.
You'll have to be more specific with this conversion you're claiming they do. Can you provide an example that better articulates your point? Topography gets misunderstood by flat Earth quite a bit, so I just want to make sure I know exactly what you're referring too before I offer any further rebuttal.
Talk to a geodetic surveyor sometime, they don't just measure topography, they also measure curvature. As this video I shared earlier helps to demonstrate pretty clearly. https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3163
1
-
@tigerboy4516 No, it proves that YOU don't know shit. You've cherry picked that from the summary section of a flight aeronautics manual/research paper. There is a structure to how those papers are written and you are taking those words literally, when that is not what a summary section is for. Summary sections are not for making statements or for stating a conclusion, they are for letting the reader know which variables will be included in the math/explanation to follow. That is why they usually word it with wording like "ASSUMING", it is to simplify the math and remove any variables that will not effect what they are about to solve for...but they have state that very clearly to the reader in the summary section, so that they know what variables will be included and what variables will not.
A great example you probably find any aeronautics manual, is in any section that has to do with the vehicles wind resistance capacity. You don't require the variables of Earths shape and motion, when trying to solve for many problems of wind resistance, so they let the reader know that these variables are not going to be included in the math for that section. So they state it...very clearly, so the reader knows...which is why that phrasing is found pretty often in manuels/research papers concerning flight. Your error here is in taking those words literally...and then giving it no further thought.
So it's just more ignorance, all you've done is skimmed the paper and looked for the words that support a bias...and then ignored everything else. YOU do not know how to read or interpret those papers, so YOU have reached a false conclusion due to that lack of knowledge and understanding...and thanks to your bias, you now don't listen when others attempt to point these things out to you.
This is called quote mining...removing words or phrases from their original context and then applying them to an empty made up conjecture that supports your bias. It is the very opposite of objective truth seeking...it is confirmation bias.
You are a layman, who doesn't know much about how the scientific world operates, and so con men have used those gaps in your knowledge and exploited them against you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Boy...you haven't taken a look at anything I've shared yet have you. That last video was an actual marksmen...explaining and demonstrating the importance of factoring Coriolis into your shots. He even mentions that those marksmen who do not factor Coriolis, will always be slightly off if they do not factor it...he said his company receives hundreds of calls from marksmen who can't figure out why their drop data is off. Accounting for Coriolis effect, fixes this...which he demonstrates pretty clearly. So are you really going to argue with actual marksmen on this? Alrighty then...
There is physics you're not factoring here in your jumping argument, you are either ignoring it or not aware of it. Coriolis effect is caused due conservation of momentum versus the difference in angular velocity at differing rates and positions of that rotation. When you jump straight up, you're not moving into a differing system of motion, you're conserving the momentum of the position you're jumping in...and you're also not up for long enough to make any significant difference...least of all 5 feet. A bullet at 1000 yards is in the air for close to 30 seconds, and Coriolis only effects it by a few inches...so do you really think the few seconds you take to jump is going to move you 5 feet? If you ignore conservation of momentum (the first law of motion), then yes, you probably would...but what have we learned about ignorance today? It's not an argument.
You're ignoring conservation of momentum...which is what causes Coriolis in the first place, so you should be aware of these variables if you're going to argue against them.
Again, it's a false comparison, and it's just another argument from ignorance. Ignoring variables to help confirm a bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Round and round we go...I just wish for once I was talking to a rational mind...sigh. Whether it's gravity, or electromagnetism, or density (as Flat Earth claims) that causes the accelerating motion of matter towards Earth, it doesn't change the fact that you still missed/ignored that variable in your rant about conservation of momentum not applying to objects in flight. Things still fall...that is undeniable, it is an accelerating motion that does occur and everybody knows it occurs, and yet you ignored it anyway. So you're just deflecting the argument whenever you lose a position (which has been all of them), and I'm tired of your running around and dodging the points...it's the same with every Flat Earther, no answers, just endless questions, like a toddler that always asks why until they're blue in the face. Eventually you reach the fringes of known science, which is bound to happen, we don't know everything and that's fine, science is happy to admit when they don't know something. But the shape of the Planet...this is not one of those things. The geometry of Earth is undeniable...whether you understand how Coriolis, gravity, conservation of momentum works, is irrelevant, to the mountains of evidence that verifies the geometry as spherical.
Let's focus please, I'll share this again http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment Now explain to me why you feel this is not a valid observational experiment of curvature. It's your "geometric horizon" that you keep asking for, in a pretty clear experiment and I've shared this and many others already...so you just let me know why you feel this does not qualify.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tigerboy4516 The whole experiment uses a perspective/curvature calculator to render two simulated predictions, one for a Flat Earth and one for a Globe, both include a perspective calculation...it absolutely factors perspective, so just more ignorance from you. Here's a free copy of the program they used to render the pre-calculated simulations. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator You'll notice the perspective grid right away, that you can easily edit with the sliders. Go ahead and slide the orange slider for the object...and pay attention to how its angular size grows and shrinks by distance. Below the sliders you can even switch it to a Flat Earth simulator and do the same.
It also has an entire section on refraction...and it's pretty clear if you actually looked at it, it's pretty much the entire bottom half of the study. Here's a couple images from that section on refraction. https://ibb.co/njvNmjL Not sure how you missed it...unless of course you didn't really bother to look, in which case...more ignorance.
I agree, refraction absolutely does need to be factored, thankfully they did, making several observations over several different refraction index's AND pre-calculating by how much the images would distort given each refraction index for that observation.
I mean...thanks for trying, but it's just more ignorance I'm afraid. Look it over again and pay attention this time, perspective and refraction are included variables. You aren't going to falsify anything with further ignorance.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 That's the trouble with Flat Earth, it's only a "real world result" if it supports your bias. All other experiments and observations to the contrary are invalid, on the soul reason that they don't confirm what you want. My observation was ALSO a real world result observed in nature, and what you offered me in reply this time, that was not much of a rebuttal to my observation and it far from falsified anything. You basically just said "math is dumb", then moved on to an observation of your own without properly falsifying my observation. So...deflection, again.
I've gone through lots of long distance observations with Flat Earthers, and it's always the same, either the math used is incorrect, or the figures were fudged (wrong heights, distances, angles, refraction index, etc.). The funny part is, they never think the error could be theirs...that's why peer review is so very important in science, which is what we're doing here now. But I always give the benefit of the doubt until I get to take a closer look, peer review goes both ways, which is why I don't mind hearing you out, just wish there was less bias and ignorance. I'll take a look at your video when I'm up again.
But you're not off the hook, you have not falsified my observation yet, so it still stands as a valid experiment that demonstrates the curvature of the Earth. I'm just trying to keep things focused for now, I'll answer your questions on gravity once we've got that geometric horizon you keep asking for.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 It's always pretty rich when Flat Earthers call people "close minded". As if we all should just listen to you blindly and without question...would you? Especially when Flat Earth science is not used in the framework of ANY applied science today. I'm listening to you, but I also know exactly where you're going wrong, so I point those errors out, I'm not just going to ignore them, because you start insulting me with buzz words designed to do nothing but rattle me. Save that rhetoric for the suckers it actually works on. You on the other hand, have ignored and dodged everything I've shared and said...not exactly the behavior of one with an open mind, you sure shut that mind pretty quickly once people start challenging your positions and pointing out your errors. Just because you have chosen a side that goes against established knowledge, does not mean you have an open mind tiger boy. An open mind STAYS open and considers when they might be wrong at all times. The mark of true intelligence is being able to entertain new ideas and considering them, without necessarily agreeing with them outright or at all. If you shared any evidence with me that actually had some merit to it, I'd let you know.
Now, I'm a bit busy today, but I'll get around to taking a closer look at your observation later, I don't mind taking a look and if there is any merit to your observation, I will be happy to let you know...but in my experience over the last 3 years of chatting with Flat Earth...they always lie and fudge something somewhere. I've caught them enough now to never trust you at face value.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Alright, so I finally had the chance to look over your observation. Here are some errors I feel he and you have made in this observation. First, the details in your video are quite vague. When I presented you an observation, I gave you an entire scientific research study, with the exact locations, viewing angles, distances, sources, level of refraction, data sets taken, and the math for each observation. All presented in great detail, for anyone to review and even recreate...and your video has 3 minutes of a guy bragging about this being a "globe killer" but not really going into much detail as too how, sure he states why, but as for the details required to verify that claim...he's quite lacking. All he does is claim that the horizon is higher than it should be on a Globe...but offers nothing else, no math to let the viewer know how he reached that conclusion, nothing. If this were to be presented in an actual study for review, it would be labelled inconclusive, almost immediately, because he's done nothing past make an observation and then made a claim about that observation. So basically, this isn't enough to reach a conclusion, it's only enough to form a hypothesis from, nothing more. This is a big problem with Flat Earth, they are conducting sloppy experiments, providing very few details and then they think this is somehow good enough? This isn't how science works...and you people would know that, if you were actually trained scientists.
So if this is such a "globe killer", then why doesn't Flat Earth do more? Why don't they record this observation and do the work required to make it a more conclusive observation?
I also find it odd that you would ask for refraction in my observation...and then completely ignore it in yours. There is clearly a lot of refraction occurring here, so much in fact that the further platform is rising up a bit more than the first...which is pretty normal with high refraction, as seen here again. https://ibb.co/njvNmjL Do you see how in this image, the closer marker remains pretty much where it was, but the further in the distance you look, the higher each object rises due to the increasing level of refraction? This is pretty normal for high refraction, and it happens a lot over large bodies of water where refraction is greater.
Plus, there is a lot missing from the bottom of that second platform, as it should with curvature. If you look at this image here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Platform_Hillhouse%2C_Dos_Cuadras_%2810%29.jpg That is a closer image of that platform. Notice how the whole bottom half is missing in your observation? Where did it go? If you punch the details into this calculator here https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ with normal refraction (now remember, there would be a lot more refraction here because it is over water) at about 1 foot viewing height as he claims, there is about 37.29 feet missing...now if you compare that image to your video, do you notice how much is missing? The entire first deck is gone and the water reaches up to the first support beams for the upper deck, how high do you think that is? About 37 feet? Ya, pretty darn close I'd say. So the math checks out for how much should be hidden due to curvature, where's the flat Earth math?
So I see an observation of some hardcore refraction and the math checks out for curvature. Then I see a claim for a horizon line, that he marks with a red line, but no real indication of this being the actual horizon. That looks more like a lot of heavy mist to me...not so much a horizon, but even if it was, where's the surveying information to help us indicate eye level? Horizon should meet eye level on a Flat Earth, so why isn't there any theodolite information? If you're not familiar with what a theodolite is, it's a surveying tool used to determine how much your eye level has risen from horizon. Furthermore, where's the math that helps us place the Flat Earth horizon and the Globe Earth horizon for comparisons sake?
Also, it would REALLY be nice if we knew the refraction index for that day, seems he's only made this observation on days when the refraction is really high...where are the other data sets? In other words, where are the other observations over varying days, with differing refraction?
All I'm seeing is an optical illusion that is being blown out of proportion, a lot of heavy refraction and looming, and then a group of people jumping on it, reaching rushed conclusions, while making a lot of empty claims.
Is that really how you want science to be conducted? Cause I sure don't.
This is a very sloppy and inconclusive observation, you can't reach a conclusion from what's been provided here. It would also need to be repeated, has it been repeated? Nothing in science gets a pass into plausible until it has been repeated. So I'm just curious, has it? Feel free to share with me any repeats and revisions of this experiment if you'd like. The Bedford Level experiment that I shared, has been repeated, many times...and I can share many more examples. Upon every recreation, the conclusion is always the same, Earth is curving at the rate it should.
Let's look at this a bit from the Flat Earth perspective, does the observation match with a Flat Earth? Well, how exactly does 37 feet of the second platform go missing on a Flat Earth? That is the exact amount that the Globe predicts should be missing, how does that curvature math match with a Flat Earth? On a Flat Earth, none should be missing, you should see the whole platform....so what is occurring here to cause the same amount of missing platform?
Lots of work left to account for in your observation, as it stands now, it's a bit inconclusive. It's a great start and I'll give you this much, the horizon appearing behind the second platform is odd...but refraction and looming cause all sorts of hard to pin down effects, so you'd have to cover every variable to make this a more conclusive observation. As it stands right now, you're ignoring how much of that second platform is missing...why does it match with curvature math predictions?
Either way, it's far from enough to falsify the entire Globe model. We do not reach such sweeping conclusions on single observations. So it's far from a "globe killer". Maybe spend some time on Critical Thinks channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCISF_4OoXm5xF8jNsoJle1g if you'd like to see a few more interesting observations of the horizon...that the Flat Earth hasn't been able to account for.
1
-
@tigerboy4516 Now I'll respond to your last post here.
1. I have shown you several, you have ignored them all. It's not my fault that you're ignorant.
2. We do not know everything about gravity, science is happy to admit that, welcome to the fringes of physics, is there a problem with that? Technically it is not a force, but it behaves like a force, so we can still call it one. No matter how you slice it though, things still fall and everything falls at the same rate. Mass also attracts other mass and at a predictable rate that we have calculated, so these are not things we can just ignore, simply because you have a fantasy you'd like to play out.
3. Go through my observation again...and this time pay attention to all the math that correlates with reality. That whole observation is mathematically verified to match with reality. Also, go through your own observation and this time do the math, why do the platforms go missing at their base and at the rate they should given curvature math? Here's a great calculator to help you out. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator I wish we could go through the refraction math for that horizon line...but they didn't bother to share that information, so we can't...which is typical of Flat Earth, skipping steps they don't feel are necessary, when they absolutely are.
"Your tree of knowledge has not beared any fruits, of yet."
Are you serious? What about EVERYTHING you use in the modern world? Like your computer for example...your car, the electricity that powers both, the electromagnetic signals that send and receive your WiFi data? Good lord you people are just arrogant as fuck...Flat Earth science is not used for anything, flat Earthers have never contributed anything to science, engineering, or navigation...and you're honestly going to tell me that our current knowledge has produced nothing? Have you lived in the modern world long? Look around you, the entire world is built on the science of a Globe Earth...it was one of the first things we solved. This is the biggest flaw in the Flat Earth argument and it's the first red flag we learn about Flat Earth, that tells us that you are not rational people.
You're thinking is very one dimensional and very limiting. Negative values happen for all sorts of things, so we need them in mathematics. Economics is a great example. You don't think you can go into the negatives with money, where you then owe people money? Sure it happens to you all the time. You don't think you could end up owing somebody 2 cakes, if you promise them 4 but only arrive with 2? Which puts you in the negatives. What about negative charges in energy? You do know that there is a positive and negative charge that can be calculated...we kind of require the negative values if we're going to accurately account for that change. What about the pH scale in chemistry, it operates on a plus and minus value that is indicated pretty simply by how much acid or base you add to a solution, 0 being where you've neutralized the solution. So just because YOU don't understand why we have negative values in mathematics, is not an argument against them...it just tells us how little you know.
I'm sorry, but you're just not being rational at all. It hasn't really been much of a debate, because you've done more dodging and deflecting then actually offering rebuttals, or listening and considering anything. I admire the stubborn tenacity of Flat Earth, I do, but when do you stop and realize that you're backing a side that hasn't contributed to anything? You wanna talk about a tree of knowledge that hasn't bared any fruit....look no further than Flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As much as I don’t like to agree with a Flat Earther, KangenAlec is right in that you can’t assume we’re the same by a single observational comparison alone, that’s committing a false equivalence fallacy. However, though we can’t reach a conclusion like that on a single observation, we can include it to the broader model as a small piece of evidence towards the larger conclusion. What Flat Earthers fail to realize, is that science didn’t just conclude the heliocentric model on a single observation, it came to these conclusions after several thousands maybe even millions of observations, that isolated the heliocentric conclusion and falsified all others.
The Heliocentric model fits with all observation made in reality and makes sense of everything, from the geometry to the physics. But...Flat Earthers will likely never realize that, because they stop researching the momentum their bias is confirmed, cherry-picking information and ignoring the details that refute what they’d like to believe. Doesn’t change anything though, because there still is no working model of flat Earth and it’s not used for any applied science today...that’s for a good reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Hubble is a deep space telescope...it was not designed to take pictures of objects like our Earth that are really close to it. That would be like turning your telescope into your bedroom and then trying to focus in on something in your room...it's not gonna work, because that's not what telescopes do...they don't take pictures of things that are very close, they are used to focus light that is very far...it's incredible I have to explain that to an adult. Also, Your claim that no pictures exist of Earth, is an ignorant one...there exists thousands, probably even millions of photos of Earth at this point in time. They're not hard to find either, is your search bar broken or something?
Here is an archive with hundreds of photos of Earth from space, all taken during the various manned missions to deep space. I remember many of these photos from long ago, long before CGI was ever a thing. So take a look at some of these high resolution photos of Earth you can find here, and let me know...how did they fake these in the 70's?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157656739898544
Here is a website that will take you to the Himawari 8 live feed, which is a geostationary satellite in orbit right now that takes a picture of Earth every few minutes.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Here's a directory of the images taken by the DSCOVR satellite, which is another geostationary satellite in orbit right now.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Now here's an interesting one, if you think these are just CGI images they create. Here is a group of hobbyists who build their own radio telescopes and then they use those telescopes to track and pull data from satellites in orbit. The geostationary satellites they focus on here, are known as the GOES 15-17 satellites, which are also weather satellites that take pictures of Earth every few minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t Now they're pulling data from something in the sky...what are they getting these images from, if not actual satellites in orbit?
Here's a neat trick you can do with a lot of these weather satellites as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q What this guy does is pulls data from the Himawari 8 live feed and then compares the cloud cover to his area, to see if his sky matches the photos taken by the satellite. If you live in America, you would need to use the GOES 15-17 satellites for this, but you can do the same thing to confirm the images, and you can do it on any day.
So I'm sorry, but your argument here is pretty weak. It tells me you didn't really bother looking into anything very deep...you likely just nodded and agreed with some hack online who fed you some bullshit, and you ate up every word without question. Stop being so damn ignorant.
1
-
1
-
@eyestoseefe7618 Oh good…gish gallop…when the Flat Earther can’t refute any arguments, just bury a person in mountains of bullshit and call it a day. Classic. 😄
The ground can be both positively and negatively charged…and so by your conclusion, we should be flying upward some of the time. But then you say it’s density eh…so which is it, density or electromagnetic attraction? You have no idea…you just listened blindly to some con man online feed you nonsense, and for some reason you believed them.
Electromagnetic attractions also effect all matter differently, attracting them at different rates…this is a problem, because everything in a vacuum falls to Earth at the exact same rate of acceleration, 9.8 m/s^2. Some materials aren’t affected at all…shouldn’t they be floating? 🧐 You can also negate electromagnetic effects with a faraday cage, or gauss chamber…so why don’t things float when put inside these environments? Again…you’re just slotting in ad hoc bullshit, and calling it a day…you have no idea. 😂
Earth spins at the rate 1 complete rotation every 24 hours. That’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. For comparison, a gravitron ride at your local fair spins at a rate of roughly 24 RPM’s, that’s a HUGE difference. Rotation is what causes centrifugal force, higher rates of rotation are what increases its output. 0.000694 RPM’s is a pretty darn slow rotational rate…hence no significant centrifugal force, so gravity trumps it no problem.
Boy you sure swallowed all that Flat Earth bullshit pretty hard……tell me, have any of these people you learned this from, invented or innovative any technology with their knowledge? Any working models that are actually used in applied science? Can you derive me any new working equations that actually use your understandings as a variable?
No…you got nothin, because Flat Earth is a con….and YOU fell for it. Good job. 👏
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eyestoseefe7618 1038mph is a LINEAR velocity, has very little to do with rotations. When thinking in rotational velocity, we use rotational units, like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Earth takes 24 hours to complete 1 rotation, that’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. So what this means is, that the jet is basically traveling straight at 500 mph…because it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree, which takes your average passenger jet 15 minutes to track. You think you’d notice a rotation that takes 15 minutes to complete 1 degree of difference? 🧐 The Earth takes 1 hour to arc 15 degrees…rotate yourself at the rate of 15 degrees every hour, you think that’s fast?
You are an idiot…that’s the bottom line here. There is so much physics YOU don’t understand. You don’t understand the difference between a linear velocity (mph) and a rotational velocity (RPM’s). There’s a big difference between linear and rotational velocity…you’re not thinking this through very well. If you’d just listen, then MAYBE you’d understand this….it’s basic physics. What’s sad is the village idiots and dumb jocks who didn’t pay attention in school, now have this paranoid assumption that scientists have been lying to them all this time. Meanwhile…scientists are still inventing everything, while you guys are still about a million inventions behind. Gee…I wonder why….doesn’t take much deduction.
I’m sorry simple physics doesn’t make sense to you…but that’s not our problem. If you don’t have the cognitive capacity to understand the difference between a linear and rotational velocity, then you seriously need to stay out of matters of science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elfalte If you want to understand, if you’d like to learn, then keep an open mind. You can verify the second rotation at anytime, with the good enough camera, you can film both rotations from almost anywhere on Earth. You won’t see the pole star unless you’re in that stars hemisphere, but both rotations can both be seen from pretty much anywhere, except the poles.
Just saying, it’s fine if you don’t currently know, but the rest of us do, we’ve seen the second rotation, we’ve confirmed it. If this topic truly interests you, then why not at the very least do some further research on what we’re saying? 🤷♂️
You have questions, we’re just providing answers. We’re not policing anything, we’re just telling you what we know and telling you how you too can know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No...YOU'RE the ones ignoring the science. You hear a story from the media stating that NASA has discovered a planet with an atmosphere that rains harmful gases and then you just go "well that sounds like bullshit" but then NEVER actually LOOK at the science that figured this out! And then you call us ignorant? Did you ever think to maybe try and figure out HOW they learned and acquired this information? Does something like that ever cross your mind?
Well let me educate you, they discovered the chemical composition of atmospheres for far away planets through a method called Spectroscopy. It's a very basic method we've been using for a very long time now, taught in most physics classes, which is used for identifying a gas or molecule, just by observing the light-waves it absorbs or reflects in the visual spectrum. Each molecule in the known universe absorbs a little bit of the electromagnetic spectrum when light passes through or reflects off of them...these create a sort of fingerprint, a pattern in the spectrum that is VERY consistent, and very specific to each molecule, and so we have identified these fingerprints for each molecule, we have tested them in labs over and over again using this method...and now we have a database of identifiable molecules, that we can then use to determine WHAT stars are made of and what the composition of a planets atmosphere is made of...just by taking a closer look at the LIGHT that is reflected back to us from these objects out into space. Through this method, we were able to identify what our very own Sun was made of (mostly Hydrogen and Helium in case you were wondering). This knowledge combined with our understanding of General Relativity and gravity, was how we were able to deduce how the Sun creates its fusion reactions...and wouldn't you know it, we have now successfully created fusion reactions here on Earth and the main ingredient is Hydrogen. And when you fuse two Hydrogen atoms together, it creates Helium...you think that's just a coincidence? Or maybe we know what we're doing?
Of course, the general public doesn't know about this science...you kind of have to have an interest in science to know this stuff...and most people do not have that interest, so they don't know these methods, you people are not even remotely aware of them. So when you hear about these articles reporting on scientific discoveries and break throughs, you just skim through them...and never actually LEARN the science...so of course it all sounds like bullshit to you, you have no background in what these scientists know. Most people just have a very basic understanding of physics they learned in high school...but even then, most people didn't retain any of that knowledge...because they weren't interested. But this knowledge is not off limits to you...heck you live in the information age, learning these things is LITERALLY a few key strokes away!
So I'm sorry, but no, it is YOUR side that doesn't listen and doesn't learn and seems to have no interest in learning. We're listening to your arguments, we're keeping an open mind...but we know where you're going wrong, in fact the majority of people thankfully all see where you're going wrong...so we're not so easily duped by this con job and we're not just going to allow it to fester unchecked and unchallenged. Learn some actual science...I'm not saying that to insult you, anyone can learn this stuff...so maybe stop acting so high and mighty and learn something. Stop pretending like you know more then people who actively STUDY these things for a living! Stop pretending like you know more then experts who dedicate their lives to these things...and accept that they are going to know more about something than you, I should hope they do...they spend a lifetime becoming experts on these topics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are some great pictures of Earth, in high resolution, taken during Apollo 16 mission. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 If you click the "back to albums list" in the top left corner, you'll be taken to directory where you can find hundreds more pictures like these. Just one of many online directories that have archived these photos and others like them.
Now, if you feel these are fake, go ahead and explain how you verified that to be the case...otherwise it's just an empty claim with no evidence supporting it, and we have no reason to believe your conclusion, which makes it empty speculation, not an argument anyone should take seriously. Click on any one of these images and blow them up to max, and then tell me how they faked these. If that's what you believe, then it should be easy to demonstrate how you confirmed that, if not, then it's speculation and nothing more.
Just because you don't now how it's possible to get into space, does not mean everybody else does as well. Your own ignorance and incredulity is not an argument against modern science, it's just plain ol' ignorance and denial. Learn the difference between speculation and actual evidence.
1
-
@xrinnegan "tell me Does the Earth curve when the cameras do a full 360 🙂or does it make a STRAIGHT line across your phone screen ?
"
Ok, so at Earths measured and confirmed scale, how high should we have to travel before curvature becomes apparent? Did you bother to check before concluding Earth was flat? Earth is huge, nobody would argue that and it should also be pretty common knowledge that the closer you are to the surface of a sphere, the flatter it will appear, that's basic spherical and spacial geometry and perspective.
So here's a great simulation that has mocked up a visual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRtuXlDZog First pause it at about 8-9 km, that's about how high a passenger airliner flies. Pretty hard to make out the curve isn't it? Now try doing that without the eye level indicator helping you, and while looking through the haze of our atmosphere. Now pause it again at 30 km, which is about as high as any helium balloon can travel. Still pretty flat, curve is more apparent but still could be confused as Flat if you're not looking close enough, and again...try seeing that curvature through the haze of our atmosphere. Here's a picture from a high altitude balloon. https://c.pxhere.com/photos/c0/48/blue_sky_the_clouds_high_altitude-667070.jpg!d You think you'd see much of anything through all that haze? Good luck.
Truth is, 100,000 feet is still not high enough to really make a clear distinction, that's the reality of things. We are tiny in comparison and 100,000 feet is nothing to the true scale of the Earth. There are examples of clearer skies that have spotted curvature...but they're ignored for some reason by Flat Earth. I wonder why...bias perhaps?
Maybe don't focus so much on things you can't confirm for yourself. Ever seen a sunset before? Of course you have, now how does that work over a Flat Earth exactly? If the Sun is circling above at a very high altitude, higher then we have ever traveled and if it occupy's the same directional sky EVERYWHERE on Earth, wouldn't we expect to see it in the sky 24/7 from anywhere on Earth?
When we model this, yes, that's exactly what we see to be the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t=7s
The sun would never set on a Flat Earth, common sense should have confirmed that for anyone right out of the gate, but I suppose it really depends on what you choose to focus on and my guess is people dabbling in Flat Earth are more interested in the fantasy of the conspiracy, than they are with the objective truth. So maybe spend a little more time questioning the flat Earth model you are looking to support. It's fine to question the status quo, but be careful you're not just being taken on a ride by huxters looking to dazzle you with bullshit. Turn that lens around sometime and question Flat Earth as well...you might learn who the real liars are.
1
-
I agree that most people have not thought about these things before in great depth...but science most certainly has. Flat Earth is not asking anything that has not already been asked from science...they're just reaching the opposite conclusion to be contrarian...and they're doing it, because they don't trust systems of authority anymore. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not how you remain objective, reaching the opposite conclusion, just because it goes against the wisdom of something they don't trust any longer. They have not learned how to remove bias and think objectively and that's their flaw. Science learned a long time ago that people have a bad tendency to chase bias over objective truths, and that's why they introduced the peer review system. Flat Earth doesn't engage in peer review...they don't think it's necessary...and that's where they go wrong. It's fine to question what your told, completely logical in fact, but misinformation is rampant online and so you have to remember to turn that skeptical lens around on EVERYTHING you read. Question Flat Earth, just as much as you question the mainstream...I'm sure you'd agree, you were able to finally see the errors, and I assume that's how you did it. You were successful at remaining objective.
It's great that people are FINALLY taking interest in science...but they have to learn that denial, ignorance, chasing confirmation bias and being contrarian just to spite something they don't trust, these are not how you go about finding real answers. It's how you fall for scams...it's how you get dragged down rabbits holes of bullshit.
I don't really think they are all that smart...they just know a lot about some things most average people do not, because most people don't really ponder these things and haven't learned them yet. Knowledge is not intelligence...you can know a lot of things and still be a fucking idiot. Understanding is intelligence, not just knowing something, but understanding how and why it's right...it's understanding that determines intelligence I feel, and very few Flat Earthers have demonstrated they understand much of anything they repeat verbatim. Most Flat Earthers I have talked with (hundreds at this point), don't really seem to understand much about what they argue about, just little fragments here and there that can fool a person who doesn't know much about physics, astronomy, cosmology...but not actual experts who understand where they're going wrong, in much greater detail.
I'm an artist for a living, I first got into this mess when they tried to argue that perspective causes a sunset...by saying the vanishing point explains a sunset. While they may have learned what the vanishing point is pretty recently...but I've been learning this stuff all my life. I don't just understand how perspective works, I apply that knowledge in the work that I do...I would consider myself a trained expert in optics and perspective at this point, just from years of practice and study on these concepts. I was able to tell right away, that they were misunderstanding vanishing point and bullshitting about it...perspective does not explain a sunset and they are just ramming a square peg into a round hole, by saying that it does. And from there I discovered they do this with EVERYTHING, across the board...they bullshit. They know that generally people are not experts at much of anything, so dazzle them with half truths and fill the gaps in their knowledge with cleverly crafted bullshit and you can convince someone of just about anything. Overload their minds with gish gallop...and bam, not much more required...simple hypnotic methods of suggestion, overload their mind with bullshit, by dumping a bunch of things that APPEAR odd on the surface...and then people start to doubt and that's all they need.
It is a scam...they are conning people. Some of them are really quite intelligent...but most of them only dig as deep as they can to confirm a bias and then they stop...that's how most people operate. Which isn't very intelligent in my opinion. They may know about a lot more things then the average person does...but they do not understand much of any of it, past their bias. That's what I have learned. So they're not really all that intelligent, because they haven't learned how to spot bullshit and gish gallop and bias. They haven't learned yet how to overcome these flaws...so they are just layman, doing what layman do best, chase bias, misunderstand, jump to conclusions, and grossly over estimate themselves.
I admire that people are asking questions though...they are free to do so and it's quite logical, but misinformation is a real problem with the online world right now, so people REALLY have to slow down and take the time to sift through the bullshit...rather then listen to all blindly and without question.
1
-
1
-
That math is a parabolic arc equation...not a curvature calculation. It is missing several variables required to give you an accurate figure for the observation you’re trying to make. It has no variable for height of the observer, arc length, horizon, refraction...It doesn’t represent line of sight, doesn’t tell you where horizon is and doesn’t tell you how much that horizon will block your line of sight. So it’s not the correct math to use here.
Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math for the wrong job, and you will reach a false conclusion...it’s pretty simple. Flat Earth cons people here with a half truth, it’s good enough math for surveyors to use to calculate horizon drop from eye level...but even then, it’s only an approximation, it’s not accurate past about 100 miles. But it absolutely will not calculate a number that represents what is blocked from line of sight by horizon.
Here you’ll find the correct math. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ and here’s a handy calculator that makes use of the formulas found here. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Don’t just listen blindly to what Flat Earth tells you, this math they’ve told you to use is not accurate. Give that math above a try, learn how FE cons people by exploiting the general publics lack of mathematical literacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rainbowwizard1821 I'm always hopeful, but no...in my experience (and I've been doing this a long time now), they don't tend to listen. But every once in awhile, I do help someone and they let me know that I helped them, that makes it worth it. Actually, just the other day, a kid in the 8th grade thanked me for the information I shared and was glad I gave him the opportunity to make up his own mind, rather then shove the facts down his throat. So I do this more for those people, people on the fence who are looking for this information but are met with pure ridicule...which then steers them in the opposite direction. Cause Flat Earth does ask some good questions sometimes...they just don't seem to realize that these are all questions science has already asked and has since solved, so there are answers and they're relatively easy to understand...just not easy to find sometimes.
People tend to double down on their beliefs if you try to force things on them or ridicule them, and this is psychologically proven, so I try to just share the information and just leave it at that. Most of these people have already made up their minds...so I know they won't generally take a look, but I do it more for the people reading these comments who are not so sure just yet and who are just looking for information to help them out. I've learned a lot and have acquired a lot of information on this topic...might as well share what I know and remain optimistic.
That being said...some people are beyond help, there are some rude, ego driven fucks out there who really don't deserve much other then ridicule, so I do have my limits. But he asked for some proof, I have loads of it, might as well give it a shot. At the very least he can't say we don't have evidence anymore...though I know odds are good he probably will still claim that later anyway...but still worth a try.
1
-
1
-
Do any if your questions change the fact that millions of pilots and sailors per day, are successfully navigating around the surface using the globe model to help them do it? No, it doesn’t. Questions are not evidence, they’re great questions, but don’t pretend like questions and unproven hypothesis alone, should in any way sway scientific consensus.
Yes, every physicist today has heard of sonoluminescence. It’s not some hidden knowledge that Flat Earthers dug up, it’s well known. It’s not entirely understood however, many hypothesis exist for how it occurs, but nothing concrete. Of course it’s easily replicated in a lab, so they do know a little about it, but it really hasn’t been tested enough to truly understand the full effect. I understand that many flat Earthers and space deniers claim it’s how stars are made, but they have no evidence or proof of this claim, they’re just making a false equivalence fallacy, it looks like a star so it is. It’s further helped along by the need to confirm a bias, that being the biblical notion of space really being water, the waters above. So bias and a false equivalence, that’s just bad science. They’ll require a lot more before anyone will take the notion seriously. What is understood though, is that Sonoluminescence only lasts for fractions of a second, very hard to maintain for long periods of time.
Gravity is how gas can create pressure next to a vacuum. All gas has mass, so it’s all subject to gravity. So pressure is created the same way stacking anything creates pressure. If you were to stack 100 mattresses (or anything really), would you expect more pressure at the bottom, or near the top of the stack? Obviously the bottom…why is that? Because the bottom is supporting the weight from all the mass above it, being squeezed down upon the bottom. It’s the down part you need to pay attention too. I’m sure you understand how a scale works, you press DOWN upon the scale, to generate force, which creates pressure, that the scale measures as weight. Okay, so if it’s a downward force that generates this pressure on the scale, then how exactly does an object resting on a scale, press down upon the surface, if there’s no force present? This occurs in vacuum as well, so a force is present. Gas is proven to also fall in vacuum, towards Earth. So it is subject to gravity. So it doesn’t take much deduction to realize that gravity is what holds our atmosphere to surface, and creates our air pressure.
Flat Earth insists that this breaks thermodynamics laws, but that’s just an empty claim they like to make, because they know their audience doesn’t know much about thermodynamics…or physics in general, not really anyway. Our atmosphere actually does shed a lot of gas and energy, and the open system allows it to do so. But thermodynamics is being misunderstood and twisted. It has more to do with energy transfer…not so much matter transfer. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, it’s thermal temperature coming to equilibrium with the surrounding air, did the coffee also leave the cup, or was it just the thermal energy? Should be pretty simple, it was just the thermal energy…that’s thermodynamics. Gases have mass, so they are subject to attractive forces, which can slow and contain them. For gases, we use the gas laws, in this case Boyles law, not thermodynamics. But even the gas laws have limitations, because they’re only useful in situations where a volume can be determined. In an open system like Earth, it’s impossible to determine a volume, because the volume of space is infinite. So atmospheric pressure doesn’t use the gas law equations, it uses its own set of equations, that all use gravity in place of a physical container.
So Flat Earth has been lying to you, taking advantage of peoples general lack of understanding in physics, twisting it to favour their bias.
In any case, whether you agree to that or not evidence is still required before any conclusion can be drawn. Butchering physics is not evidence, so don’t let conmen online fool you into thinking it is. You simply can’t conclude there’s a dome above, without tangible evidence to support it. So far, there is no tangible evidence for the dome container many of you believe is up there. If you know of any, feel free to let me know, but I currently do not know of any. Just a rocket that’s speculated to have hit it, but further research determined it didn’t hit a dome, it was just engaging it’s despin mechanism. And operation fishbowl says nothing about a dome, so it’s not evidence either, it’s just misinterpreting the title to fit a bias.
On the flip side, even flat Earth has measured and observed the vacuum of space, they just haven’t realized it yet. I’m sure you’re aware of the many weather balloons they’ve sent up to find curvature…ever notice that they observe a blackness above the blue atmosphere, even surrounding the Sun? Ever notice the balloon also eventually pops…as it’s designed to do after reaching vacuum conditions? This is all evidence that supports the globe conclusion, but you know what they’ve never found? A container. So they’ve measured vacuum above…how is that possible if a container is present? Shouldn’t there be gas pressure between atmosphere and dome?
Also, if you really think about it further, you’ll realize it’s actually the flat Earth that breaks thermodynamics laws. If a solid container of water (or some other substance) exists above, then how does all the new gas created at surface every single day escape? Or the thermal energy for that matter. The Sun provides a constant stream of new energy into the system, our model allows for this energy to be released, as well as any new gas over time…but wouldn’t we expect the heat and pressure to increase substantially over time, with a closed system? I’m sure you’re aware what happens to a container of compressed gas when it’s held over a flame for a long period of time.
Not an evidence in and of itself, but I don’t think your model is as ironclad as you seem to think. If you’re going to apply thermodynamics to our model…don’t forget to hold your model to the same standards.
Anyway, I’ll address the other points in a separate comment, this is already long enough.
1
-
Oxygen is not the only way to sustain a thermal energy state. The Sun is not like any fire we create or observe here on Earth, it is a nuclear reaction, more specifically a Fusion reaction. This keeps the Sun in a plasma state…plasma is not the same as fire, it is not created the same way, nor is it sustained the same way. So you’re making a false assumption.
We know the Sun is a nuclear fusion reaction for a few reasons. First of all, ever observe the Sun with a solar filter lens? It’s clearly a mass of compressed plasma…it has shape and form, with features on its surface like sunspots, that are cooler and remain for hours, sometimes days at a time. Using spectroscopy, we can identify the gases that make up its structure, the two gases that are most prevalent, are hydrogen and helium. When you fuse two molecules of hydrogen, you produce helium, this has been done in fusion reactors. In fact, by studying the Sun, we’ve been able to deduce the science of nuclear fusion reactions. Hydrogen gas is the key to nuclear fusion…and that’s exactly what spectroscopy has identified on the surface of the Sun. Another key ingredient is gravity. The Suns mass creates enough gravity, to force molecules of hydrogen together. We use Einsteins relativity, to help determine how much pressure is required to create a fusion reaction…it’s also why recreating fusion is so difficult, because we obviously can’t scale down the Suns gravity, and even if we could, it would tear the Earth apart. So scientists find work arounds…it’s been very difficult, but they have recreated it in reactors, which does verify the science is accurate. Every fusion reactor creates a vacuum…so it burns just fine without oxygen.
Rockets use liquid oxidizers, like liquid oxygen actually. Did you know you can put oxygen in a liquid state? No…it’s not water, it’s just oxygen cooled to a point where it becomes liquid…you can actually recreate liquid oxygen, anyone can, it’s not illegal to purchase the tools and materials required. Once in a liquid state, it can be used as an oxidizer in vacuum, and it will work just fine. It’s just chemistry man, and pretty simple chemistry at that.
Rockets actually thrust better in vacuum. They don’t push off of the air, they don’t use the air in any capacity…they’re not classified as aircraft for that reason. They create thrust by using Newton’s third law of motion; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s the same physics that causes a gun to recoil. Essentially the rocket pushes off the inertia from the gas, and the gas pushes off of the inertia of the rocket. They push off of each other, the gas going one way, the rocket going the other. They work better in vacuum, because there’s no drag force to slow them down.
Law of mass density? Never heard that before, so you’ll have to be more specific on this point. I’m not aware of any “law of mass density”. There’s the ideal gas laws, is that what you’re referring too? There’s the theory of buoyancy and density displacement, is that what you’re referring too? Some more context would be helpful, I don’t want to assume to much.
A toroidal field is just a magnetic field, generated by a magnet/electromagnet, that’s shaped like a ring or donut. Did you know that nothing of the sort is detected on Earth’s surface? Only at its core, do we detect a toroidal field, which is consistent with a liquid iron outer core spiralling around a solid iron core. Please explain your point though. What relation do you feel this has to Flat Earth? I can only assume you think the outer ring of the South, creates a toroidal field that keeps our Sun and Moon in orbit above us, but that’s all I can assume for now. Please feel free to provide further context, most flat Earthers I’ve spoken with (and it’s been hundreds now) don’t really discuss any particular model, so it’s rare to get any info from them on this point. So perhaps you can elaborate further.
The noble gases light up when introduced to a Tesla coil, differently for each gas. Are you suggesting our Earth operates like a giant tesla coil, that illuminates pockets of gas in the firmament? What about Sonoluminescence? That’s caused by sound waves, not electromagnetic or static fields. And again, you run into the same problem of forcing your assumptions towards a conclusion, before it can be tested or verified, before any solid evidence can be linked to your conclusion. Though again, I don’t want to assume your point too much, feel free to provide more context.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kristine7893 Well, I'll agree this video could have done a bit more to let the viewer know what to expect in the content, but then YouTubers care more about clicks and views than anything, so making the videos more vague and generalized is key to that success I think...and either way, no video is perfect, somebody is always gonna gripe. But he wasn't wrong, those experiments are examples that Flat Earth use, that are inconclusive and should not be stated as evidence for either position...yet Flat Earth uses them still anyway...and it works. Which raises a red flag for me personally, that Flat Earth is not always very honest...in fact in my experience, they're quite bias in their approach and they use a lot of slight of hand and misdirection like this to get people interested. It's deceptive, which doesn't sit well with me.
Anyway, If you'd like to learn more about why those two experiments (level on a plane, Bedford level) are inconclusive, I can explain in better detail. Please don't tell me to "do the research" I've done the research FE has asked, been doing it for a little over 3 years now, I know this argument inside and out. I have concluded the Earth is a sphere, the evidence is overwhelming for that conclusion. If you'd like to pick my brain for some information on the opposite perspective, feel free to ask, I don't mind sharing.
Physics and geometry are where I put my focus on this topic. Modern scientific evidence I can verify myself, is more relevant to me then what did or didn't happen in ancient times, but to each their own. I do try to remain respectful of other peoples opinions as best I can.
Anyway, I do tend to ramble, so I'll leave it at that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patdriver1001 No, science is often not easy. It takes care and patience and diligence and if you rush it and skip steps and ignore variables...then you absolutely will reach a false conclusion. That is a fact, not an opinion and it's well understood in the science community. Flat Earth makes many errors and then when we attempt to point those errors out, we're met with arrogance and hostility, rather then an open ear that is curious to any possible errors and willing to listen objectively. Peer review is very important in science, it weeds out errors, it's probably the most important step in science, but Flat Earth doesn't care, you people would rather stew in ignorance, than listen and learn where you've possibly gone wrong. You take it as an attack, and that's not the intention, science is just looking for objective truths. It doesn't care about your beliefs, all it cares about is finding answers, so we can use that knowledge for applied sciences and engineering...we can't do anything with bias, lies and dishonesty, so we have to be objective, we're not trying to attack you personally...but if you hold a belief that science has proved false, then I'm sorry, but we don't care...we can't do anything with fantasy.
So lets go through your gravity explanation, cause you seem to think you have it all figured out. Your claim is that it's just density, a common claim of Flat Earth, let's take a closer look at that then. When you drop something it falls, which means it's moving, it's being put into motion, but nothing is put into motion without a force being applied to it, this is a basic law of motion, it's the first law of motion. So what force is putting that dropped apple into motion? And why is that direction always down towards Earth? Density isn't a force, it's just a property of matter, it is how much matter occupy's a certain space. So it's not a force, so how does density alone put the apple into motion towards the ground? Any bright ideas?
You're not really thinking about this very well...WHAT is causing that downward motion to occur? Motion is pretty simple, it always requires a force be applied, or else nothing is put into motion. So what force is causing that downward motion? Density is not a force, so why would you think this is all you require? You do realize that density and buoyancy are already included in the theory of gravity right? All you've done in your explanation is removed the force that starts the motion...and then called it done. Do you really think that's how science operates? Your explanation does not answer the question for WHY and HOW things fall DOWN. You have not answered the DOWN question, why down? It's a simple question, density does not answer it on its own, it ignores it completely.
So what causes that downward motion? Why did the apple fall down towards Earth? Why down? That's what you need to answer. The best answer I usually get from Flat Earth is "it just does"...well, that's great, but we can't do anything with "it just does". If science concluded everything with "it just does", then we'd be in the bush still trying to figure out how fire works. The job of science is to go deeper then that, you may not like the answers, but science doesn't care...it just cares about objective truths, while you are just looking for ways to bolster a bias belief that you have...even if it means denying what science has concluded. That's not how science works...that's how you do science wrong. Confirmation bias will always lead you to a false conclusion.
No, you people are not solving any big problems, you're just arrogantly ignoring science so you can keep a fantasy alive. It's very obvious to the rest of us that's what is really occurring, it's nothing but confirmation bias and ignorance...and it will get us nowhere.
The proof is in the pudding, you are using a computer right now to access this message....hate to tell you this, but science made that, not your bible. You can kick and scream and whine all you like, but at the end of the day, your bible didn't solve these problems that helped make your computer possible...science did, the very same science you now claim you know more about, while at the same time likely having no clue how your computer even works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trouble is, what tool would you use to measure that distance between the two lasers? Also, lasers are prone to refraction and diffraction at distances, which will distort their plum line significantly, making it even harder to accurately measure...in fact I think it would do enough to render the experiment inconclusive. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, on paper it's quite clever, but even if you used something other than lasers, I think you'd still have a really hard time measuring that distance, I'm really not sure how you'd accomplish it. It sounds simple on paper, but I don't think it'd be an easy one to actually perform. Also, I think there's just too much room for error in an experiment like that, errors that Flat Earthers sure wouldn't bother to account for.
1
-
@nicholasvecchiola4964 Hmm, so you're gonna try and hit a small beam of light...with another small beam of light, from miles away? Good luck with that...but on top of that, I'm not even sure a laser hitting another laser is going to be able to return a measurement...I don't think they work that way. But maybe, I honestly don't know, but from my understanding laser positioning has to hit something solid to give a reading. But what I do know, is that lasers refract (bend) and they diffuse (spread out), the farther they travel through atmosphere...it's unavoidable in atmosphere, because that light is bouncing off of the molecules of air and being scattered. So this will render your readings inconclusive, because if the laser bends and spreads out, I think it would be difficult to calculate exactly how much, which would make the math a nightmare for anyone trying to control all the variables. That's of course assuming you even can take a distance measurement by shooting a laser at another laser.
Idk man, there are a lot easier experiments you can do. Here's a good one. It's basically the Eratosthenes experiment, done way better and with more data sets. If you're pressed for time, just watch the last 2 mins where he shares the results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=462s
1
-
A roller coaster is constantly changing its forward velocity, going up, down, sideways, etc, which creates a centripetal force, that you experience as G force. A passenger jet flys at 500 mph, yet you can get up and walk around the cabin and experience no G force. What does this tell us? That we don’t actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. The Concorde flew even faster, look it up, it flew at roughly 2000 mph, and you can find on board video of stewardesses serving drinks at that velocity. The difference is that passenger jets maintain a constant forward trajectory…a roller coaster is not, it’s making several rapid movements in multiple directions, it’s almost never maintaining a steady forward velocity, and nothing about it is gradual. It’s very different from Earth. Earth takes 24 hours to complete 1 rotation, that’s 1 degree every 69 miles, which it achieves roughly every 8 minutes…so it’s really not changing nearly as rapidly as the roller coaster is, it’s a very slow change in angular velocity over a much larger time frame. Centripetal force is a product of angular velocity change per second…a roller coaster changes angular velocity almost instantly, Earth does it gradually over time…hence why you don’t feel that motion.
Do your own research…but when you do, be sure not to skip physics 101. The laws of motion are some of the easiest laws of physics to understand and test in today’s world. They can help you here with these kinds of questions, so now you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, people believe the Earth is Flat, because they do BAD research, listening to CON MEN, lie to them and feed them bias information that feeds their paranoia and confirmation bias. You are layman doing what layman do best, chase bias, jump to conclusions, over react and grossly over estimate yourselves. I have been researching Flat Earth for a little over 3 years, I am more of a Globe Earth believer today, then I ever was before, because now I understand the science and history of how we reached that conclusion, far better then I ever did before. I was able to falsify every claim made by Flat Earth and I still do...so what do you want me to conclude? What you're basically asking is that I shut my mind off to objective research and just blindly accept Flat Earth, you made that clear with this statement here "If you still believe the globe in 2020 you did not do any research what so ever. If you claim you did, you did not do your research with an open mind." Well...that's a great way to convince yourself not to listen to any counter arguments alright...doesn't sound very open minded to me if you're just going to conclude we're just wrong right out of the gate...no discussion or sharing of ideas required. :/
Believe it or not, but just because somebody reached a different conclusion to your own, does not mean they didn't do the research and keep an open mind. YOU have to consider the very real possibility that YOU are the one in error, not the model. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you should consider that possibility, as we all should and as you ask of us. Just because YOU couldn't falsify the Flat Earth claims, doesn't mean the rest of us couldn't. That is why we have peer review, to weed out any errors or bias from the researcher. Flat Earth ignores peer review...for a very good reason, because it fails peer review, every single time. You are likely chasing a bias, seeking only the information that helps to bolster that bias. That's all I've ever seen from Flat Earth...and then any attempts to point those errors out, is met with hostility, rather then open discussion. Which means your minds aren't really open anymore...cause you're not listening to any rebuttals or counter information, your minds now are more shut then they have ever been.
"you dont see any curvature"
Earth is massive, we wouldn't expect to unless we're testing or measuring it directly. Here's some examples of people testing and measuring it.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9w4KtHxZ68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIOs-PzNIZU&t=3190s
"you dont feel any spin"
Learn the science of motion, the Laws of Motion, Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion and you will understand WHY we don't feel any spin. As a bonus, actually LEARN how centrifugal forces work, and you will further understand WHY we don't notice that inertia. The short answer I will give you, because we do not actually feel motion itself, we feel inertia that is created during sudden or rapid CHANGE in motions. Earth is a steady system of motion in ALL of its motions, with only slight changes that occur gradually over several months, so nothing we will ever notice. This is well understood in physics and very easy to demonstrate and verify for yourself. Learn the physics of how motion actually works, then you will understand the motions of the planet...or don't, and continue to be conned by Flat Earth.
But we have measured the rotation of the Earth, despite the claims made by Flat Earth that we haven't. Here is a short sample of the many ways we have detected and measured Earths rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=21s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=140s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=534s
Just a short sample things, but I hope these help to illustrate to you pretty clearly, that we absolutely have measured rotation. The Earth is rotating, it is verified science...so what would you prefer they conclude? Would you prefer they just ignored this stuff? Like how Flat Earth does...
You're not wrong to question what you're told, it's very logical in fact...the trouble is you're not REALLY keeping your minds open, when people try to point out errors to you. You close your minds off the moment anyone tries to point out errors...just concluding that they are wrong, without giving any reason for WHY they are wrong. Which is a very common thing to do...when YOU are actually wrong. If you're not willing to discuss things openly, then your mind isn't really open anymore, it's shut and you now live in an echo chamber of information, only seeking information that bolsters a bias. I will listen to any rebuttals YOU have for ANYTHING I have shared with you right now. THAT is how you keep a truly open mind, by LISTENING to your opposition at all times and engaging with them and respecting their input. I admire that Flat Earth is out there questioning the science the rest of us has moved on from, I truly do admire that, because THAT is the true krux to science, falsification, leaving nothing off the table for debate, no matter how solid it appears to be. That I admire...but you're being VERY irrational, when you won't listen to peer review, and consider the possibility that YOU could be the one in error...not the model. If Flat Earth wants to be taken seriously, then it has to open back up to discussing with its opposition, rather then closing it out and declaring victory before any consideration is given. That's how you keep an open mind and that's how proper science is done.
1
-
@fredrikhamar4374 "it is a shame others are going to read this and be like "yeah we measured the earth spin" when in fact it is a blatant lie from your side."
I know this might be prying at this point, but here's a chance to have an open discussion if you're willing. Explain to me exactly how they lie about these measurements. I'm more then willing to take a look at anything you have to share, so this is a chance to show me and anyone else who might be reading these but I'm sorry, I can't do much with an empty claim. Currently, I am aware of experiments that we can do and of the science that we do have, that has measured the rotation of the Earth. You have made a claim that these are just lies. Ok, so explain to me WHY you feel they are just lies. That's how a discussion works. I can't be convinced of anything if you're side is not willing to open up and share and discuss things with me. So feel free, otherwise all I can conclude is what I already have, that we have measured the rotation of the Earth.
Yes, I will challenge anything you have to point out, but that's because I don't just listen to what I'm told blindly. I question it first, until I can't anymore. I have been questioning flat Earth, you should too...that's how you remain objective, by questioning BOTH sides of an argument, not just one. You do that by talking openly with the opposition, they can help you see what you might be missing. That's why I enjoy talking with people of different opinions, so that I can LEARN their perspective and possibly LEARN what I might be missing. I can't do that, if they won't talk to me and explain HOW and WHY they have reached their conclusions. I hope that is reasonable to you. So feel free. I won't pester you anymore though if you're unwilling, so again, have a good day.
1
-
@fredrikhamar4374 Thanks for the reply back, I know you don't exactly trust me as of yet, so that was asking a lot, but now I can offer a counter position and we might actually have a discussion now, so thank you for the response. I have listened to your position, now all I ask in return is that my position be listened too and considered as well. You don't have to agree with anything I'm about to share, and I know you likely won't, all that I ask is that you stay open to it.
No, the Michelson Morely experiment was a test done to find the Aether, not to verify or falsify rotation. It failed to do so, the experiment was concluded inconclusive, that is its official standing in science, and upon all peer review over the years, it has remained that way. So one of the many possible reasons postulated for why it failed, was because the Earth wasn't moving. The trouble is, they had mountains of other research already that proved that it was moving. So they couldn't make that conclusion for that reason. So it was either the Aether doesn't exist, or the Earth isn't moving...but you see there was no evidence for the Aether at all, just a hypothesis that failed, while the motion of the Earth was well documented and well tested...so one possible conclusion HAD evidence, while the other did not. In that day, they had astronomy observations, used to predict solar and lunar eclipses down to the second and square mile, that USE the motions of the planet and its shape and scale in the equations for accuracy. Mathematicians and astronomers were already using the equations of planetary motion to make several predictions with, all of which use the motion of the planet in their framework. As for physical experiments, they had Foucault Pendulums (which I will address in a moment, because you mentioned them as well) and they had the gyro compass, which uses the rotation of the Earth to function. Here's further information on the gyro compass and how they work, using the Earths rotation and the natural precession of mechanical gyros, to always point to true North.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=13s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvO4froSGSc&t=915s
And that's just the ones I'm aware of...I'm sure there were many more. I'm not a trained scientist and have never taken a secondary education in the sciences, I've just always loved physics, its a casual hobby of mine when I'm not doing my real job, which is book illustration and game design...so I'm no slouch in physics, I was reading and studying these experiments LONG before I ever stumbled on Flat Earth.
So you see how that works? One possible conclusion had no evidence...while the other did. So what did you want scientists to conclude exactly? Either way, this experiment did not prove either conclusion, it was inconclusive, so that means...it can not be used to support either conclusion. To do so, would be bias. You apply a bias whenever you use the Michelson Morely to help support your arguments. Until this experiment can be improved to actually render a verified conclusion, then it will remain inconclusive...and therefore can't be used to support any position.
Flat Earth fails here, because they apply their bias to this experiment. They make a false claim about this experiment, claiming that it was an experiment to test the motion of the planet...and it wasn't, that was never it's goal and it was inconclusive, so that means it can not be used to support any conclusions...that's what inconclusive means, it is a failed experiment. So Flat Earth can't use the experiment and neither can the Globe. Every other attempt to find the Aether, has also reached the same conclusion, inconclusive...meaning it has no conclusive evidence supporting it.
It's actually not hard to reproduce the Michelson Morely experiment, it's a simple laser interferometer set up...you can buy kits for this online, very cheap stuff and easy to get today. What's difficult are the calculations and reading the data...most people don't know how to do that sort of stuff, cause you're testing a light wave interference...and it's a lot of data you have to analyze...and if you have no idea what you're doing or what you're looking at, it might be tricky, but again, there are kits and tutorials online that can walk just about anyone through the steps.
I have more to mention, so I'll continue in a second comment. Thanks for listening if you've made it this far so far. Feel free to offer any counter arguments or point out any information you feel I have overlooked. If you feel I have lied about anything here, also feel free to point them out and show my exactly why you feel that way.
1
-
@fredrikhamar4374 Now you mentioned Foucault pendulums, stating that it can't verify rotation, because other objects would be effected by this motion as well. What you're missing though is that they are...it's called the Coriolis effect (I won't patronize you, you've heard of it) and it effects everything that's moving over the Earth, free from the surface for long distances or periods of time. That's the exact effect that is occurring in the pendulum, that's why it rotates, it's really just an experiment for Coriolis effect, and it also does happen to many other things as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=71s The reason it doesn't appear to effect planes, is because planes are not like a pendulum, bullet, or hurricane, that has no means to resist this force. Planes have engines, wings, rutters...PILOTS, mechanical moving parts and people, that keep them on their heading, adjusting their vector path constantly, resisting such tiny directional shifts, that would otherwise be caused by Coriolis. Objects that do not have any means to resist Coriolis, things that don't have engines, wings, pilots, will succumb to that force and be led by it. Planes are not the same as a pendulum, so that's where the error in thinking is here.
This experiment DOES verify rotation and it is conclusive evidence and it is VERY easily reproduced and all peer review of this test concludes the same thing. You can even use this experiment, to accurately calculate your latitude, because the pendulum doesn't just rotate in a specific direction according to your hemisphere, it also rotates at a certain RATE of rotation, given your latitude. Here's a break down of how you can recreate this experiment AND use it to calculate your latitude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=143s
Foucault Pendulums though are NOT the only way we have measured rotation. Ring Laser Gyros have done it, Gyro compasses do it, heck you can take a simple weight and scale to the equator and measure the centrifugal force there that negates 0.3% of gravity at the Equator, making things slightly lighter, there are TONS of different ways now that we have verified the Earths rotation. Here is a person who has done that scale experiment I just mentioned, give it a watch sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=536s
"for example an aeroplane should reach its destiantion much faster when flying against the rotation of the globe, it doesnt."
Now this is different from Coriolis and actually doesn't have much to do with pendulums....not entirely anyway. It is conservation of momentum that causes Coriolis, but your question here is a bit of a different Flat Earth observation having to do with conservation of momentum as well, just in a different way. A plane doesn't speed up or slow down when traveling with or against rotation for one simple reason, because of conservation of momentum. I'm sure you've heard this term before, if you've been researching this topic long enough, it's one of the Laws of Motion, the first Law in fact, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an apposing force or mass. Demonstrated quite clearly in this quick animation. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Notice how this guy keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though the tractor is pulling the trampoline out from under him as he's in the air. How does he keep up with the forward motion of the trampoline, while he's in air? Simple, because of conservation of momentum. He started jumping while in motion with trampoline, so he now conserves the forward momentum of that inertial reference frame of motion, he's now moving relative too it, moving with it.
A plane does the same thing, always conserving the momentum of the Earths rotation, in both directions, with rotation and against it. That's how relative motion works...and it's VERY well established science at this point.
Here's a simple experiment you can do anytime, that answers your plane problem above. Toss an object around the next time you're in a long moving vehicle, a bus, a train, a plane, doesn't matter really. Best done with a friend and plane is great, because a plane goes 500 mph at cruising altitude...which is an incredible speed. So throw the object to your friend in the direction of the vehicles motion, and notice that it doesn't slow down while in air. Now throw it against the vehicles forward motion and watch as it doesn't speed up. No matter what direction you throw the object, it will not speed up or slow down or fall behind...it will behave as though you were throwing it while stationary. That's how relative motion works...it creates what appears to be a stationary system. That's why it's so hard to verify motion...because motion is relative, but these are just a few of the simple ways to verify this science to yourself. So don't take my word for it, try this experiment sometime.
Now, a common counter argument is "well, the Earth is not like the inside of a plane", but it actually is, because the air in a plane (or any moving vehicle) is moving with the plane. The same is true with the air of the Earth, it is moving with rotation. So it's exactly the same as the inside of a moving vehicle, that is actually the proper analogy to use...and so when Flat Earth makes that counter argument, they're just ignoring the lesson we're trying to teach them, for conservation of momentum, using a false analogy to deflect from the main point.
So the science you need to do some research on are the Laws of Motion, Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion. They help to answer any questions you have for the motions of the planet. Understanding this science is very crucial to understand how Flat Earth cons people...they use motion in a lot of their arguments, but the trouble is, they don't really seem to know much about how motion really works...otherwise they wouldn't be making a lot of the arguments they do.
But yes, don't take my word for it, conduct some of these experiments for yourself. If you have anymore questions or rebuttals, feel free to point them out. This is the science that I know and understand currently and that I have verified myself so far. Until I see any evidence that can falsify this science, this will be what I hold as the evidence against Flat Earth. I'm not trying to be difficult and I'm not trying to mock or discourage anyone in Flat Earth...but there ARE actual arguments against Flat Earth, that MUST be considered. I feel Flat Earth ignores them...and I don't know why, except for that it's not easy to listen to an opposing viewpoint sometimes.
Anyway, thanks again for the reply back, it was good chatting with you. Again, feel free to continue if you'd like, I don't mind taking a look at anything you would like to share that further supports your position. I enjoy learning from different perspectives, I just can't do that if people aren't willing to talk with me and share their perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeperry7891 Don’t have to be a scientist to debunk Flat Earth claims, anyone with a basic understanding of geometry and physics, can see its flaws. Here’s the thing, unlike other conspiracy’s that are either completely speculative (waste of time to address because there’s no way to know many details for certain, we can only speculate), or require very specific knowledge in a field of science (most people are not virologists or doctors, so addressing something like vaccines, for example, is difficult), this conspiracy is in a much larger pool of potential experts who can chime in. Because we all live here, we all have experience here, so in our own little ways all of us are experts on the topic of Earth. So you’ll see a lot more push back, because there’s far more people with accurate knowledge of the subject, who would feel comfortable and certain enough to respond to claims made.
That’s a big reason why Flat Earth receives more attention. I don’t have to be an ex army general with secret military clearance, or a doctor with decades of experience in that field, to argue against flat Earth…have you seen a sunset? Then you can argue against Flat Earth, because that’s a daily occurrence that simply does not work on a flat Earth geometry. Doesn’t require much, it’s very easy for anyone to refute.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hightech346 "...You've slowed the earth's rotation down to a reasonable believable speed but we are still dealing with a sun and solar system going over 500,000 MPH..."
Well, you are aware it takes 365 days to complete a single orbit around the Sun right? And roughly 200 million years to complete a single orbit around galactic center....so let's see, if the RPM's of an Earth that completes a rotation in 24 hours is 0.0007, what do you think the RPM's will be for rotations that are much much longer to complete? Probably a LOT smaller maybe? Yes, it absolutely would be. Why is that relevant? Because centrifugal force is increased by the RPM's of a rotating motion, not the linear speed. It's rapid change in angular velocity that creates the inertia force of Centrifugal forces, and the angular velocity change per second lowers dramatically the wider the circumference of rotation and the longer it takes to complete. Our solar system might as well be traveling in a straight line with how wide that circumference is.
" I fear the earth may someday run into something causing some MAJOR problems"
Like what? Space is a vast expanse of nothing, gaps of mostly empty space for trillions of miles in every direction, at least anything at Earths size. But we do hit stuff every single day, we call them meteorites. How does a Flat Earth explain meteorites exactly?
Listen, do you ever consider the possibility that maybe there's a lot about physics you don't really know or understand? Does that ever cross your mind, or do you honestly believe you know more than scientists? Do you REALLY think you're the first one to think about the motions of the planet, or the science of motion in general? Do you REALLY think science has never asked these questions before?
Do some reading about the Laws of Motion, most notably Conservation of Momentum and Relative Motion. That's the science that helps you understand how those motions are possible and it's not hard to understand and demonstrate for yourself, it's physics 101 and there are lots of different experiments you can do to verify it for yourself. We realize those speeds sound ridiculous to you, but if you learned a bit of physics, then you'd maybe understand how it works. You're reaching what we feel are some very false conclusions, and you're making those errors because it's clear you don't really know much about the physics of motion. The truth about motion, is that we're not really good at noticing it, what we notice is inertia, that's what our bodies pick up on. Inertia that is created by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion...not motion itself. So long as it is at a smooth constant rate, then we actually have a very hard time telling the difference between stationary and moving...doesn't really matter how fast we're going either, that holds true. That's what we understand about motion today, learning more about the Laws of motion will really help you realize that too, so before you jump to your conclusions, maybe learn this science and see if it's accurate.
We didn't start with the physics of motion, we observed and measured the Earth to be a Globe first, then we discovered it was moving, and now we understand how it's possible...it was a long process that took hundreds of years to get where we are now, so don't be so surprised if you haven't reached the same conclusions on your own...took science a long time, with a lot of different minds working on it all, to solve some of these questions.
1
-
hightech346 hightech346 You’re a funny one, but that’s fine, in a way your heavy snark and sarcasm is a lot like the Socratic method of questioning, albeit your method keeps you from really thinking on and considering what others are saying, but that’s fine, can’t force a person to ponder anything they’d rather brush off with ignorance, incredulity and over confidence. Makes for a good place to bounce ideas off of and challenge what I think I know though, so feel free to continue. I also suspect you could just be a poe trolling, but either way, I don’t really mind playing into a joke, so long as misinformation isn’t left unchecked, so for now I’m going to treat you as just another sarcastic, over confident, pseudo intellectual.
I’ve given you some info about the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion, up to you if you’d like to learn that physics a little and maybe learn where some of your errors are when it comes to motion. You know where the door is now at least, if you have any further points or questions to make about the science of motion feel free, I’ll help you out where I can.
Neil Degrasse Tyson made a bad comparison, he even realized it in the very interview that quote is pulled from, and then corrected himself. If you keep watching past the part Flat Earth cuts out of context for you, you’ll see he soon redacts the comment and corrects himself by saying Earth is classified as oblate, not perfectly a sphere, slightly wider at the Equator. So a pear is a bad comparison and he even realized that...but bias dishonest people prefer hanging on cherry picked quotes they can spin a narrative with, rather then looking at the full context of things. Earth is not a perfect sphere, that was his main point he was trying to make and deep down you people know that I think, so stop making bad arguments.
It is oblate with a wider equator, but we’re talking a tiny difference, if you were to look at a full image of Earth, it would appear perfectly spherical to you upon a glance. But here’s a neat trick you can do to help you see the difference and understand just how small that difference is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ. You can do this with pretty much any full (high resolution) image of Earth, so give it a try sometime. Your eyes are not a very good measuring tool, that should be pretty common sense. If you think you can just eyeball these kinds of measurements, like the Earths oblateness or horizon rising to eye level (it actually does drop in reality), then that’s your error here.
Of course rivers don’t flow uphill, but North is not really up and South is not really down. You’re misunderstanding things here (just like all flatties do). Water seeks lowest elevation, and so rivers flow from high elevation to low elevation. The source of the Mississippi begins at a much higher elevation than where it ends (just like all rivers do). So how does that work on a sphere? Gravity pulls mass to center, so lowest elevation is closest to center, while higher elevations are further from center. Down is toward center, that is where all mass is pulled on Earth, down is not South. Maps have conditioned us to see the world that way, with North always pointing up, but in reality there is no actual top or bottom to the Earth. So when you make the “rivers flowing uphill” argument Flat Earth likes to make, it tells us right away that you don’t quite understand how gravity works, or how elevation works on a sphere, or even how maps and 3D geometry work.
Elevation on Earth is measured from center of Earth. The further from center, the higher the elevation. We use sea level as a base line, because the oceans occupy the lowest elevation and evens out at the top of the ocean, perpendicular to center of Earth all the way around. Which gives us a nice level (in this case level does not mean flat, it means perpendicular to center) base line to measure land elevation from, as ocean elevation is all generally the same elevation from center of Earth, within a few feet of difference due to tides and such. But technically, all elevation is really measured from center of Earth and water, like all matter on Earth, is really seeking that center, trying to get as close to it as it can, into the lowest possible elevation, towards center.
Yes, technically, space has everything in it, I was just pointing out that the space between the Earth and most other large celestial bodies (stars, planets, moons, asteroids) is mostly empty space, nothing there but a few small rocks we do hit constantly, which we see as meteors. You can play dumb, but you understood what I meant.
Of course none of this proves what I’m saying as true, it’s merely an explanation of how a particular model of reality works. They are all scientifically verified, but I understand it’s hard to build upon knowledge, if you don’t agree on the foundation. So maybe go back a few steps and start with verifying the geometry first, just like science did. Ask yourself some simple questions that don’t make a lot of sense for a flat Earth. How does the sun set? How are there two equal hemispheres, each with their own stars and celestial rotation? How does Polaris drop to 0 degrees at the Equator on a Flat Earth? Simple questions like that, that anyone can verify, that just don’t work at all on a Flat Earth.
The Globe Earth may be complicated to understand the higher you get in the science, and there is still lots we don’t know, but the Flat Earth falls apart right from the starting gun, which is why it was discarded. So ignore us if you’d like, or maybe slow your roll a bit and go back to the start and question the basic geometry first. Question Flat Earth and geocentrism just as much, you’ll find a lot of actual errors there. You’re not wrong to question things, but you are misunderstanding a lot, so just doing what I can to help.
1
-
@hightech346 Aircraft are constantly fighting gravity, they don't need to adjust for curvature, gravity keeps them tethered to the Earth at all times, like a bungy chord wrapped to your body and also the center of a pole that keeps you from escaping a certain circumference...it's not much different. They also require air to generate lift and the air gets thinner the higher you go, so there are lots of things that keep them dropping to the Earth, all a plane has to do then is make sure it's aligned to the ground and it does that using an artificial horizon indicator. They are making tiny adjustments, all the time, but they're so tiny and gradual, you'd never notice...not much different from a car on straight highway that you keep your hands on the wheel for, constantly making tiny adjustments in the wheel to keep yourself straight. Now add a z axis, they're doing the the same thing, constantly making tiny adjustments.
It's not like you're not asking good questions hightech346, but you're assuming they don't have answers...and then you're ignoring us and not considering anything we have to say. And you're mostly arguing and focusing on higher physics...which YOU absolutely could just be misunderstanding. You refuse to listen to us, that much is clear, but do you ever consider the possibility that you're just misunderstanding physics? That the error is with you, not the model? So why not bringing yourself back down and think about the actual geometry? That is the main argument after all, the shape of the planet, so why focus on the physics you clearly don't understand, when you should be going back to the start and looking at the basic geometry. That's where science started, we built our foundation from the geometry first, after we were certain the shape of our planet could not be anything but a sphere, because a sphere was the only thing that could account for what we observe.
For example, how does a sunset work on a Flat Earth exactly? Start there...if you honestly think Flat Earth holds up better then the Globe, then how does a sunset work over a flat Earth? Or why is there two hemispheres? Both with their own celestial rotation, their own stars, their own night sky's in general? If the Earth is flat, with a dome overhead, wouldn't there just be one hemisphere? One night sky? One celestial rotation? The trouble is, there isn't in reality, there are two hemispheres. You ponder a lot of higher physics and things you generally have no working experience with, but why not focus on something you do have experience with...like a sunset?
Maybe stop being so defensive with us, take your shields down and then maybe we can have a civil discussion where ideas are shared and considered, not laughed at and mocked. Wouldn't you prefer that? Or do you just like being a dick? Is that your only purpose for being here? I wouldn't mind helping you out or even learning something, but hard to do that if you're not willing to listen and consider what others have to say.
1
-
1
-
@hightech346 "You people actually believe that we are spinning at 1000 MPH while orbiting a sun at 67,000 MPH chasing a sun that is going 500,000 MPH with the whole "solar system" magically following along for the ride...😁 But I'm the dummy right??
Well, ya, you kind of are, because this is called an argument from incredulity. All you've done is explained to me that YOU think it's nonsense, because a few big numbers impressed you...but you've given me no reason to see your position, no science, no explanation, just big numbers. Do you know the physics of motion very well? Are you aware of relative motion and conservation of momentum? Do you understand this science very well? I know you think it's nonsense because you can't see how it's possible...but that's not an argument, it's personal incredulity, nothing more. Explain to me why the physics doesn't work...THEN you might have an argument. But I'll never know, if you don't go through the physics with me. So why dodge it? Are you afraid if you go through the science with me, you might learn how you're wrong?
The light rays are parallel, what you're seeing is perspective tricking your eyes into thinking they're coming at you at angles...it's no different from a railway track you look down. The tracks are parallel, but they appear to converge...it's called perspective. Tell me if you think the Sun is directly behind these trees. https://www.awatrees.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/larsvandegoor-2B3.jpg It's no different, it's just perspective...that's how it works. But don't just think I came to that conclusion without evidence to verify it. Here's an experiment done not to long ago that measured the shadow angles of the Sun, from various latitudes around the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=469s If you're pressed for time, just watch the final 2 minutes where he shares the results. You'll notice that when he lays the data out onto a Flat Earth, none of the angles point to a local Sun...but when he plots the data on a Globe to scale, you see pretty clearly that the angles are all parallel. Exactly as they would be, if the Earth were a Globe. Here's another year where they repeated the experiment, and this time plotted the data on several more Flat Earth maps and models that have been proposed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=310s Again, the suns light is measured to be parallel, the only model that fits with the data, is a Globe.
"Isn't just amazing how a large commercial airliner can be going sideways at 1000 MPH in an east/west direction and land on a runway while traveling at several hundred MPH in a North/South direction and actually land on a runway that is going East/West at 1000 MPH?"
Not really all that amazing, if you ever threw a ball around while in a moving vehicle, you'd get a pretty clear lesson on how relative motion works...that's why I'm trying my best to help you go through the science with me, so that you can understand how it works. Then you'll realize your errors here when it comes to motion. Just try it sometime, next time you're on a flight, a train, a bus...heck even the next time you're riding passenger in a car with a buddy next to you. Toss a ball back and forth for awhile, you'll notice it will behave exactly as if you were in a park tossing it back and forth. But hold on, think about it for a second now...if a car is going down a highway at 100 mph, and you're tossing a ball back and forth with ease...are you throwing the ball at 100 mph? Why doesn't it go slamming to the back of the car? If you were on a plane going 500 mph, and if you threw a ball to your friend who was standing at the nose of the plane...first of all, are you throwing a ball at 500 mph? And why doesn't the ball speed up or slow down depending on what direction you throw it? If you throw it towards the nose it's traveling with the direction of the plane...shouldn't it go slower? If you throw it to the rear, shouldn't it go faster? Now toss it from side to side, so it's now technically going sideways at 500 mph...yet it still appears to you like you're just throwing it side to side, back and forth, how is that possible? Isn't that a lot like how a plane would be on the surface trying to land? Give it a try sometime, in any moving vehicle that maintains a steady constant forward velocity. Relative motion works like this, anything moving in the same inertial reference frame of motion, will behave as though stationary. A plane takes off from the surface of the Earth going, so it's in the inertial reference frame of every motion of the Earth, from its rotation to its orbits, it's moving WITH the Earth, conserving its momentum at all times. So this will create an environment that behaves as though stationary, making it possible to take off and land just fine, while moving relative to the Earth. It's pretty simple science...it's physics 101.
It's really not our problem if you don't understand how it works...but we do and it's pretty easy to verify, if you'd just stop fighting us and start listening to us.
1
-
@hightech346 "I can't tell by your typical sunset question that you have not even bothered to look into the flat earth reality and know nothing about it"
No, I know what Flat Earth claims is happening, I was asking YOU what YOU think causes a sunset. I'm asking YOU, because I have heard their explanations, and they haven't convinced me of anything yet. I'm wondering if MAYBE you have some new insights I can learn from, so I'm asking questions to learn more, to see if YOU have anything I haven't heard yet. Is that a bad thing? I don't just engage in these conversations to teach people things, I do it so that I can learn things as well, So I'm asking you questions for that reason, I'm talking to you, cause I'm interested in what YOU have to teach me. Most Flat Earthers explain a sunset by saying it's due to perspective. I've heard all their mental gymnastics to explain a simple sunset...but do you REALLY think it's accurate? I'm fine with hearing explanations, but then demonstrate to me how it works, cause I'm not just going to take words at face value without some data and evidence to back up what you're claiming. I can bring up several experiments and observations that refute the argument of perspective causing a sunset. I've also heard theories of the Sun lying outside of the Dome and causing a double sun effect, refraction and lensing effects basically, making the Sun appear in one place, but it's actually in another. That's great and all...but that remains a hunch or a hypothesis until you can show me an experiment that demonstrates this occurrence. So feel free, in the meantime I'll break down why I don't believe a word they're saying about their perspective arguments, or the Dome theory, just sounds like bullshit to me.
I've looked at Flat Earth quite extensively, for 3 years now in fact. I've watched the same videos you have I'm sure...except when I did it, I didn't just listen to them blindly, I questioned them. I reviewed their work and I put them to task...I have found many errors in their work and I have identified the many things they ignore.
Lotta problems with the perspective claim for a sunset. I'm an artist for a living, so perspective is not just something I know a lot about and understand, I also apply that knowledge every day in the work that I do. I know that perspective would never drop the Sun to horizon from the height that it is at. Even on Flat Earth models and projections, it is still very high in altitude...it would never reach horizon from that height, you would always see it. As these videos also help to demonstrate and explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I&t=6s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84&t=43s
Don't need a deep understanding of perspective to realize that though, it's pretty common sense. But even IF I agreed that it could reach horizon, that still raises several more questions. Why doesn't it shrink in angular size before it reaches horizon? Both the Sun and the Moon maintain the same size throughout their visual cycle, they do not shrink in size before reaching the horizon, except during some rare instances where Flat Earth has dug up videos of a sunset during very humid, hazy, cloud covered days, that make them appear to shrink. But on most days, when it's clear and you have a clear line of sight of the Sun, it maintains the same size and then dips into the horizon. As seen here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIviCNY3Txw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZHzb7nmJas
Some Flat Earthers will explain that it's vanishing point that makes the Sun do that...but that's not how vanishing point works. Vanishing point is when something has shrunk so much in angular size, due to distance and perspective, that it becomes to small for your eye to physically render it visible, so it appears to vanish from sight. This can happen from any angle, doesn't always occur at horizon, if something were to travel away from you directly up, it would eventually reach a vanishing point as well, where you could no longer see it. Vanishing point does not explain a sunset, all Flat Earth does when they impart vanishing point upon a sunset, is demonstrate to me that they don't really know what vanishing point is.
There are other questions as well that perspective can't answer. Why doesn't the Sun speed up and slow down as it arcs through the sky? Why does it maintain a steady 15 degrees per hour through the sky? Why does its path through the sky rise from the south, arc north and then set to the south during the Australian summer? As documented here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJGczcwJ6TA&t=102s
The sun behind the dome theory is intriguing, but then why hasn't it been modeled and demonstrated? We can model the globe Sun, with the tilt of the Earths axis relative to the ecliptic plane, and it matches with every observation, from the Suns path through the sky, to its shadow angles, to why clouds are lit from the bottom during a sunset and sunrise. The Globe explains all these observations pretty simply...and I have not seen any model of Flat Earth demonstrate this sun behind the dome theory.
More questions are brought up here as well, like how does this dome effect create the 24 hour sun in the Antarctica? Or even the 17 hour sun at the tip of Argentina? I've seen some experiments demonstrate how the dome could possible make the light from the Sun visible 24 hours a day in the South, but it's not just the light you see in the Antarctic, You also see the Sun itself, tracing a perfect circle in the sky, for 24 hours at a time. As seen here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcppf47VhrU The whole video is pretty cool, but the second half is more important I feel, because you'll notice the Sun runs parallel with the horizon for a full 360 degrees. This is important, because this is only possible directly at the poles during the midnight sun.
If there are any other explanations for a sunset on a Flat Earth, feel free to let me know, but the data and information I've given you is pretty damning for a Flat Earth I feel. I've have seen no reason to believe the Flat Earth has any valid explanation for a sunset.
And it still doesn't answer for the second celestial rotation of stars. The South does have it's own rotation, I have seen it for myself. It has its own stars and constellations as well, meanwhile you can not see Polaris past the Equator. Why is that? How does that work on a Flat Earth? Do you honestly believe perspective could drop Polaris to 0 degrees at the equator? https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle-768x768.jpg
1
-
1
-
@hightech346 On the contrary, I am listening very closely to what you guys have to say, I'm just not taking any of it at face value, I'm questioning it and putting it to task.
I mentioned this in a previous comment to you, but Neil realized in that very same interview, that he had made a bad comparison with the pear comment. So if you watch the whole thing, rather then just the bit that Flat Earth cuts out of context for you, you'd know that he redacts that comment and then corrects himself, by saying the Earth is classified as an oblate spheroid, meaning not perfectly a sphere, it is measured to be slightly wider at the equator. That is what he meant with his pear comparison, but it is a bad comparison and even he realized that. Flat Earth is being very disingenuous when they cherry pick things like this out of context and spin their bias upon it. It's fine really, because cherry picking like that is a red flag for the rest of us, that Flat Earth is more then likely rampant with confirmation bias.
"...and all other babbling nonsense will not help you explain the temperature variations that can ONLY be explained by the movement of the sun over a stationary flat plane."
It's pretty well known in physics, that temperature can be made to vary in lots of different ways. The way our Sun does it, is by direct sunlight vs. indirect sunlight. If you focus a light source onto a single point, does it not get hotter? But if you spread that light out over a wider area, then there isn't as much direct light being focused, so not as hot. This is what's happening at the poles, the Light from the Sun is spreading out over a wider surface area, rather then being focused upon a single point...like the Equator experiences.
It's pretty simple stuff actually and the tilt in the Earths angle helps make perfect sense of the seasons as well, as the Suns focused light moves from Cancer to Capricorn as the angle of the Earth points Earths poles toward and away from the Sun in a flip flopping rotation. The light is focused on the tropic of Cancer during Northern Summer and the tropic of Capricorn during Southern Summer...so it's pretty simple to see how their seasons work. If you need a visual, here's a great one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgHmqv_-UbQ There's also a lot more, with those angles of light being reflected by atmosphere a little easier at the poles due to those angles, so less solar radiation is being absorbed there as well. It's just the difference between direct solar radiation and angled solar radiation spreading it out over a wider area and making that light less focused on those areas that are angled. If you'd like to see some experiments done with lights shined direct and then at angles to measure temperature differences, I can certainly help you find those physics experiments that help to verify what I'm telling you. Your error here is assuming that distance is the only thing that will effect temperature...and that's far from accurate.
So the Globe does explain seasons quite well in fact, the Flat Earth however, has some more holes in it here. If the Sun is getting further from the North pole during it's winter, then that means it now has to travel a wider circumference. This creates a problem for your model, because if the Sun is traveling a wider circumference, but still completes that circumference in a perfect 24 hour time frame...that means it has to be traveling faster. But the Sun doesn't speed up and it doesn't slow down as it goes back to the North...the Sun is recorded to be moving at a steady 15 degrees per hour, all day, every day...it never changes. One of many problems your model has with your seasons explanation, but again, the Globe explains this...and it also matches with measurements taken for rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=19s Every time we measure Earths rotation, we detect a steady rotation of 15 degrees per hour...which fits with the Suns rate of travel through our visible sky.
So let's review a bit:
- You still haven't explained a sunset on a Flat Earth
- You still haven't explained why there are 2 celestial poles, with their own stars, constellations, 24 hour sun and perfect circle rotation around their own pole star
- You've kept cherry picking a quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson, instead of looking at the full context and realizing that he too understood it was a bad comparison and later corrected it
- Your Flat Earth explanation of the seasons falls short still, because the Sun would have to speed up and slow down to account for the change in distances, and it does not in reality do this
- You assumed that temperature can only be changed by distance, when angle can also effect how light focuses and creates more or less heat depending on how much surface area is effected directly
- You ignored my experiments I've shared that show you the sunlight angles, that do arrive parallel when you actually measure them
- You still don't quite understand motion
- You still don't quite understand gravity and gravity vectors
- You still don't quite understand how elevation on a sphere works
- And for the most part you've ignored most of these time and again rather then really address them and get to the heart of them with me (minus the seasons, you're actually trying there, which is appreciated)
In fairness, feel free to let me know what you feel I have missed. But the above is my review of things so far, that I can recall off hand anyway.
1
-
@hightech346 "Dr. Tyson went into an elaborate detail about the pear shaped earth"
He went into elaborate detail about the oblateness of the Earth, but he later redacted the pear comment and he certainly doesn't say it at all today. Just saying, Flat Earth cherry picks and quote mines a LOT, spinning their own bias interpretations upon out of context lines they then sell to their people and it's a red flag for the rest of us, because that is a form of confirmation bias. Here's a great video demonstrating to you just how "chubby" or oblate the equator is, in comparison to the poles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ you can do this with pretty much any full, high resolution image of Earth. The equator is slightly wider, but you won't see it with your naked eye.
Your eyes are not a great measuring tool and they are easily fooled. That's why you have to look closer and review what you're looking at...model it and pay attention to EVERY detail.
I have made my own observations in my own back yard (I've done a lot more then that too), I have observed the Sun, I have tracked it, I have paid attention to it and I know quite a lot about perspective (as I said, I'm an artist, pretty important to know the deeper fundamentals of perspective in what I do) and I've done many of my own experiments for perspective. I have concluded currently, that it does not explain a sunset. As much as Flat Earth tries to ram that square peg into a round hole, I think even they realize that. They're fooling themselves here with that answer and you've given me no reason to believe it's accurate. So try again.
Time zones are not the same as a sun completing a circuit in 24 hours. The Sun would have to speed up and slow down to achieve your seasons trick, it does not do that in reality when we observe it and measure its rate of travel, it is a steady 15 degrees per hour, it never changes. And you keep ignoring the southern hemisphere, when the Sun is making its wider circuit, HOW does the sun become visible in parts of the South, for 24 hours? We have two 24 hour midnight Sun occurrences on Earth, one for the North, and one for the South. HOW does that happen on your Flat Earth, with a Sun that has to travel a wider circumference in the South? Here's why it happens on a Globe. https://media3.giphy.com/media/5bZu9TqVPnZvO/source.gif You'll notice as the Earth rotates here, whichever pole is pointing towards the Sun during their solstice, never leaves the daylight. This explains the 24 hour Sun for both poles during their respective summer months. How does the Flat account for the Southern 24 hour Sun? Or even the 17 hour Sun at the tip of Argentina?
It does pay to review your model, rather then just believe that it works. I have looked very closely at both, the Globe works, the Flat Earth does not. So I align myself with the model that fits with observed reality.
You're not really giving me any answers hightech346, you are just telling me things and not giving me any evidence to support your claims. Do you notice that I have been sharing evidence with you? Not just telling you how it is, but showing you how it works as well? I've shown you experiments, observations, data and visual representations of both models in action. But you've given me nothing so far, so you are just asking me to take your words at face value.
1
-
@hightech346 "Objects have been spotted at over 200 miles away yet at 200 miles the object should be under 5 miles of curve..Those are YOUR numbers for the imaginary ball earth..."
Here's your opportunity to share some photos and math with me. What observation are you talking about in particular? What math did you use? I'd love to go through some evidence with you so that I can maybe believe a word you're saying...trouble is you're not giving me any.
I have reviewed Flat Earths work when it comes to long distance observations, and they make several errors here. The biggest error they make, is they use the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender, but there are many others, I will focus on the 8 inches per mile squared math here. That is measuring from a tangent at surface...the figures it gives you do not represent horizon or your line of sight. So of course those figures will be way over the peaks of mountains and distant objects...it's not the correct math to use here. Basic rule of thumb in mathematics, make damn sure you are using the right formulas for the proper jobs, or you WILL absolutely reach a false conclusion. It's pretty simple. What blows my mind is that Flat Earthers rarely ever go back to check and see if maybe they just had the math wrong...they just do enough work to get the figures they are looking for and then they stop looking. More confirmation bias, due to sloppy math.
The other error I see a lot, bad information or fudged figures. Another important rule of thumb in mathematics, make sure your variables are accurate, or you risk calculating the wrong figures. Flat Earth will often lie about how high they were from surface, how far away an object really is, what peak or object they are actually observing, etc. They'll fudge a lot of the little details, to make their case APPEAR accurate, but when we do get the correct details out of people and when we use the correct math, the numbers actually do fit for a Globe as well and Flat Earth is again, just performing more confirmation bias. The correct details matter, so it pays to pay attention and be patient and collect all the correct information, before you even do the math.
The third error I see done here, ignoring variables completely. Most Flat Earthers don't factor refraction into their work here...they'd rather ignore it as a variable and pretend it doesn't exist (even though they often call upon refraction to explain other occurrences, like sunsets, southern star trails, Polaris dropping to 0 degrees at the equator, etc.). It's fine really, if you haven't been convinced of refraction occurring in our atmosphere, then a little hard to include it as a variable. But it does occur in our atmosphere, especially over water and especially closer to the horizon and it does cause light to bend down, making objects appear slightly higher...it's well known in physics the effects of refraction. But I won't just leave you hanging, I'll show you a quick demonstration that helps to verify this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction is very real, so it must be factored as a variable. We're not just saying that, to make a model work...we have verified refraction, we have looked at that science, it is absolutely something that must be considered and included in the math for long distance observations.
So Flat Earth does a lot more errors here, bad math, fudged details, ignoring variables. When you do the math correct, when get the details right and when you include every variable, the Globe fits with what we observe.
Here is a really great Earth curve calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. Here is a forum discussion breaking down this math and explaining it in greater detail https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/.
Flat Earth cons you again, when they use the 8 inches per mile squared math...this math is a formula for a parabola, only accurate up to a few hundred miles (which makes your airplane calculations for thousands of miles an inaccurate calculation). This math is generally used by Surveyors, to measure horizon drop from eye level...that's all it's used for, that's all it is good for. It does not represent line of sight, and it does not generate a figure telling you what is hidden from curvature. I can explain things much more in depth for you if you'd like.
In short, Flat Earth is just terrible at math and they keep using the wrong formulas that ignore variables and don't generate accurate figures. That is why they reach a false conclusion here.
Here are some great examples of people crunching the numbers using the correct math and details, and one video explaining the failure of Flat Earth in better detail.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNgj9YOmYzAPIMGy-1BQDEw/videos - just gonna share this guys entire channel, this is what he does primarily
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCvX1pQVoI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DepJKPYxy7M&t=4s
What you should pay attention to is that things DO drop into the horizon losing thousands of feet at their base, the further they are. They also drop from eye level (which is what you actually can use the 8 inches per mile math for, ironically, when you see mountain peaks below that figure...it means they have dropped well below that tangent line of eye level). So the question is, why are thousands of feet of mountains missing in long distance observations? Here's a great video that illustrates it pretty clearly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU if you watch any of the videos I've shared, THIS is the one you should see. What he's done is he's modeled topography data for a region where Jtolan Media has provided a picture of a long distance observation of a mountain peak named Mt. Jacinto. Then he's interpreted that data onto a Globe and then a Flat Earth, showing you exactly what we'd expect to see occur on both models. If you're pressed for time, start this video at the 6 minute mark to see the comparison.
So feel free to let me know exactly what 200 mile image or observation you are referring too. I'd love to go through the math with you and see if it's actually accurate.
1
-
@hightech346 "What are you going to to do with that? Tell me it's "wrong"....You people are a freakin JOKE.."
That about sums up your rants. You sure do ramble on and repeat the same things, without providing much evidence to support anything...just a whole lot of "you're wrong! I'm right! Na na na boo boo!". It's fine really if you'd prefer to shove your fingers in your ears, but again, you're the one arguing a position that is contrary to ALL of science, arguing positions you are not an expert in, while telling actual experts you know more than them...that's what's incredible to me. What's more incredible is that you do it all, while using a modern technology, that scientists created for you...that you could never recreate or understand. It's fascinating.
Yes, artificial horizon indicators, they are a part of every airplane and they are designed to adjust with curvature, using gyros and what are called pendulous veins to keep them perpendicular with surface, at all times adjusting in real time as it fly's. A plane is making small adjustments as it fly's, but gravity and the lower air pressure making lift harder to achieve at higher altitudes, are doing a lot of the work here as well, all they really have to do is pay attention to this horizon indicator and make sure they follow it, and then pay attention to the altimeter to make sure they maintain the altitude they have set for flight. They are correcting, a lot...it's no different then any vehicle you have to keep making small corrections with constantly to keep on the road, except now add a z axis...you really think pilots aren't adjusting up and down constantly? Here's a video that goes into greater detail explaining the artificial horizon indicator and the pendulous veins used inside of the mechanics to help keep the gyro perpendicular to surface. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QGRPVBZvw
Your argument there is one from a non experts position (layman)...making assumptions and filling the gaps of your experience with bias. It's not much of an argument, it's just an argument from ignorance. You don't really know...you just assume they don't and your bias won't let you dig any deeper to confirm anything that might destroy that bias.
That's really all your arguments have been so far, either arguments from ignorance, or arguments from personal incredulity. It's been a lot of this "planes DON'T correct for curvature!" and then I look and...yes they do...you are not a pilot and your bias is flat Earth, so you just conclude they don't, without really looking. Wow...great research, please shine more of a light on how little you know please, as if it wasn't bright enough already. Or the other argument style is "It CAN'T be 93 million miles away, what nonsense!" and then you don't share any evidence to support that claim...you just assert it and that's that. Have you measured it? Do you have data to support your claim refuting the current AU (Astronomical Unit, distance to the Sun)? No? Then this is an argument from personal incredulity and nothing more. I on the other hand have shared several experiments with you that have been conducted (that are also very repeatable), that verify the Sun can't be local, the rays are coming parallel and by extension they verify the geometry of the planet. Here they are again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=470s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=312s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
So like all these conversations with Flat Earthers go, I still really have no reason to believe anything you've said, because you've given me nothing...just a lot of ignorance and incredulity and redundant rambles that flip flop between the two. It may be enough to convince idiots who can't recognize the difference between empty claims and solid evidence, but not on the rest of us, who require evidence, data, math, experiments, observations, facts, etc. It's a shame really, was hoping to maybe learn something new...but no, I doubt you'll provide anything beyond ignorance and incredulity...as usual.
I am tempted though to illustrate how a river flows for you, and explain better how a gravity vector works, so perhaps I will. I already did explain it briefly in a previous comment, but It is easier to understand it with a visual presentation and there really isn't a good one online that tackles the rivers argument in greater depth. Mostly cause the rest of us don't really require that visual, we understand how gravity works on a sphere...but it seems to be your krux here, cause you sure repeat it a lot, so maybe I'll take the time.
And still, no answer for a sunset and no answer for the second hemisphere. You've given me no reason to agree with you that it's perspective that causes this occurrence, just the empty claim that it's perspective and then I've pointed out why perspective can't explain a sunset, to which I've received no rebuttal, just deflection onto a new topic. You've given me absolutely nothing at all to explain the second hemisphere we observe in reality and that I have personally witnessed several times in my life...just more dodging and deflecting.
So, not much to go on is all. So when are you going to take this seriously and give me some evidence for your claims?
1
-
@hightech346 I didn't say the math itself was wrong, only that Flat Earth is using the wrong formula for the wrong job. 8 inches per mile squared is a great equation on its own, for figuring out a parabolic arc...it's also great for figuring out how much horizon roughly drops from a tangent line at surface...but that's it, that's pretty much all it can be used for. Here's a great video breaking down that math and showing you why it's the incorrect math https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klI3tmmXseA. So it's just the wrong math to use for long distance observations. All I'm saying is, stop using the wrong math for the wrong job. Always review your work and consider the possibility that you reached the wrong figures, because you were using the wrong formulas. That's really all my point was there. Flat Earth has roped in a lot of suckers with the 8 inches per mile squared math...and I can't face palm hard enough when I see them continue to use it.
If I get some time today, perhaps I'll whip up a visual to help illustrate how a river flows on a sphere with gravity. Gravity vectors are not that hard to understand, but a visual makes it a lot clearer, so I'll see what I can do for ya.
But it hardly matters, cause we have measured the curvature and observed it. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click through the yellow tabs sometime and watch the demos found here, the entire blog has documented a lot of curvature for you to take a look at, so go through the other links here sometime as well. One of many data and information resources I can share with you. So, whether you understand how a river flows on a sphere or not, it really doesn't matter. Science creates the modern world for you, it's fine to question it, but if you honestly think you know more about Earth then the people who study it directly and have been for hundreds of years...then you are quite delusional. Sit and ponder on your computer sometime...and just ask yourself, could you recreate that technology? Down to the microchips, the binary code and the wifi that brings you your internet? If not, then maybe accept that other people have a lot they could teach you, because they actually know more about a lot of things that you do not. Do you honestly believe these same people can create every technology you enjoy today (and that you take for granted) but they can't figure out something as trivial as the shape of the planet?
I'm not trying to flex some false sense of superiority, I'm not a member of Mensa (takes a lot of insecurity to join clubs like that I feel), I don't really care to know my IQ, I imagine it's painfully average and I'm fine with that and I don't think my lifes worth is measured by how much smarter I am or think I am than others, I'm just trying my best to help snap you out of whatever paranoid cloud Flat Earth has put you in, because I worry about people and I have knowledge I'd like to share that might help. You're not all that stupid...but you sure have a hard time trusting people and I think that's why you'd rather resist and be contrarian at all costs. All I can do is share information, if you'd rather ignore it and shrug it off, that's fine, can't force you to do anything. Just understand that I don't see your position, because you really have given me nothing to work with, no data, no experiments, no observations, no evidence. So I can't really do much with ignorant and incredulous claims, with no backing to support them.
1
-
@hightech346 "I tell YOU that you are WRONG an present easily testable observations"
Nope, so far you haven't given me any observations, but you do tell me I'm wrong a lot sure...and then provide nothing that explains or demonstrates HOW I'm wrong. Which is a pretty important step when trying to convince someone of anything...you kind of have to share evidence to back up your positions, or I have no reason to believe you. Hmmm...I wonder why you don't share evidence? :P
You can tell me "a sunset happens because of perspective"...but that's not evidence, that's a claim...and it remains an empty claim, until you can demonstrate it and help verify it with evidence supporting it. You can tell me "the sun is close and local because the rays of sunlight coming out of clouds are angled" but again, just an empty claim...you've provided no further insight into HOW and WHY the angled rays verify a local Sun. Meanwhile, I was able to falsify both claims by providing counter arguments WITH evidence supporting them, sharing ACTUAL observations and experiments and data with you that poked holes in WHY those empty claims are wrong and WHY you need to review them much closer. I've done that with every claim you've made...while you've just scratched the surface, sticking with only the empty claims that support your bias. You may be fine with reaching conclusions from assumptions, incredulity and ignorance, but the rest of us know better.
I think we're done here, just more incredulity, ignorance and empty claims from Flat Earth. I tried my best to get something tangible, but you don't seem to know the difference between evidence and an empty claim...so it's becoming a bit pointless now. Go back and read your rants sometime and let me know where you shared some actual data, experiments or observations with me. If you did, it was sure buried under a lot of delusions of grandeur...cause I sure didn't see any, just empty claim after incredulous claim after ignorant claim. It's not good enough I'm afraid...that may work on Flat Earthers, but the rest of us need hard evidence. So until then.
1
-
@hightech346 "The only way you people can explain why the sun moves over the horizon in a north/south and south/north fashion every year is to say the earth tilt at 23 degrees"
Yes, and that's exactly what happens. Here's a great simulation I'd like you to check out. https://drajmarsh.bitbucket.io/earthsun.html It's a great model of Earths rotation and orbit that you can interact with, makes seeing what's going on quite clear. Let's check out your "sun going up and down from north to south", click the little graduation hat at the top right, now click on the Animations tab, then "Highlight Tropic Lines". Then just watch for a bit, as it demonstrates the rising and falling of the Sun from both tropics. You can interact with the slider on the right to make it go faster. Now, click the little Sun icon in the top left to bring up the ecliptic plane of Earths orbit. It's not scale by size and distance here, but it'll do for showing you how the Sun rises and falls. Now just click the settings tab in the top left, crank up the speed and press play. Now just watch HOW the Sun goes from each Tropic. The angle remains fixed, but it rotates around Sun in its orbit, so that angle changes relative to the Sun, because the angle is fixed, always pointing towards Polaris.
Soooooo Globe explains the Solstice, the Equinox and the changing of the Sun quite well. This model can also help you verify a lot more, so play around with it...something tells me you desperately need it.
Again, YOUR model doesn't work, because it doesn't match with reality. The Sun would have to speed up and slow down on your model, as it moves from Cancer to Capricorn, because it's constantly going to be changing from a wider circumference, to a shorter circumference, requiring it to speed up at Capricorn just that it can complete its circuit in the same 24 hour time frame it always does. The Sun does not do this, it tracks a steady 15 degrees every hour. One of many things wrong with your model here, so you really shouldn't ignore it. Meanwhile, the Globe model works again...soooooooo...I mean it's fine if you want to be ignorant. But the rest of us sure can't get anything done that way.
"North Pole checks in at a very nippy. 25 degrees"
Hmmmm, well this weather network says it's a very cold 1 degree, feels like -18 degrees. https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/weather/nunavut/the-north-pole So where did you pull that temperature from? I found an article from 2016 that was for June of that year I believe...it's one of the first links when you search for North Pole temperature right now...so I hope you didn't pull from that. Also...you do realize it's winter in the North now right? So isn't your Sun still pretty far from the Tropic of Cancer? It just passed the Equinox like a few days ago...
Moon light isn't cold, you guys just keep running poor experiments that don't include controls, which leads you to a false conclusion...the conclusion you want, which is just confirmation bias. Then, as usual, all attempts to point out your errors are met with ignorance. Not much we can do when you won't listen. Here's what happens when you actually do these experiments correctly and include proper controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t=345s
Alright man, like I said, I'm done here. You're just getting crazier and crazier as we continue, repeating the same things, yelling at me like a child, providing no evidence, just rambles of incredulity. Have fun with that.
1
-
So what’s the alternative? Would you prefer all information have zero system of checks and balances, zero oversight, zero review…making everything valid? 🤷♂️ Seriously, do you really think that would be better? No system we ever create will ever be perfect…but it’s far better than the alternative of doing absolutely nothing…a world where every conman, huxter, and pseudo intellectual can say what they want without any resistance, or burden of proof standards. :/
Here’s the thing, junk science simply does not work…so it’s in nobody’s best interest to push forward bullshit that does not work and can not be applied. Science often does get things wrong, and it often does take a lot of time and effort to dispel many of those wrong ideas…but it always eventually does, because we can’t do anything useful and beneficial for society, with inaccurate information.
Arguments like yours are just a deflection so movements like Flat Earth can continue pretending they’re somehow better than the actual experts, who actually get shit done.
1
-
@kesselrunheroj8497 I already agreed it’s not perfect, but everything you mentioned is already a part of the scientific system of review. What makes you believe there isn’t transparency in scientific research? There’s always a paper trail…how do you think they eventually catch these wrong doings? 🧐 What leads you to believe they don’t already admit these things though? Scientists are often the first to admit they’ve not perfect…I think some people just have a pretty pessimistic view of science.
Here’s the reality, nothing we ever implement will ever be perfect…that’s the reality, because people are not perfect, and greedy narcissistic scumbags will always exist. But we do pretty good given our situation. I know it sucks that it can take time, that people suffer sometimes, but it’s pretty unavoidable. There’s pros and cons to everything we do, and sometimes those cons are not readily apparent until things go wrong over time. Doesn’t matter how diligent we are, we will always make mistakes. Best we can do is correct them over time.
For example, the guy who solved the problem for best fuel additive (lead) for the most efficient engine fuel, is also responsible for increasing the lead found in our systems thanks to that discovery, that essentially poisoned us for decades, making us dumber (no joke, lead is a neurotoxin, IQ’s decreased around the world from the 50,s to the 80,s, and the increase in lead in our air due to fuel exhaust is often regarded as the likely reason for why). But, he’s also the guy that followed up on the research, and eventually fixed the problem, by relentlessly lobbying for lead to be removed from all fuel sources, warning governments of the dangers, that weren’t realized fully until after the damage had been done.
The problem is that we don’t know everything, we’re not infallible, we will always make mistakes…that’s just the reality. So that’s something we also must accept, we shouldn’t be so quick to assume every problem created was intentional.
That said, of course we should do everything we can to become even more diligent, our scientific standards fir transparency and review should always be improving, absolutely. I’m just saying, that we must also accept that we’re not perfect, so science will never be perfect. So I largely agree with you, I’m just providing a little extra perspective.
1
-
The title of the video makes it pretty clear, that this was not a video presenting any arguments or evidence for the Globe or against Flat Earth. It's not for those people still looking for the evidence, it's for those of us who have already done the research and have already concluded the Earth is a sphere and would now like to discuss WHY and HOW people fall for what we now see as a scam of misinformation, being spread on the internet. This video is a psychological discussion, analyzing the mind of a Flat Earther, trying to get to the root of things to see if maybe there's a broader societal issue we need to be concerned about...and it was pretty clear from the title that this is what it would be discussing.
So I hope that puts this video into clearer perspective for you. You're barking up the wrong tree by demanding he provide something other then what the video was intending in the first place. If you want a video discussing the science and the arguments, then go find one that is focused on that...this video is not for that.
Believe it or not, but many of us have researched the Flat Earth in great depth as well, doing the same research you likely have, watching the same videos you did, but unlike you we were able to successfully falsify the Flat Earth, so we reached a different conclusion. You should consider the very real possibility, that you could be wrong in your conclusions. You can call us indoctrinated all day long...but it won't matter one bit, if you're still wrong in the end. So save your excuses and rhetoric for the other flat Earth suckers that sort of deceptive reasoning has worked on, the rest of aren't so easily fazed by that kind of bullshit. All the "indoctrination" argument does is keeps you from paying attention to what your opposition is trying to tell you...which isn't very open minded of you.
1
-
@randylinn9382 Flat Earthers do their fair share of mocking, so don't be so naive. It's human nature to react with hostility towards anything that challenges a belief structure, especially majority belief structures that are long standing. So I don't know why anyone is so shocked or surprised, it should be expected...it's very normal human behavior. Grow a thicker skin, or don't bother joining the conversation, it's pretty simple.
I prefer just sharing information, I don't like mocking either, but I'm only human, so I will take my jabs here and there. There is a difference between correcting someone and mocking them, I don't correct people to mock them, I do it so that potential misinformation does not go unchecked and unchallenged. I don't care if you didn't want to be corrected, if you post ignorant comments on a public forum, then expect a little peer review.
I had a good point there though, that you should not just ignore so quickly. By telling others they are "indoctrinated" you are just assuming a position of superiority over them and you've assumed that you now don't have to listen to them, no matter how reasonable they may sound...because they're just "indoctrinated". This kind of thinking is just an excuse as far as I'm concerned, a way to shut yourself off from any possible discussion from the opposing viewpoint. Which is going to keep you from remaining objective and open minded...which in turn is going to keep you in an echo chamber of information. So stop doing that, because the majority of us recognize it as just another form of mockery, that does more to shut your mind off and keep you ignorant to opposing viewpoints. If you want to get to the truth of things, you have to remain open and objective at all times. By convincing yourself we're just indoctrinated, you stop listening...which makes it very hard to have a discussion where ideas are shared and considered. For a group that preaches to be more open minded...you sure shut your ears pretty quickly when people attempt to discuss the possible errors of your current beliefs. You should ponder that a little while I think.
What's criminal is that you people go on computers that SCIENCE has made possible for you, accessing the internet that SCIENTISTS have made for you, made with technology and physics you really know NOTHING about, and then you use the very technology that modern SCIENCE has provided for you, to tell those very scientists...that they're wrong and you know more than they do? It's incredible really...and the worst part is, you don't seem to see the arrogance in this. You should be more grateful, but instead you actually believe you've accomplished more than these people, so you spit in their faces instead. In my opinion, that's the real crime here.
1
-
@randylinn9382 We do have a protective shell that works the same way as the inside of a vehicle, it's called the atmosphere and just like in the vehicle that has air inside that is moving with you in the same inertial reference frame of motion, the atmosphere is the same way, moving WITH YOU in the same inertial reference frame as the rotating Earth. It's quite common for Flat Earth to counter with that argument, and I allowed you to do the same so I could help you see that error as well.
When you stand up in the back of a pick up truck however, what you're experiencing is wind resistance...not inertia due to motion itself, you know this...it's pretty common sense. So you're not actually feeling motion, what you're feeling is your body crashing into the air that is not moving in the same inertial reference frame of your moving vehicle...which creates a drag force on your body that you feel as WIND RESISTANCE, which is basically friction...it is NOT the same thing as feeling motion itself, it's just another form of inertia, felt in the form of friction. So no, this is actually NOT the same. Your open environment pick up truck example is not comparable to Earth...because technically, Earth IS AN ENCLOSED SYSTEM, which actually does match the closed system of a moving vehicle with windows shut and air contained that moves WITH THE VEHICLE. Earth moves through a vacuum, so there is no drag force occurring around Earth as it moves through space...so there is no drag force (like in your truck example) to remove our atmosphere and the air IS MOVING with the rotation of the Earth. So it is an enclosed system, an enclosed inertial reference frame of motion that is EXACTLY like any closed vehicle in motion. So my example is actually more accurate and comparable to Earth, I hope that's a little clearer now. Feel free to disagree, but then explain to me why...if you can.
So no, really all you're doing is ignoring the main lesson when you make that bright counter argument that assumed we didn't think of it as well. What you did was what all Flat Earthers do...you ignore the lesson of conservation of momentum when you compare Earth to an open system and you don't fully learn it because of that. So focus now, WHY don't you get sucked to your seat in a moving plane, at 500 mph? If you feel motion the way you seem to think we do...then why isn't every person flung to the back of a moving plane, the moment they stand up in a plane going 500 mph? Why can you toss a ball up in a moving vehicle and it will go straight up and then straight back down into your hand? Exactly like how it does, while chilling in your room...going straight up and straight back down.
I'll repeat the answer for you, because of conservation of momentum...which is basic science agreed upon by the entire community of modern science. You ignore this lesson, the moment you misrepresent the Globe model as an open system comparable to being OUTSIDE of the vehicle rather than inside. We know why you make that comparison, because it's hard to wrap your head around what we all deem as "outside"...is really inside, when you REALLY think about the bigger picture. Earth in our model is essentially a moving vehicle that transports us through space, if you really want to get down to it, that's basically all it is, a mobile home...and atmosphere is the glass window that separates us and protects from space. Atmosphere moves with the Earth in EVERY SINGLE ONE of its motions, from it's rotation to its orbits...just like the air contained in a moving vehicle does. Am I making this clear enough yet? I do hope so. Gravity keeps it contained and holding to our surface, and conservation of momentum keeps it rotating with our Earth.
So hopefully that helps you understand that part a little better, now focus on conservation of momentum please and STOP IGNORING IT! If you guys could just learn this science, you would FINALLY understand where you're going wrong when it comes to understanding the motions of the Globe model. All I can do is provide the information, so I've done that, the rest is up to you, do with that information as you please. Conservation of momentum and relative motion is the science you need to understand better, if you want to understand where you're going wrong here with the Globe model. It's fine to continue to disagree with the model if that's why you choose, but these old arguments are not getting us anywhere, because you're not really learning the model...you're ignoring a lot about it and holding your questions up as proofs, rather then actual evidence.
"...now if you think the atmosphere can do this. i will need you to prove it.
Show me the mechanism that makes the atmosphere turn FASTER than the earth and yet perfectly?"
Ok, you basically just described the Coriolis effect...that's exactly why that occurs. And it is observed in our world, that's why hurricanes rotate in the directions that they do, given the hemisphere that they are in. So congrats, you just figure out why the Coriolis effect occurs, with your thought process there, the different latitude speeds causing air currents to be faster and slower in different latitudes of motion. That means you are thinking a little bit...but again, you seem to think your questions are your proofs. They are good questions, GREAT questions in fact, but rather then hold the questions up as your proof...why not seek the answers? Science is MANY MANY pages ahead of you at this point...but you people are asking the exact same questions scientists once asked, so you're on the right track really...you just give up and assume the questions can't be answered though, that's where you're going wrong I feel.
Now I realize there is more to your quandary there then just Coriolis, but you're also explaining the jet stream and wind motion and ocean currents and to a lesser extent tides as well. What mechanism causes this? Well, atmosphere is technically a fluid, so it adheres to fluid dynamics, so it's not perfectly tethered to the Earths rotation, there is a slight deviation, a lag, that just like any fluid put in a rotational motion, will cause a variation in motions. Fluid dynamics isn't hard to understand or demonstrate, put water in a bowl, now mix in various other fluids like oils, vinegar's, soap, food coloring...now rotate the sucker and observe as the fluid rotates in the same direction with the bowls rotation. Do it long enough, you'll start to observe a lot of really cool effects, opposite jet stream rotations, Coriolis rotations, faster and slower streams that will alternate and shift constantly, etc. The atmosphere is very similar, a fluid put into a rotational motion. It is conserving momentum with Earth, gravity does keep it tethered, but there is a LOT of fluid dynamics occurring as well. It's a very complex system of fluid and motion, but not hard to understand the basic principles of....but sorry, nothing you've said so far debunks any of the model I'm afraid. Do some further research on fluid dynamics and Coriolis, that helps answer your questions here.
So ya know, you're really is focusing a of attention on the higher physics of the model...which is great and all, physics is the science I take the most interest in and it's what I enjoy discussing the most...but it is all really easy to misunderstand and if you're not careful, very easy to get lost in all the details of. So why not take it back to the start and focus on the geometry itself? Explain a sunset over a Flat Earth, how does that work exactly? Why are there two celestial rotations, one for the North and one for the South? Why does each hemisphere have its own stars? How does Polaris drop to 0 degrees when at the Equator on a Flat Earth? https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle.jpg Why are lines of latitude equal distances for both hemispheres? Ya know, simple things like that.
It's important to understand, that we didn't start at the physics, we didn't start with conservation of momentum, relative motion, Coriolis, fluid dynamics, or gravity...we started with the geometry of the Earth first..making simple observations, that really don't make much sense on a Flat Earth when you really think about them. The geometry is pretty easy to verify upon closer observation, many things just do not add up and make sense on a Flat Earth but make perfect sense on a Globe. So that's where we started, and you should too I feel. If you have then great, but I feel Flat Earth tends to spend more time focusing on the "holes" they feel they've found in our model, and then ignore the holes of their own model in the process. The Globe may be tricky to understand at the higher levels of physics, but Flat Earth doesn't even pass basic geometric observations. It falls apart out the foundational level.
Like I said, Flat Earth asks a lot of really great questions, but they do have answers and those answers have evidence supporting them, most with pretty simple demonstrations and experiments to help people verify them for themselves. Anyway, thanks for the chat so far, feel free to continue if you'd like, I do have some more points to make and to ask you about gravity, so perhaps I'll do that later.
1
-
@randylinn9382 Fair enough, it's more then reasonable to ask for evidence to support a concept. As I said earlier, nothing I said prior proves the globe model, I was just explaining the physics that Flat Earth misunderstands. Now I will go into the evidence, because science didn't just conclude the Globe Earth model from nothing...as much as Flat Earth will try and tell you they did, it's not true...Flat Earthers just really have a hard time looking at any research that goes beyond their bias. So here are several experiments that help to verify the rotation of the Earth. We'll start there. All of these are repeatable, some require a bit more time and effort and equipment, but they are all repeatable for the average person, who's willing to put in the time and effort. Some are even done in high school. So I'll start with hardest to easiest.
1. Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=9s These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built large sagnac interferometer (which is scientific name for these gyros), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t=348s Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac Effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then splits light, which then travels along two alternate paths around the apparatus, and then arriving back at a detector. When not in a rotational motion, both beams of light arrive back at the detector at the same time, no deviation. When put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, generating a measurable deviation between the two depending on the direction of rotation and by how much, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation and direction of rotation for pretty much any rotating object you apply it too, which is how it's used in planes today. Since it can be used to detect rotational motions, we can then use these gyros to test for Earth rotation. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=10s
2. Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate then your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it. ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a steady rate of controlled precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they will now precess WITH the rotation of the Earth, at the same rate, so they that they now always point to true north. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that precession. So it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions, also very repeatable and well documented science.
3. Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=132s This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment, because Coriolis causes a specific rotation for each hemisphere, also very well documented. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t=391s
1
-
@randylinn9382 Continued from my last comment. Had to break these up, since there is a lot of evidence for rotation to share.
4.Measuring Centrifugal Force at the Equator - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=241s Many people are not aware of this, but you (and everything) actually weigh different around the world. The equator being the place where you weigh the least. This is due to the centrifugal force generated by Earths rotation, negating a small amount of gravity, about 0.3% at the equator, which causes everything to weigh slightly less. Which is about 0.5 grams difference from a place closer to the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn, not much, but the great thing here, is that it is measurable with cheap standard equipment. Which makes it very repeatable science for anyone to try. So what this guy above has done is a great little experiment anyone could repeat with a bit of travel. What he did was take the same 500 gram weight, using the same scale and then just simply weighed it over and over again, as he traveled closer and closer to the Equator. He took several data sets in a day, throughout the morning evening and night in each location and also over several days in each location, just to make sure he controlled for any flaws of the scale and to test for any time of day effects due to pressure variations in temperature, humidity, weather, etc. Before he left on his trip, he even calculated some predictions for how much Centrifugal force our Earths rotation generates at each latitude and then plotted his predictions onto a simple x and y grid. At the end of his experiment, the math predictions matched with the tested results. The weight weighed less and less the closer he got to the equator, as it should if the Earth were a globe at the size we believe it be, that is rotating at the rate that we understand it to be rotating.
People assume that our Earths rotation should generate a lot more Centrifugal force....but they reach this conclusion, because they really don't know how Centrifugal force works or how to accurately calculate it. All they hear is the 1000 mph rim speed of Earth, and then jump to conclusions based around that. You can tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Flat Earth does, I've never once seen them attempt to understand the physics of Centrifugal force, they'd just rather make assumptions about it and jump to false conclusions. Centrifugal force is caused by a sudden or rapid change in angular velocity and the biggest factor to its increase is not so much speed, as it is RPM's (rotations per minute). These are not the same, as you increase the circumference of a rotation, it requires more linear speed to complete the same rotations, but the rotations are still the same and the angular velocity decreases. The more rotations per minute, the more Centrifugal force, that's a good rule of thumb really. Distance and speed do play their rolls, but it's more the rotational rate that increases this forces output. The Earth rotates at a rate of 1 full rotation every 24 hours, which is twice as slow as the hour hand of a clock. So the Centrifugal force generated by our Earth, is not as great as many would assume...Flat Earth throws around the 1000 mph rim speed of the Earth, but pays zero attention to understanding the physics of Centrifugal force. When you actually figure out the science, you can then figure out how much our planet generates at it's peak (the equator), it only negates 0.3% of Earths gravity. Which is nowhere near enough to overcome gravity and toss you into space, but it is enough for us to be able to measure it. So this makes for a great experiment to verify rotation. If the Earth is rotating at the rate we know it to be, then those weights should decrease in weight the closer to the equator they get. When this is tested, that's exactly what we find. Here are a couple more of the same experiment, done by others, all receiving the same results. Feel free to repeat it, it only requires weights, a scale and some travel, pretty simple stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t=282s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agQnj1q2Y08
5. Coriolis Effect experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=16s You know what Coriolis effect is I'm sure, so I won't go into this one to much. This experiment is pretty simple to repeat, just requires some set up and if you want to get really crazy with it a buddy in the apposing hemisphere repeating the test to observe the opposite rotation. The video also breaks down Coriolis a little more in depth, cause I get the feeling a lot of people aren't even quite aware how it works. They know what it is, but very few seem to know how it works, so this video explains it pretty well. It's just a difference of distance vs speed caused by conservation of momentum while passing through increasingly shorter lines of latitude from Equator to pole. Objects conserve the momentum of the place they left from, but a rotating globe surface is going to be rotating increasingly slower the closer to the poles you get, meaning the object conserving a faster momentum is going to pull ahead of the slower inertial reference frame (the slower moving latitude), causing it to arc (or appear to arc, it's just pulling ahead really) and in the case of draining water, rotate in a specific direction. This experiment verifies the difference between the hemispheres, but you can verify at least one rotation on your own without a buddy, it's just better to have a buddy to really confirm.
So that's a short list of some great experiments and proofs that help to verify Earths rotation. These are the easily repeatable experiments, of course the larger science community has taken things even further, by placing satellites into orbit that basically confirms things at the visual level. There are also purely observational and mathematical proofs, that have to do with tracking the various planetary motions of our solar system and then calculating predictions...but these are not easy to reproduce, unless your math and knowledge of astronomy are way above average. Also included is the mathematics that predicts solar and lunar eclipses...they require our knowledge of the Earths shape, scale, rotation be accurate in order to accurately calculate, but again, not simple math at all to reproduce, not impossible for the average joe, but far from easy.
If you have any questions or would like to point out any flaws you feel exist in these experiments, feel free to let me know, I don't mind taking a look. Just know that the claims of Flat Earth for science not having any evidence in support of a Globe, are just lies and ignorance. We absolutely DO HAVE EVIDENCE to support every piece of the Globe model. Flat Earth would just rather ignore them or deny they exist, which is why most of you don't seek this information out...but the rest of the world thankfully knows better. So you really can't deny that there is evidence, not anymore, but you can argue against the evidence if you feel it is flawed...so feel free and good luck with that.
1
-
@randylinn9382 "Dont forget you have to answer these two simple questions. i am not sure why you are avoiding them? cant you prove your fairy tale world?"
I'm only one guy bud and believe it or not, this is not my life, so you'll have to be patient as it takes time to respond to each inquiry. And I've already answered both your questions technically, in both of my comments explaining conservation of momentum to you, but I'll address them again now if you'd like.
"1. what is the mechanism that makes the atmosphere turn FASTER than the earth?"
Conservation of momentum is the mechanism...what I've been trying to explain to you. That's how the Coriolis effect occurs, because different latitudes ARE rotating at different rates, because that's how sphere works. The entire ball completes one rotation in 24, but different latitudes have more or less distance to circumnavigate in that same amount of time, so the Equator moves the fastest and it gets progressively slower from there as you reach the poles. That part we agree upon.
So now let's add conservation of momentum to the equation. What happens if an object that's traveling at 1000 mph at the equator, now enters into a latitude traveling at 800 mph? Simple, that matter moving in the faster system will conserve the momentum of the faster rotation, which means it will be moving faster then the slower latitude, because of the momentum it conserved from the faster latitude. This causes it to pull ahead and move faster then the surface at that slower latitude. This is what creates the Coriolis effect and if that matter happens to be a fluid, like clouds or atmosphere, then it's going to be put into a rotation...that will spin a certain direction depending on the latitude. Clockwise for the North, Counter Clockwise for the South, those rotations never crossing the equator.
So that's why it's important to understand the science of relative motion and conservation of momentum, it helps you understand how the atmosphere moves faster than the surface, as that air moves through varying rotational rates. Fluid dynamics also plays its part and it gets really complicated once you really get deep into the physics. Some even suggest there is a charging of particles that occurs from the varying rotational systems, which is energy that builds up within the atmosphere, which plays a role in storms, but what they also believe helps to generate our jet stream.
Still lots to learn as well, we do know a lot, but still don't know everything...but we certainly don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...because we have a few questions yet to answer. And certainly not because some bias Flat Earthers, can't accept the mountains of science that destroys there world view from the word go.
"2, airplanes have to fly sideways in your fairy tale world. I say bs, prove an airplane can fly sideways."
Again, I gave you a VERY simple experiment you can try that demonstrates this. I will explain it once more for you.
Get on any moving vehicle with a buddy sometime, so that you are sitting perpendicular to the length of the vehicle (so beside each other along the width of the vehicle). Use a paper airplane for your test, and now just toss it back and forth to each other. You will see pretty clearly that the plane moves back and forth just fine between the two of you.
But now pay attention, because if the vehicle is moving forward...then that means the paper plane is not just traveling in a straight line between you and your friend, it's also going SIDEWAYS along that forward vector that it is conserving the momentum from as well, the entire time you continue tossing it back and forth between you.
So give that experiment a try sometime...and realize, that conservation of momentum is a real thing and it is how a plane is able to do the SAME EXACT THING on our moving planet. If it works in a vehicle while you toss a ball or plane back and forth...then why wouldn't it work on Earth as well? If the air of our atmosphere is moving with the rotation of the Earth, just like the air in a moving vehicle does, and if the plane in the air is conserving the momentum of Earth, just like the paper plane in the experiment does...then why wouldn't this be possible? Explain to me why, but don't use the outside example on the pick up truck again...because I've already explained to you that this does not accurately represent the Earth, the inside of a vehicle does.
1
-
1
-
@randylinn9382 " but i can prove the fe on demand."
Then do it, I've been waiting. All you've done is asked some questions...and for some reason you think questions YOU couldn't answer means ALL of science couldn't either? How delusion are you? Rhetorical question...you're a Flat Earther, I already know the answer. But come on, do you REALLY believe we should just throw the baby out with the bath water, because you and a bunch of other village idiots, are too stupid to understand simple concepts, that the rest of us understand with ease? You haven't done anything but ask questions...this is not evidence...it's barely enough for a hypothesis. I'm more then happy to look at any experiments YOU have to share with me...but I can't do much with empty claims of delusions of grandeur. I've answered your questions and I shared 5 easily repeatable experiments with you that verify rotation. Look up, you'll find them in my previous comments.
At the end of the day, Flat Earth has no working model, the Globe does...in 3 years of looking at this mess, that has never changed. The reality you need to wake up and realize, is that Flat Earth is not used in any framework of modern science, communication, navigation, engineering, or infrastructure...and that's for a good reason, because it's not reality. You can ignore us all you like, but you're only kidding yourself.
It's not my problem really if you can't understand the physics...the rest of us do, we have verified these concepts for ourselves through experimentation and we all agree on the conclusions, because they're quite undeniable...as is the Globe at this point.
So if you can "prove the fe on demand" GREAT, then get on with it...I'm waiting. Would be nice if you actually participated in the conversation for a change.
1
-
@randylinn9382 I have given you my answers already, so I'm not going to repeat them if you're just going to keep ignoring them. I can't have a rational discussion with anyone that won't even look at what I have shared and offer me a rebuttal to each experiment shared. Falsify the experiments I have shared first (if you can), I shared 5 with you that verify rotation, falsify those and then we can talk more about rotation. They are in my previous comments, not hard to find. So I will not continue with you until you take a look at those, each one, watch every video and absorb all the information. Until then, we can't continue on that discussion.
Now share some evidence with me. Go ahead and prove your father to me in less than a minute. I will take a look at any experiments or explanations you share...but again, I can't do anything with what you've given me so far. All you've given me is questions, that you hold up as your evidence...this is not evidence, so I can't do anything with it.
The question is DO YOU know what a test is? Why haven't you shared any with me yet? I'm waiting.
1
-
@randylinn9382 So let me get this straight, in order for you to share any experiments with me, I need to agree with you first? What kind of logic is that? The point of sharing experiments...is so I can review them and see if they have any actual merit to them. The point of sharing experiments, is so you can MAYBE convince me of something, by using those experiments to support your positions. What point is there to share evidence with me...once I'm already convinced? You sure have some backwards logic. I'm not convinced yet, and it's for a good reason...because you haven't really given me anything yet. Is that really all that hard to understand? I really didn't think I was being unreasonable...and normally the only people who don't share anything in return, are the people who really don't have anything to share, just empty claims...and deep down they know it. So Jesus man, just share the information and the experiments already and stop wasting my time. What are you so afraid of?
I can talk about this for days as well, I love the discussion and I know a lot about this topic...but you're just being very unreasonable, and I can't have a discussion with anyone who won't give me anything in return. I'm sorry bud, I'd love to see your perspective, but you've given me nothing. Share an experiment, anything, I will take a look. Until then.
1
-
@randylinn9382 So let's review things a little now, I find that can help to illustrate exactly how things have been going so far in the conversation. Might help you see my perspective of the conversation so far at least. So here's how I feel the conversation has gone so far.
1. You asked some reasonable questions about the Globe model
2. I provided some explanations to those questions, the same explanations that modern science would also provide
3. You gave a rebuttal to my first explanation, and at this point it was going good, we were actually working through the explanation together and discussing
4. I gave a rebuttal for your rebuttal, you said the Earth is more like the open system of the back of a moving truck, I explained that it's not, the air moves with Earths motions, so it's more like the INSIDE of a vehicle, more like a closed system, not an open system
5. This is where things kind of derailed, because you stopped offering logical rebuttals, you just stated that I was wrong and that was that, no further explanation given for why
6. I then concluded there, that since you couldn't offer a counter rebuttal as to WHY you felt I was wrong, then it meant you don't really have a reason to believe that, you just believe it blindly.
7. You then moved on and asked for experiments for rotation
8. I provided 5 repeatable, peer reviewed and well documented experiments/technologies, that help to verify the Earths rotation, providing links to further sources of information for each, as well as detailed explanations for each
9. You then claimed I didn't share any experiments...when I clearly did
10. I declared that I did share scientific experiments for rotation, and stated I would not repeat them to you again, you can review them at anytime by going through my comments
11. I then asked for some experiments from you, because so far all you've done is asked questions and made empty claims with no backing to them, I felt it only fair I get something in return
12. Then we went back and forth several times, you repeated your questions again, claiming I didn't answer anything or provide experiments...so round and round we went
13. You then demanded I answer your questions, before offering any experiments of your own
14. And here we are now...I have answered your questions, I have shared experiments with you, while you have still shared nothing, just empty claims and not much more
So I hope that puts it into clearer perspective. It's fine if you didn't agree with my answers, but then offer me some reasons WHY you don't agree. You did at first, you were actually giving me logical rebuttals...but then you just stopped and then declared victory, while I continued to rebuttal you and tell you WHY I thought your conclusions were wrong.
See how that works? That's how a rational discussion is done. I give an explanation, then you offer counter explanations for anything you disagree with, I do the same for your rebuttal if I can, and we continue like this until we reach a conclusion we both agree upon. We never got that far, because you stopped. Maybe you're not aware how convincing somebody of something works, but you have to keep going because if you can't...then that generally means, you are likely wrong and you can't continue, because you have no further rebuttals. It doesn't mean you are wrong without a doubt mind you, just that you couldn't continue because you had no further answers to refute me. The likely reason being because you are wrong. But you could also just not have all the answers either, which is perfectly fine as well, nothing wrong with stating you don't know either. But either way, you can't convince me of anything without further answers, so you either yield and agree with me at that point, or admit you don't know, or provide a logical rebuttal. Those were your options at that point...that's how a discussion of opposing viewpoints works.
You've been very irrational ever since that point, ignoring me, deflecting and changing the subject rather then focusing on single points, offering me ZERO experiments so far of your own that help to back up your positions. It's been rather frustrating, where at first it actually felt like you were engaging int he conversation.
I'd love to continue, but I can't do anything with empty claims of delusions of grandeur and circular reasoning...so if you have actual experiments, then share them. If you have actual rebuttals, then share them. Otherwise, you're not going to convince me of anything.
1
-
@randylinn9382 Fine, since you won't go back and re-read I will cut and paste it again. Here's my original comment, sharing 3 of the 5 experiments/technologies I shared already, that verify rotation.
1. Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=9s These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built large sagnac interferometer (which is scientific name for these gyros), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t=348s Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac Effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then splits light, which then travels along two alternate paths around the apparatus, and then arriving back at a detector. When not in a rotational motion, both beams of light arrive back at the detector at the same time, no deviation. When put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, generating a measurable deviation between the two depending on the direction of rotation and by how much, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation and direction of rotation for pretty much any rotating object you apply it too, which is how it's used in planes today. Since it can be used to detect rotational motions, we can then use these gyros to test for Earth rotation. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t=10s
2. Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate then your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it. ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a steady rate of controlled precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they will now precess WITH the rotation of the Earth, at the same rate, so they that they now always point to true north. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that precession. So it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions, also very repeatable and well documented science.
3. Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=132s This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment, because Coriolis causes a specific rotation for each hemisphere, also very well documented. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t=391s
Now offer a rebuttal for these. Falsify them, or I do not have any more to say to you. You don't have to falsify them completely, just give me any rebuttal that can begin a discussion that can help me see WHY you feel these are not good tests or technologies that verify rotation. Why are they not valid to you? Are you aware of these experiments or is this the first time you have heard of them? You claim that there are no experiments that we use to verify rotation...but there are, and these are them. So that claim right away is not true. Now tell me WHY you feel these can't be counted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcclemons89 The whole point of science is to eventually get to a point where we can explain WHY and HOW physical phenomena works…that includes figuring out WHY objects always fall DOWN towards surface. You think you’ve explained why, but you haven’t…you might as well have said “it just does”…that’s basically your explanation. If only science could be so lazy and incurious…might as well not even bother at that point. And saying we’re “overthinking it”, is pretty funny…since it’s clear that you’re not thinking at all, which explains a lot.
Whether you like it or not, falling is a motion, motion does not occur without a force…that’s basically the definition of a force in physics, anything that can put physical matter into motion. Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter…it’s already defined in physics, it doesn’t cause motion, it’s just a ratio of mass and volume…that’s all.
You really need to wake up and start thinking more, it’s well overdue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcclemons89 Again, you’re still only describing WHAT happens, you’re not explaining how it occurs. Science is well aware that objects go up when lighter than air, it’s called buoyancy force, but remove all the air (to create a vacuum) and everything falls…even lighter gases that typically rise at surface level. You’re not really paying attention. Falling is a motion, rising is a motion, all motion requires a force to cause it…density is not a force, it’s a ratio of mass to volume, so it can’t cause motion. This isn’t difficult.
Also no, whether you like it or not, the whole point of science is to determine WHY physical phenomena occurs and HOW they work. Whether the Earth is a globe or flat, this remains true. Answering the questions of why and how is relevant in science, regardless of what shape the Earth is. The only reason you deny gravity, is because it’s inconvenient for what you WANT to believe. Sorry, but science doesn’t care about what you want to be true…reality just is what it is.
1
-
Well, no, they are being released now, about 55,000 pages per month, which will be completed by end of August this year. The reason the judge ruled on that, is because he knew people would just spin this into conspiracy and he didn’t want to erode trust in government further than it already is. The FDA agreed, it’s been a problem lately, but Pfizers argument was that they didn’t want “trade secrets” of how the vaccines were made to get out, because then their competitors would be able to steal their work. By releasing slower, it would keep their edge on the competition. Is that bullshit? Could be, but it does have some logic from a corporate interest perspective. Pfizer is a business at the end of the day, it’s survival depends greatly on being above its competitors. So like it or not, there is some logic there.
So I guess we’ll see once the documents are all out in the public domain, but give the government some credit…it was them who forced Pfizer to release the information within a year, it’s Pfizer who wanted it to take 75 years. FDA initially agreed because they don’t have the staff to handle such a large FOIA request at one time, but they saw the judges logic and are gonna make it happen regardless.
It is easy to run with that kind of information and endlessly speculate on the reasons why, but speculations don’t equal truth, so I’d wait until these documents really come out….and I’m sure we’ll get a lot of bullshit fake websites coming out of the wood work with doctored information, I’ve already seen a bunch of fake lists of side effects circle around Facebook, despite these lists being made before anything was actually released, 🙄 so it’s gonna be a shit show now either way…..but the documents are coming out, so the 70 years thing is not true anymore.
Isn’t the internet fun? 😔
1
-
1
-
1
-
@testaccount3891 I didn’t say knowledge itself has a limit, of course there’s no limit to what we can learn, I said every person has a CURRENT limit of what they CURRENTLY know. And often times we’re not aware of those limits and we think we know everything…it’s the basis of Dunning Krueger effect, the less you know, the more you tend to think you’re an expert. You put “limits to knowledge” in quotations as if to directly quote me, but what I actually said was “…eventually hit the limits of your CURRENT knowledge”. So please read a bit closer and don’t twist my words. My point was that you couldn’t solve Flat Earth because your current knowledge is either lacking or in error, so the limits of your CURRENT knowledge has led you to false conclusions. I see it all the time with Flat Earthers…you’re doing great job of demonstrating that point with your ignorant understanding of navigation.
So how do you think they used the stars for navigation? Do you actually know anything about celestial navigation? 🧐 Here’s a short lesson, you pick a charted circumpolar star (best for North hemisphere is Polaris since it’s locked to the North axis of Earth and so it doesn’t move), then you measure its angle to the horizon. That angle can be used to tell you your latitude, which can be used to triangulate your position if you know how many nautical miles you’ve travelled and from where. So celestial navigation works, because we know Earth is spherical and we know its circumference, you require that information to finish the job…the stars are only a part of it, knowledge of the surface is the rest, that’s how it works. A fact of the Earth is that every 69 miles traveled directly South, Polaris will drop to horizon by 1 degree. That’s a line of latitude…that’s where we get the latitude lines from. That consistent drop, is geometry we’d expect on a sphere…if Earth was flat though, that angle would not be consistent every equal distance traveled away from it, it would drop to horizon less and less….that’s basic geometry.
So it’s actually old sailors and geographers who basically first proved the Earth was spherical, you can’t accurately navigate with the stars without first knowing the surface shape and its scale….sailors before this information was acquired, got lost…a lot, which is why they stuck close to shores they knew and never travelled very far where the stars became very different. Until geographers like Ptolemy roughly 2000 years ago finally gave them an accurate system to follow, a system designed on the knowledge that Earth is spherical.
So you’re just rambling and making bullshit excuses. Millions of pilots and sailors today find their destinations with extreme accuracy…and they all use the same system of navigation designed for a globe to help them do it. So they prove the Earth is spherical every single day, it’s not a question anymore.
If you think it’s wrong, I dare you to try navigating yourself, without that system. Go right ahead. You can learn to navigate at any time, lots of great tutorials online. You’ll learn pretty quickly how important knowledge of the surface is, to navigation.
1
-
1
-
@fred-a-stair Sorry, I'll elaborate a little further. When they make the cold Moon light argument, they're implying the Moon does not reflect light from the Sun, they're claim instead is that the Moon produces its own light...and that this light is a cold light in opposed to a warm light...you know, like all other light in existence. There reason for this claim, is because of an experiment they like to do a lot, where they take a laser thermometer and point it at a section of ground that is in the moonlight, and then they do it again for a section that's under cover. The result is that the thermometer reads colder while in the moonlight...so they jump immediately to the conclusion that it's the moonlight that's causing this, instead of considering or isolating any other variables.
They think that because they did a very sloppy experiment, with zero controls in place, that gave them a false conclusions, it means the Moon is projecting its own light. That's what their main argument is here in this case....and ya, it's pretty dumb. It's a clear demonstration of their complete failure in running proper experimentation...and it demonstrates what happens when you run sloppy experiments, you reach false conclusions.
1
-
1
-
@Entropian2012 Nobody uses the AE projection map for navigation…you are just another sucker who fell for a con, perpetuated online by total numpty’s, who really need to peel there faces away from their screens and go outside. Learn to actually navigate please…you’ll learn pretty quickly what model is actually used for navigation. Also, I’ve seen Frankie around in these comments a lot, what I’ve learned is that he’s an actual mariner with years of experience actually navigating at sea, and as a world traveller myself I’ve acquired the knowledge to navigate as well…so spare us both your ignorant bullshit please, cause you have no idea what you’re talking about. You know it, and so do we.
If you think I’m lying, then you just go right ahead and try navigating across any large ocean, and find a destination with pin point accuracy, without any aide from GPS or the globe model to help you do it. Good luck with that. 👍
1
-
Woo boy...well, the best thing to do would be to avoid giving him what he wants, which attention and the feeling of superiority over others. But, I assume he's more then likely gonna talk crap anyway, so best to be prepared with some ammo. Here's some good points to bring up and some good counter arguments to the shit they say.
Here's 6 good arguments to use.
1. Ask him why there are different stars in the North and the South. We see Polaris and the Big dipper in the Northern Hemisphere, and Alpha Centauri and the Southern Cross in the Southern Hemisphere, but you can not see the opposing hemispheres sky while you are in one hemisphere or the other, unless you're close to the Equator, this is the only time you can see both night sky hemispheres. Completely possible and makes sense on a Globe with 2 hemispheres and an entire planet blocking your vantage of the other hemisphere...not so well explained on any Flat Earth model. He'll likely deflect with "looking at the sky doesn't prove anything." Which is nothing but an excuse, a deflection because he has no counter answer and it's pure bullshit...and he likely knows that, but that's what they say when they know they're cornered. If he does deflect with this, then keep that in mind and call them a hypocrite if at any point in the discussion he used/uses the sky to make a claim of anything...because they do and they will. Funny how they can use the sky for observational evidence, but we can't.
2. Remind him that lines of longitude and latitude are designed with these 2 hemispheres in mind. Pilots, ship captains, rescue crews...all use this navigation system and it is designed for a Globe and only works on a Globe, as these lines would be grossly stretched in some points on any Flat Earth...they just do not work on a Flat system of any kind, but they work perfectly on a Globe with 2 hemispheres and anyone can use these lines of navigation when trying to find places...it's deadly accurate. Remind him of that...remind him that nobody who navigates the world for a living uses lines of navigation designed for a Flat Earth model and we're talkin millions of people.
3. Ask him why the Sun and Moon rises and sets beyond a horizon each day. He'll more then likely answer with "perspective makes it reach the vanishing point at the horizon and then they disappear." Sure, the vanishing point is a thing in perspective, but kindly remind him that things also SHRINK in visible size when they travel further away from us...that is also something perspective does and this is common sense. The Sun and the Moon do not do this before they reach the horizon, they maintain the same angular size throughout the day. If he starts cherry picking some examples where the visibility isn't very good and the Sun shrinks...call him out for cherry picking and remind him that these examples only occur when the atmospheric visibility at the horizon is very hazy. On any clear day, the Sun and the Moon do not shrink in size before they reach the horizon. The Moon is a better observation to make, because it's not nearly as bright and is much easier to measure throughout a night.
4. Ask him why there is 24 hours sunlight in both the Arctic and Antarctic during their respective summers. This is not possible on any Flat map or model, but it works perfectly fine on a Globe with a tilt in its axis of rotation of 24.5 degrees. If he goes on a rant about how the footage of 24 hour sunlight in the south is faked, ask him about the 17 hour sun at the tip of Argentina, tell him to look up Rio Grande Argentina during the Dec 21 solstice. They experience 17 full hours of daylight...and anybody can travel here as well. (I say as well, because anyone can go to the Antarctica also.) Even 17 hours of visible Sun is impossible on any Flat Model.
5. Ask him how a Lunar Eclipse works on a Flat Earth. They hate this one, because they really have no good explanations yet...a lot of bullshit and made up gibberish, but nothing that makes any sense or that has been confirmed by anyone. Politely remind him that Lunar eclipses on the Globe model are caused by the Earth shadow being cast on the Moon...which is why the shadow is round. If he deflects with "the shadow should be bigger", give him a lesson on how shadows work, they consist of two parts, the Umbra (the dark center) and the Penumbra (the blury, much less dark, outer edges). The further an object is away from object it is casting a shadow upon, the smaller the umbra of the shadow becomes. This can be demonstrated with the Sun and a Ball, just go out on any clear sunny day, hold that ball up to a wall that is being hit by direct sunlight (works best closer to sunrise or sunset cause the angle of the Sun helps you out more), then just walk away from the wall while still casting the shadow on the wall. The further you are away from that wall, the smaller and smaller that umbra shadow becomes.
6. There are also the star trails, they hate that one as well, so remind him of these. When you take a long exposure photo of the Northern or Southern sky, there is always a rotation around a central point. In the North it's around Polaris, and in the South it's around a star called Sigma Octantis (which is also very faint and hard to see with the naked eye, but it's there). There are TWO rotations...as we would expect there to be on a Globe that rotates. They can explain why there is ONE rotation on a flat model...but they can not explain why there is two...which in reality, there are two, so be sure to mention this.
Anyway, that's a good start, there are many more, so feel free to ask for more...I've unfortunately been in the thick of this mess a long time now.
1
-
@pepper22768 Now here's some counters to some of their better, more frequent arguments.
Sorry if these are getting long ^^; just felt you were lookin for some good ammo and I like being thorough, feel free to read or ignore these if it's to much at once.
1. He'll likely mention that curvature has never been measured and can't be measured because Earth is Flat. This is a lie, we can and have measured the curvature, so first call him out on that. We first did it with shadows, measuring sun angles from several different locations miles apart. He'll probably counter with "that works on a Flat Earth with a local Sun as well", but no...no it doesn't. It works for maybe 2 points sometimes, that are not to far apart from each other, but if you take multiple data sets from various places all around the Globe, the Sun angles stop making sense on a Flat Earth and do not point to a Local Sun. As shown here in this demo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0 But some of the better ways we measure it now today are through things like surveying the land, satellites and even seismology...that last one basically slams a nail in the coffin of Flat Earth every time an Earthquake hits, so worth learning more about. xD
But, he'll likely bring up the 8 inches per mile squared formula to make his case as well, stating that when you use this "curve calculator" to determine what should be hidden by curvature at distances, the numbers don't show any curvature. The reason this is crafty, is because it makes them think they're doing proper math to figure out for this problem...but it's important to know that this math is not the correct math for what they use it for, and that's where they are going wrong here. Lots of problems with this formula, It's not a curvature formula, it is a basic formula for a parabola. It also does not account for height of the observer, refraction, line of sight...the list goes on. It also only gives you curve drop tangent from the surface...which basically makes those numbers useless, because they are only accurate, if your eye sits at sea level, which is never the case. In reality, we look down at the horizon...so basically, the reason these idiots fails to measure curvature, is because they're using the wrong math. Use the wrong math...and you will reach a false conclusion, it's that simple. Here's a link to a far better curve calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ Even comes with a handy diagram you can use to show him how it works. His formula only gives curve drop tangent from the surface...this calculator gives you your line of sight, which is what he should be trying to discern.
2. He may bring up boats in the distance being brought back into view with a zoom camera, boats that looked like they crossed the horizon with your naked eye, brought back with a zoom lens. In his mind, this is proof of no curvature...and he'll likely want to focus on boats and small light houses and such to make his case here. You can argue with him about the boats and lighthouses, there are good counter arguments to make here as well, but I prefer switching the conversation to mountains when they bring up this argument. Ask him why THOUSANDS of feet of the bottoms of mountains go missing, when observed or photographed at distances. On a Flat Earth, there might be some of the bottoms missing due to atmospheric distortions like refraction and mirages, but not THOUSANDS of feet like we do see occurring in reality. This is where you can actually put that calculator I shared above to use, with long distance photos of mountains. You just require the observers elevation height and the distance to the object being observed and it will calculate how much of the mountain should be hidden, using both a geometric calculation and a calculation that includes refraction. Refraction is important, it does exist (as much as they like to claim it doesn't) and it does curve light making objects far in the distance appear to rise up over curvature...which is also why Chicago and Toronto are visible sometimes when viewed from across the lake, refraction for that day make it possible. Refraction index changes due to humidity and temperature, also important to note, the curve calculator I shared is only an average index of refraction.
3. He might go on and on about how "horizon always rises to eye level"...this is another straight up lie. Most Flat Earthers have never actually checked to see if this statement is true...in fact I often wonder if they even know what it means, but I digress. Horizon does not always rise to eye level, it drops the higher you go in elevation. This is what we'd expect to see occur on a Globe and it's exactly what does occur. It's also pretty easy to prove, with the help of a theodolite (a common surveyors tool, you can get apps for it on your phone now that are pretty simple to use), you can actually test the horizon and see if it drops by calibrating the theodolite to horizon at close to sea level and then testing the horizon again with the theodolite, while hiking a hill or mountain, taking a flight, or even going up to the roof of a tall building. The higher you go, the more the horizon line will drop from eye level. The reason Flat Earth fails here, is because they never actually measure it...they just eye ball it and say it's true. You will not be able to notice the drop in horizon with your eyes alone...it's that simple. You require the help of a theodolite or a simpler leveling rig...which can be built with 2 clear water bottles and a hose or pipe connecting the two. There are videos here on Youtube explaining how to build and use a leveling rig.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattosborne1233 Refraction is very real I’m afraid, so you can not ignore it in these observations. Here’s a really simple demonstration that illustrates why it needs to be factored as a variable https://youtu.be/5lmmzvzz_Xs. For even more info, here’s a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. If you still think you can ignore refraction, please scroll down to images 31 and 32. The whole experiment here is quite conclusive, Earth is curving and at the rate it should, but feel free to give it a look sometime.
Also, the 8 inches per mile squared math is inaccurate for this observation, as it’s missing many other key variables required for the observation, the biggest being observer height. It does not tell you where horizon is, or tell you what is blocked from your line of sight, the equation is simply not the correct equation to be using here. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Here’s where you can find the correct math https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ and here’s a handy calculator putting it into use https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. This calculator also includes a standard refraction index, which is good for use on clear days, but if you really wanna get deep into an observation, here’s the best calculator I’ve found so far, that includes an adjustable refraction index http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth.
Point is, I feel you’re being a bit ignorant in your conclusion, intentionally ignoring refraction to help a bias, rather than remaining objective.
1
-
1
-
@paulsmith8510 So me experiencing a time delay from live video relayed from the opposite side of the planet, is someone telling me what’s what? 🧐 No, pretty sure that’s me experiencing lights travel time, demonstrating exactly what’s been demonstrated, proven, and explained by science. That’s the difference between science that’s bullshit and science that’s accurate, it’s repeatable, and it works. Your arguments from ignorance don’t really mean much. There are plenty of experiments that verify light travels in straight paths, even technology that makes use of this, like the ring laser gyro for example. If light did not travel, then there would be no measurable drift in these devices…so it’s applied science. Go to any science lab from any real university in the world, and they will have a laser interferometer…that all work on the function of light having a travel time in straight paths. It’s all repeatable science….so, save me your ignorance.
Tell me, have you been on the ISS, or did someone TELL you what you were seeing, and you believed their speculation without question? Was it really a screw dropped, or was it just a spring latch that clapped on the plastic panel as it was released? Did you actually see a screw drop, because I sure didn’t. Was it really an astronaut fading out of a green screen fakery, or was it just a simple fade transition from one clip to the next, the next clip containing the same background? You know fade transitions are very commonly used in simple video editing, the original video that fading astronaut was pulled from had lots of fade transitions throughout the whole presentation. So have you really not considered any other explanations?
Oh yes, I’ve seen the very same “faked space” documentaries on YouTube that you have, you know what I learned? That these people sure tell you a lot, speculating endlessly on what they WANT you to believe, but in the end, it’s always just that…empty speculations. Do you know the difference between speculation and evidence? Cause by your comment, I don’t think you do.
That’s how these huxters con you, it’s akin to a sleight of hand trick. Present a video with an oddity that requires some explanation, then provide your explanation that’s purely speculative, then hope nobody attempts to challenge the speculation. It’s “keep your eye on what I’m saying, and don’t consider any other explanation”. It’s smoke and mirrors my dude…you have been conned.
1
-
1
-
You're talking about a sidereal day and it's a great observation actually. We have timed our clocks to a solar day, which gives the Earth a full sidereal rotation, plus a little extra so that it lines up relative to the Sun each day. Minute Physics does a great video on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxz6nNqpDCk Though he mentions stellar days here not sidereal, which are a bit different, but it explains the jist of what you're wondering about.
So basically, the Earth really completes a full rotation every 23.5 hours or so (that's what we call a sidereal day), but a solar day tacks on an extra few minutes, bringing it to an even 24 hours and giving the Earth a little extra rotation to line back up with the Sun each day, helping the Sun to align with noon each day. But it's not perfect still, cause our orbit is not perfect, it's elliptical and we speed up and slow down during Perihelion and Aphelion, that's why making an accurate calendar was so difficult...that's why we have a leap year every 4 years...but even that's not perfect. Every 40 years or so we have to add on an extra leap year...it was actually really hard to create an accurate calendar for these reasons. It took hundreds of years to refine our time keeping and our calendars, because our orbit is so hard to track. Even our rotation is wobbling, which is a roughly 25,000 year precession cycle...which adds another layer of difficulty to things. It's a mess, but it's another proof that Earth is orbiting around the Sun.
It's really interesting stuff, so it's great that people are asking these kinds of questions, cause it's neat to learn this kind of history...what's sad about Flat Earthers is they don't bother to look up the answers to these questions, they just hold those questions up as their proofs instead, rather then learn something cool like that. They honestly think they're the first people to ask these questions about the heliocentric model. Their real failure is their smug over confidence and arrogance...so I'm glad people like yourself are asking AND learning, not just asking as if these questions should stump us.
1
-
Science is just another tool in the belt, a method of deduction and analysis anyone can learn and use that is the best method we have so far to deduce the mysteries of reality. Just like any other tool, it can't hurt you until someone uses it with ill intent. So it's the individual that you need to worry about...not science. Every technology you enjoy today, from your phone, to your car, to the electricity that comes direct to your house, is thanks to science, so if you like your internet and modern technology, if you like running water, if you enjoy the house you live in...you can direct your thanks towards science, none of it exists without it. The day we used our minds to unlock the secrets of fire, was the day we invented science...it's a part of who we are as a species, we are a very curious species, all we've done is refined the method down to the sharpest possible point and then dubbed it science, but it's very much a part of who we all are. What I'm saying is, don't fear science...it's not going away, master it instead.
It's people who are corrupt, so it's people you need to worry about, not science. We don't just throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a few pseudo intellectuals peddling junk science. We have a system that does its best to weed out corruption, bias, scam artists and errors, it's called peer review and it does work. It's not perfect of course, but nothing ever will be, there will always exist people who have an agenda and/or a desire for hurting people, so there will always be assholes poisoning the wells of information. It doesn't mean we abandon or fear science, it just means we have to stay sharp and tackle each claim one at a time and remain objective while we do it.
Don't fear science, it's just another tool in the belt...and it's a very useful tool. Instead of fearing it, learn some science for yourself, learn the method for yourself, then you will have a much better chance at sniffing out bullshit when you hear it. Knowledge is power, anyone can learn the method of science for themselves and use it against anyone who would try to use it for ill intent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Also explains why Alaska gets sun for months then dark for months." We'll agree to disagree...as you would always be able to see the Sun on a flat plane, it would never go below horizon on the AE map, but assuming I agreed it could...how would this explain the Southern hemisphere seeing a 24 hour sun as well? Sure, the Sun getting closer to the North makes sense why they see a 24 hour Sun during their summer, but the Southern pole is massive...and the Sun has a lot more distance to cover, yet they still see a 24 hour Sun in the South as well...it's well documented. So how does the AE model account for this?
Do you know how the Heliocentric model describes the seasons? It's pretty simple geometry and physics, light is hotter the more direct it is upon a surface, in apposed to being spread out at greater angles...the days are also longer while tilted toward the Sun, so in general that area that's tilted towards the Sun receives a lot more solar radiation...so it's really simple I feel. The Globe accounts for all observations as well. 24 hour Sun in both poles, different stars in both poles, 2 star trail rotations at both poles with opposite rotations...this is all stuff we'd expect to see occur on a Globe, that doesn't quite work on a Flat Earth. We have 2 hemispheres in reality...you can't just focus on one and call it done, you have to be objective and accept that there are in fact 2 hemispheres, that operate the same...which doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a Flat Earth, but works perfectly on a Globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heaart2145 If any amount sees the opposite, then the Flat Earth is a bit busted...because this wouldn't happen at all on a Flat Earth. The Sun does this every year in the South, during their Summer, I know it does, cause I've seen it for myself several times now. This does not fit the Flat model, but it fits the Globe perfectly...it's exactly what we'd expect to see occur every Southern summer, on a Globe that is tilted relative to the Sun. Here's another one breaking down the models and showing you why this doesn't work even further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1al9aGartM
So I'm not really trying to be a jerk, but what else do you want me to conclude? This fits the Globe model...the Sun rises and sets to the South at certain times of the year...this would not happen on a Flat Earth. I'm just trying to remain objective about it, I can't just ignore observations like this. If the Sun is circling above, around our North pole, then it would never be seen to rise South, trace North and then set to the South again...anywhere, at anytime, it would never happen on this model. But it's not just that, the Sun wouldn't set at all over a Flat Earth...which is really it's bigger problem, explaining a sunset and why that occurs...this alone does not make much sense over a Flat Earth. Here's what we'd expect to see the Sun do over a Flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t=3s
So the Sun in reality actually greatly debunks a Flat Earth, it does not match with the Flat Earth model in pretty much any observation...while the Globe does. Here is more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9w4KtHxZ68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4av1CD8smII
Every observation of the Sun fits a Globe model, but does not make much sense over a Flat Earth. So I agree, the Sun is the perfect object to observe if you want to verify the true shape of Earth for yourself...but it's not a Flat Earth that it supports. That is what I have concluded so far, from a great many observations made.
1
-
1
-
@deptfakex7472 Well, the first video is just highlighting new technology NASA is using to study upper atmosphere for cheaper...so what do you think this proves? I can only assume you think these are "satellites", which is just a false and empty claim without any backing. Flat Earth is full of paranoid bullshit like this, and not much actual evidence...just empty speculations designed to instill doubt. You're not finding many answers...you're just trying to stir the pot and troll people, get them to join your cult. Just saying, nothing in that video gives me any reason to think they don't have actual satellites in orbit right now...especially when you really get into the science and history of satellites. As that video clearly states, it's a new technology they've created so they can do the same research...for much cheaper, which is something all companies do, they look for cheaper alternatives.
Now the second video is more interesting, and I've come across it many times before, but again it's just a lot more speculation than actual facts. When you dive deeper into that one, you find that every person on that list is actually a different person...and much of the claims made there are just made up, lies to sell a bias agenda against NASA. Though of course, that information debunking your video could have been faked as well, but It's just more speculation, on top of speculation. Unless you actually go out and interview each one of these people, talk to their families, their employers, learn everything about them, spend months of your life digging up the REAL facts...there's not much most can do here except endlessly speculate and chase bias. And even if this was a staged accident, still doesn't prove the Earth is flat...just means governments and institutions lie sometimes, which is not new information...we all know this already. Could have staged that event for many reasons, one being sympathy for further funding. NASA has struggled with funding in the past, would be a smart way to bring them back into the public eye and earn interest again, which leads to further funding. Who knows, but what I do know is that NASA at the end of the day is a business, and thanks to capitalism, corporations are basically living entities (many people don't realize that). Just like any living creature, it will do ANYTHING to survive...and for a corporate entity, staying alive means money. Blowing up an old rocket and lying about the crew dying, cold and evil to the rest of society, but if you look at it from a corporations perspective, who's just trying to keep the lights on, pretty small price to pay. So there are many alternative reasons why they could have staged an event like this, even if it was true...certainly doesn't mean the Earth is Flat.
Now, please don't take any of that as my actual opinion on that one, I'm just thinking outside the box and offering alternatives for why they would stage it. I'm not saying they did, and I'm not saying It makes it ok if they did, of course it's wrong...but from what I know about that conspiracy, I personally don't think they did...I think it's just another made up conspiracy, a scam designed to bring hate and doubt towards the science community.
So it's not that we're ignoring these things, but personally I'd rather not focus on things like this, empty conjecture, speculations, things that I can't verify. People can and will lie...nature on the other hand, does not, so I prefer to stick to the science. Science that is repeatable, that I can use at anytime, to prove a great many things about physical reality.
You can verify the Earth as spherical at anytime, by just observing a simple sunset...then try and make sense of that on a Flat Earth. If Earth were Flat, with a Sun that circles above, wouldn't you expect to see the Sun 24/7, from everywhere on Earth? Common sense says yes, and so does the math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM Or what about the fact that Earth has two equal hemispheres, with different stars and two different celestial rotations, around different pole stars...little hard to pull that off on any version of Flat Earth proposed so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtx5jVLUaU&t=1s Or what about pilots, ship captains, military, rescue crews...anyone of the millions of people who require our data on Earth shape and scale be accurate, in order for them to navigate it with precision. Little hard to find a destination, if you're using inaccurate maps...wouldn't you agree? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4&t=13s
Just saying, perhaps there is a lot that YOU are ignoring. Flat Earthers sure like to focus on the conspiracy...and not so much the science and I find that odd. We get it, you hate government...we all do, but the science doesn't lie...so why not spend a little more time focusing on the actual science for a change, and less time focusing on all the speculation that you can never truly verify?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh boy…so yet another individual who doesn’t quite understand the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. 🤦♂️ Just because they use the word theory for their conclusions, doesn’t mean those conclusions are not proven. Nothing graduates to the level of a theory in science, without first being rigorously tested and verified through experimentation. All scientific theories are compiled of facts and verified, repeatable science, so it’s not as simple as you’re pretending it to be. Electromagnetism is also a theory in science, but you’re more than likely currently using that knowledge, to send and receive your internet data over a wifi connection. Gravity is also a law in science, look up Newton’s law of universal gravitation sometime.
In science, hypothesis takes up the role of a theory in the regular usage of the word, while theories in science are the body’s of verified knowledge, that describes HOW a phenomenon of nature functions at the mechanical level. Not to be confused with a scientific law, which only describes WHAT is happening, but makes no attempt at describing HOW it works…that’s what theories are for.
So you’re getting confused by the terminology, and falsely assuming that because something is a theory of science, it implies that it’s not been proven. Nothing becomes a theory in science, without substantial evidence to verify it. Gravity has more evidence than you are currently aware of…your ignorance of gravity physics, is not an argument against it.
People really gotta stop lying about physics, and start delving into it to make ACTUAL valid falsification arguments. There is evidence for gravity, so don’t pretend there isn’t, otherwise we can only assume you’re either blind, extremely biased, ignorant, or all of the above. If you think the current conclusions are wrong, then go into the evidence, and point out what you believe to be wrong…otherwise, don’t waste your time, because nobody is going to bother with empty claims or anecdotal evidence…and you won’t achieve anything with that either.
1
-
The interest has been slowing over the last year or so, but there are still many channels that do delve into the science a lot more extensively. It really depends on what argument in particular you'd like to focus on, most channels on YouTube are pretty specialized, so here are a few of what I consider to be the best.
For anything having to do with flight paths, flight navigation, or just piloting in general when it comes to the topic of Flat Earth Wolfie6020 is an international pilot from Australia that covers that topic pretty well, with very detailed videos tackling the arguments by Flat Earth on that subject. He even does a lot of astronomy videos as well, being an amateur astronomer who's done his own observations with his own equipment.
Then another great channel is Sly Sparkane. He makes some the best simulation renderings having to do with pretty close to every argument Flat Earth has raised, looking at curvature data, to sun equinox shadow angles, to simulating eclipse data....his channel goes deep into the science. He's done LOTS of his own experiments, he's pretty thorough.
For some of the best 3D renderings that make some of the shortest and easiest observations to tackle, Jos Leys does some great mathematical simulations. I'm pretty sure that's his profession as well, mathematician, so his demos are pretty interesting and helpful.
Another good channel is Soundly, who has provided some of the best visual observations of curvature. There are two users that use that name, you'll know it's him with his many videos of Lake Pontchartrain causeway bridge. You can also find a lot of his data interpreted here at the Walter Bislin blog, which is a blog dedicated to analyzing Earth curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth This blog has some great observations and experiments, so definitely worth a look.
If you want probably the most extensive website for challenging the claims of Flat Earth, this site has documented pretty close to all of them. https://flatearth.ws/ From A-Z they cover close to all of the arguments made, pointing out the errors of each one, so it's a great resource for quick information as well.
Metabunk is a great place to look as well, especially any of the threads by Mick West, who goes deep into the mathematics of Earth science. Here's a good thread discussion on the proper curvature math. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ Cause Flat Earth uses the wrong math often in their observations, 8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender. This blog explains, breaks down and demonstrates the proper math to use.
Other great channels you can find here on YouTube are:
Voysofreason
CoolHardLogic
GreaterSapien
CriticalThink
Blue Marble Science
Bob The Science Guy
Scimandan
Reds Rhetoric
Professor Dave
Flat Earth Math
These channels and sites all focus pretty close on the science, so all really good resources to learn more about the actual counter arguments against Flat Earth. Hope that helps ya out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Says the guy shouting at people, demanding they believe what you believe blindly and without question. People are thinking for themselves, just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're brainwashed...you could be wrong, so you should consider that very real possibility. Calling people "brainwashed", "sheep" or "asleep", these are just buzz words used to rattle and confuse people, which in turn robs people from thinking for themselves. You brainwash people the moment you start saying they're being brainwashed by others...that's brainwashing 101, instilling doubt to make them more suggestive, makes it easier to seed your ideas.
Instead of yelling at people and calling them brainwashed, maybe discuss ideas with an open mind where people are treated equal instead of talked down too. If your theories and ideas have any truth to them, then they will stand up to review and open discussion...if not, then consider that you might be wrong.
1
-
@HaydenEvanoff What’s there to debate here? You tried to convince me to ignore refraction, said it doesn’t need to be factored...I simply stated a fact, that ignoring variables in science will lead to a false conclusion, that to do so is generally how confirmation bias works. Can’t reach any objective truth, through ignorance and bias, that’s a fact, not an opinion...it’s just common sense.
Just cause I decide not to agree blindly to bullshit...that makes me arrogant? Am I not allowed to question or criticize or raise concerns? Sorry I’m not so easily conned I guess, but I don’t care about your feelings, when someone is blatantly wrong, I will point it out. Grow a thicker skin I guess, or don’t comment obvious bullshit. You choose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eddie LR Fela Yes, it’s basic human psychology really, it does not feel good to be corrected, so it’s easier for the mind to double down, rather than consider errors. I actually read an interesting article on that once, explaining how studies have been done showing that being corrected on something, even if you weren’t wrong, just the chance that you could be, creates a sort of trauma in the mind, that the brain automatically protects against...through ignorance. It was really kinda eye opening, cause it makes sense. I’ve definitely been wrong before, and I’ve definitely tried covering that up, by ignoring it or resisting through bullshit...I think we all have. It’s a defence mechanism, the brain can only handle so much trauma, so it does what it can to reduce it. Unfortunately, in this case, it’s through ignorance...which explains why it’s so hard to get through to people on things they’re obviously wrong about.
Hayden here isn’t wrong though, the best way to convey information to someone, is to frame it better. Instead of calling people stupid, it’s better to be kind and patient, treat them like an equal rather than talking down to them, makes it much easier to change a person’s mind, cause they feel less attacked that way. But...doesn’t always work, some people are more sensitive, it varies. And it’s very hard to know in text, without body language and tone to help display intent. My intention wasn’t to attack, just to provide some info, so it could counter misinformation and dispel misunderstandings. Even when being nice, you’re still correcting something, and that is usually viewed negatively. But, it has to be done...or else we could never correct anything.
I just generally reach a point where I stop caring, I don’t have much patience for nonsense unfortunately. I try to be more understanding at first, but anything I see as whining kinda pisses me off a bit...and I have a harder time being nice after that. Even being aware of the psychology, can’t help it. 😅 Glad it didn’t spiral though, it is a bit of a waste of energy, all I care about in the end is sharing information.
Anyway, glad it was helpful. Take care.
1
-
NASA never admitted to anything you've just claimed above...Flat Earthers are the only ones who make this claim, projecting words into NASA's mouth. ONE GUY who worked for NASA in the composite department, was explaining what HE does at HIS job. He makes composite images of Earth, using multiple images taken from low Earth orbit. To make a composite image, you need to stitch together many small pictures to make one big picture...your phone does the same thing with the panoramic feature, stitching together multiple images to create one. So in HIS department, the only way they can create a COMPOSITE image of Earth, is by using photoshop...hence why he said "it is photoshopped, but it has to be". But Flat Earth jumped on that, removed his words from the context, and then made a claim that he was speaking about EVERY SINGLE PICTURE ever taken by NASA. He was most certainly not speaking about every picture NASA has ever taken...he was only talking about the composite images that HE worked on. On a slight secondary note, technically speaking, composites are comprised of REAL images, so they're not fake either...no more then a panoramic image is.
There are composite images of Earth, created from thousands of images from Satellites at low Earth orbit...and then there are FULL IMAGES of Earth, taken from satellites and spacecraft from thousands to millions of miles away from Earth. Here is a video featuring 200 of those types of images. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE&t=165s
You can claim these are faked too...but then go ahead, prove that all of them were faked, you've got some work ahead of you, cause there are millions of photos like these now. Just cause you couldn't find them, doesn't mean the rest of us don't know how to use a search bar too.
Either way, it is clear to me 100% that Flat Earth took the words of one guy who worked for NASA, presented those words out of context and then made a false claim with them, stating that he was talking about EVERY picture. He was not, and anyone who takes the time to do some better research will learn that fact...so Flat Earth lied...to help sell a bias belief they have about NASA. Who are the real liars then? As far as I'm concerned Flat Earth is...and that's FAR from the only thing they lie about. I hope I was able to help you see that. Turn that lens around on Flat Earth sometime, question them just as thoroughly as you now question NASA and the Globe. Flat Earth is taking you for a ride.
1
-
1
-
Well, time zones are a man made invention, and they're carved out to follow countries and industries more then they are to follow Earths rotational rate. If the time zones were designed more accurate, then they'd be straight meridian lines going through the North and South poles, that keep an even 15 degrees apart from each other, as that's the rotational rate of Earths surface, 15 degrees per hour, for 24 hours. But they didn't design it that way...because of different countries wanting different things, different industries wanting more time per area...it's fucky, but it's not the planets fault, it's ours.
To further extend this though, how exactly do the time zones work on the Flat Earth model? Have you ever bothered to spin that lens around, and apply this observation to the Flat Earth and see how it makes sense of it? The answer would be the same really, time zones are man made...and they don't really follow the rotation of the Earth or the Sun very closely, just close enough. But what we can do, is collect data of the Sunlight the Earth receives in a year and then plot that data on each model to see which one makes more sense. Ever seen what that sunlight yearly data looks like on the Flat Earth model? Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEYsgP4CuSA Pretty weird looking sunlight patterns...the most bizzar is during the Equinox, how exactly does the light from the sun just cut in half and form a perfect terminator line through the pole?
I mean, if you really wanna talk about a model that doesn't make much sense, look no further then the Flat Earth. I'd say, spend a bit more time paying attention to that model...and recognizing how broken it is.
"And why the moon and sun only light up the clouds closes to them if the clouds are local.
"
Because from your perspective, when you're looking directly at a light source, the light that reflects off the objects directly parallel to you and that light source, will be focusing more of that light to your eye, causing it to appear brighter. Look at a cloud that's not in the direct path of the Suns light from your perspective, and light is still shining on the side of the cloud, but that light is bouncing back to your eye over a wider area, causing it to focus less of that light, which makes it appear dimmer. Making sense? It's all perspective.
I know the Sun "appears" like it's close and local...but I'm afraid optical illusions do exist and so we can't just conclude things on "it looks local, therefore it is", that is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. We have to be more diligent then that, and take these observations deeper. One way we can do that, is by measuring the sunlight's shadow angles. Collect enough of this data, from places all around the world, and we can use it to pinpoint the suns actual location.
Here's a couple examples of people who have done just that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t
When you really take this observation to its furthest points, you find that the Sun we observe in reality just simply does not fit with the Flat Earth model...it does however fit perfectly with the Globe.
Anyway, hope you find this information at the very least interesting. If you got anymore questions or points to make, feel free to let me know.
1
-
@ynotatsac7643 That's a great question, let's see if I can help you out here. So there are several different things that effect temperature. One of those ways is distance, obviously, that's what most people recognize and understand. But often we forget that more direct and focused light can also cause temperature to increase as well. You ever burn ants with a magnifying glass as a kid? That's all that's happening, taking the same amount of light from the sun that all of your local area is receiving, but using the lens to focus it into a single point, which increases the amount of solar energy in that focused light.
The same happens when you shine light differently upon a surface. Shine a heat light directly down onto a flat surface, perpendicular to that surface, and that ground directly beneath that heat light will be very hot. But now shoot that light at more of an angle however, say 45 degrees at the surface, now the light disperses over a wider area and so that surface won't be as hot...not nearly as hot in fact. Same amount of light energy being distributed, but when it's less focused, when that energy is more spread out at an angle, it will cause a difference in temperature.
So because the poles of the Earth aren't facing the Sun directly, the light from the Sun arrives on this surface at a far greater angle, which disperses that energy over a wider area, instead of focusing it, like it does closer to the equator. The closer you get to the poles, the more and more the suns light is arriving on that surface at steeper and steeper angles, causing that light and solar energy to be scattered more and focused less, causing a difference in temperature.
Hope that helps understand this better. It's not just distance that effects temperature, the angle at which light is received can also effect temperature greatly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, the ol' indoctrination argument. That's great and all, except they didn't just tell you how things were back in school, they also demonstrated how they're correct, with experiments and observations that anyone can repeat. Had you paid attention in school, you would have noticed that. Indoctrination is when they just tell how things are without any further demonstration. Understanding is what separates indoctrination from true knowledge, you reach that understanding by demonstrating how that knowledge was acquired in the first place and really the only point in school where they tell you how things are is in elementary, from there on they don't just tell you, they demonstrate how we reached the conclusions we have. In university they take it further, and you're not just demonstrating how these conclusions were reached, they also have you make your own discoveries...you don't recieve a doctorate or Phd, until you write a thesis...which requires you ADD something new, through your own research, your own data and by asking your own questions.
So it's cute to bring up the tired argument of "you're all indoctrinated sheep", but it's just buzz words that are designed to turn you into an even more ignorant, incredulous sheep then you already were, which is ironic and pretty funny but also pretty sad. It's brainwashing 101, make everybody else into the enemy and convince you that you're special, that's exactly how you indoctrinate and brainwash somebody.
Your arguments here are nothing new, it's the same tired cry of the layman, who has zero experience with science and wants to blame others for why they're not as successful, always looking for excuses, using ignorance as your weapon of choice, rather then actually trying. If you actually took some secondary science education and stuck with it, you'd learn pretty quickly how everything you've just said above is ignorant paranoia and not much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@357bkg "Everything dealing with space including gravity is a known fact to be a theory only"
No, EVERYTHING that describes HOW something works in science, is a theory. That's the language of science, a scientific theory is much different from the usual use of the word theory, it takes on a much higher importance and status in science. Hypothesis takes the role of the usual use of the word theory and theory when spoken in the context of science, becomes the highest pinnacle any concept that describes how a concept works at the mechanical level, can ever achieve. You pretty much forfeit yourself from conversation, the moment you say something is "just a theory". It tells the rest of us that you likely don't know anything about science, not really. Little hard to listen to anything you have to say after that. It tells us you likely have reached your errors, because your ignorant to most science and likely have not learned how to control what bias you have, which leads you to your errors in thinking.
Electromagnetism is also a theory
, and that science is currently used to send you your wifi connection. Gravity is a theory yes, but we use that science to calculate escape velocities of rockets, figure out orbital mechanic paths that successfully put satellites into orbits, unlock the secrets of the Sun's nuclear fusion reactions and recreate them in labs, calculate parabolic arcs for long range targeting, the list goes on. Pretty useful knowledge, that is filed under the word theory, for a very good reason.
They CHOSE that wording, for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will...there's just too much to learn. So as new information is learned, it always has the potential to change old information...that's the true nature of information gathering of any kind. Scientists realized that, so they called their end conclusions theory's, so that they now have room to expand upon proven concepts, change them or even discard them completely (if any new information can). So they were very wise to use the word theory...but it confuses dumb ass people, who don't get it, because they think in black and white absolutes and cause they've never really bothered to learn anything about science. That's not their problem though, its yours.
Learn the language of science please, then you'll have an easier time understanding how it operates. Otherwise you just tell the rest of us that you don't really know much...which is why you filled the blanks with such assumptions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whataworld369 I’ve tried checking Joes website for this scheduled debate you claim is there, it’s not there…so I can really only conclude for now that you just made it up. Go ahead and tell me where this schedule is, cause I sure can’t find any. All I find is a link to his Spotify page, scrolling down to ep# 1159, where this clip was taken from, and all it says is a brief description of who Neil is…that’s it. No mention of Dubay or debate at all.
He didn’t agree to any debate with Dubay…so he’s not running from anything, he was never asked. This isn’t the only time Neil has publicly stated that he doesn’t do debates…I know of another time on the Big Think channel, where he also stated very clearly, that he doesn’t debate settled and objective science. So if he’s publicly stated multiple times that he doesn’t debate……what makes you think he agreed to a debate here? 🧐 Again, I’m looking, but I sure can’t find any written or vocal agreement from Neil…so it’s pretty simple, I simply have no reason to believe he did.
You just don’t personally like Neil, so that’s your bias here. That bias of yours has caused you to assume Neil agreed to do this debate beforehand…when he actually did not. If you think he did, then show me the written or vocal agreement from him, publicly stating he’d debate Dubay. Go ahead…you won’t find it. I’m trying to find this schedule you say exists, but so far nothing.
I’m not trying to be a dick here, I’m just pointing out to you, that I’m not aware of any agreement to debate. I am however aware that Neil has stated many times that he doesn’t do debates of what he feels is objective science.
1
-
@whataworld369 1) I’m not a mathematician, but I’ll share my thoughts anyway. Doing a quick search, the 3 body problem has actually been solved at least 3 separate ways now, since it was first postulated 300 years ago. Though these are not a general solution, they are special cases only, so technically still unsolvable, but not in some cases. It’s deemed unsolvable, simply because the patterns never repeat, they’re chaotic…unless of course in special cases where they’re in perfect balance. It also has more to do with masses that are all equal, and all orbiting each other, that’s generally how the problem is set up, with 3 equal masses. The Sun is far larger than Earth, or the moon, or any of the other planets, so its mass dominates. Which is why it’s probably easier to predict our solar systems orbits, because the Sun is so massive its gravitational output renders the other masses as negligible in comparison, so the 3 body problem can be ignored, basically. It’s also not orbiting the other planets, and they don’t influence it. Earth doesn’t orbit any planets either, so there’s only ever 2 bodies to solve in most cases in our solar system (ex. Sun and Earth, Earth and Moon, etc), and solving a two body orbital system is solvable, because it does repeat. But I learned something interesting, the Moon does shift chaotically a little bit, because of the 3 body problem. It’s a very minor chaos, so it can largely be ignored, but it is there I guess. So that’s pretty interesting. We can only currently predict the Moons exact position (within a margin of error), up to a point, the margin of error increases over time until it’s basically unusable. Pretty interesting.
So basically, every planet and Moon in our solar system, is in a two body structure, so far more balanced and predictable orbits. The 3 body problem applies more to 3 masses that are equal in mass, and only if they’re orbiting each other…and of course the other planets aren’t orbiting each other. Not to say their gravity doesn’t have influence on us, they do, but it’s very minor, so we don’t have to really worry about the 3 body problem.
That’s my understanding of it currently, after a quick bit of research. But again, I’m no mathematician, so take that with a grain of salt.
2) We only see Venus and Mercury just after Sunset and before sunrise, you’ll never see them at midnight. This is what we’d expect, it’s not like Venus or Mercury are always directly in front of the Sun…they orbit around it as well, and those orbits do go out pretty far from the Suns position…so while the Suns position is blocked, doesn’t mean you can’t still see the space beside the Suns position…where Mercury and Venus will sometimes be in their orbit. Night begins at 90 degrees to the Sun…not 180 degrees. So the geometry does work here, you could even draw it to help you visualize it.
3) The 70 mile shadow is the path of totality, and it is the umbra of the Moons shadow…but the penumbra of the shadow is actually around 2000 miles wide. Do some research on the umbra and penumbra of a shadow, the umbra can and does shrink…and that’s the path of totality in a solar eclipse, is the umbra. You can still view an eclipse in the penumbra though, for thousands of miles, it’s just not a total eclipse for you then, because your not in the umbra shadow.
Anyway, hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Let me know if you have any more questions.
1
-
1
-
@k3630 “I’d think that with such a powerful force like gravity, that it would be playing havoc with such a solar system.”
It used too, the universe at one point used to be a very chaotic system, a much denser cloud of free roaming molecules, crashing into each other constantly. But over enough time, most of these molecules combined, leaving more gaps, lessening the amount collisions, forming stars and planets, eventually settling into stable orbits. Earth and all the planets orbiting the Sun, are all that remains, in the 1 in a trillionth chance of a stable orbit. It’s just simple probability’s at that point, the universe is big enough, with enough matter within it, with enough time going by, that stable orbits are bound to happen eventually. Earth is one of those eventualities of probability. The geometry and the physics is all mathematically possible, so we have no reason to believe it couldn’t.
“It seems to me that some of the explanations of gravity appear to be after the fact, as in, what is gravity, after everything’s been formed, rather than accounting for gravity as the very compressive force that formed everything.”
Well ya...because we didn’t create the universe and we didn’t observe it’s formation directly, we’re just plopped in the middle of it all, so we really have no choice but to reverse engineer reality, through deduction and paying really close attention. Science builds on prior knowledge, it didn’t start with gravity, it started with the basic geometry of the planet we live on, then it looked to the stars and noticed they moved and behaved in peculiar ways, realizing gravity came much later...after every other observation was basically proven fact. The next question was figuring out why and how? If the Earth is measured and observed to be undeniably spherical, then how exactly does everything stay to the surface? A force had to be present to account for that...does not fully understanding how it works, make the basic observed geometry just go away? No, of course not. But gravity did so much more than just make sense of falling objects, it created a domino effect in understanding, once gravity was realized, every other mystery began to fall in place and make sense.
You have some great physics questions, so here’s a great channel that I think might help you out https://youtu.be/uhS8K4gFu4s. That particular video should help with many of your questions here, so give it a look sometime.
1
-
@k3630 “so how is it that light objects can free themselves from that force. Because that force is powerful enough to bind this earth together, and compressed gas enough to form into a sun??”
You’re forgetting how much larger the Sun is compared to us. Gravity is increased with mass, so a Star has collected so much mass, where lighter gases can not freely move, instead they’re forced together into fusion reactions, hence why and how the star burns. Our Earth is in the sweet spot, where it can hold most everything to the surface, but lighter gases are still loose enough to form an atmosphere, rather than compress, and life (which is comprised of more solid matter) is able to resist it by creating energy. The Moon for example is too small, not able to contain lighter gases, so it doesn’t form an atmosphere. Earth is in the sweet spot.
You might think “oh that’s a convenient coincidence”, but is it? With an infinite universe, containing so much matter you could never hope to quantify it...odds are pretty good that a planet would eventually arise with perfect conditions for life. In fact odds are pretty good that it could occur billions of times, even within our own galaxy...that’s how big the cosmos are.
It’s a complex system, took a long time to answer these very questions you’re asking. Not being aware of, or not understanding all the variables involved, makes it a whole lot harder to answer these kinds of questions though...which is why they feel like contradictions at first.
1
-
@k3630 “Why are things on our surface not compressed?”
Well, they kind of are though, they’re on the surface, being compressed to it. That’s what weight is, it’s basically inertia, that’s created by mass compressing against mass. But it’s only compressing if there is contact, otherwise there is no compression, but gravity is still effecting the objects. What makes you think we’re not experiencing compression? You feel heavy don’t you? You feel your body compressing don’t you? Takes effort to lift yourself up?
What you’re not quite getting, is that gravity between two masses is proportional to both masses. The Earth isn’t just attracting the Moon, the Moon is also attracting the Earth, these masses are huge...gravity wells also extend pretty far for large celestial objects. You and me are not very big at all though, so we don’t require much energy to resist Earths gravity, a butterfly requires even less. We have less mass to move, so less gravity effecting us. The less mass an object has, the easier time it will have resisting another objects gravity, because it’s own gravity is not creating much more attraction and it has less mass being attracted. If an elephant had wings though, it would require a lot more energy to resist gravity and fly, because it has more mass.
You’re thinking about it to much like a magnet force, and that’s not really the best way to picture it. It’s easier to imagine it as a motion along curved space.
1
-
@k3630 It’s easy to spend all your time with the explanations, and then think they were reached by speculations alone, if you take essentially little to zero time to look at the actual facts and evidence that supports the conclusions. There is a difference between explanations and evidence, I should hope that’s pretty common sense, but I do feel the line gets blurred sometimes. We’ve talked all this time discussing the explanations and end conclusions, but no time at all really looking at the evidence that led to them. I think that’s what some people like/prefer to do (especially when discussing topics they don’t like/want to agree with), is focus on only the explanations and conclusions, because then they can pretend as if there is no evidence supporting these conclusions, because nobody has presented any yet. That’s why I feel you’ve been attempting at a form of socratic method with us, your mind is already made up and has been this whole time, you’ve really just been attempting to make the rest of us reach that conclusion as well, by attempting to get us to see the contradictions you’re seeing as well.
The difference is, we don’t just know the explanations, we’ve looked at the evidence, the facts, the data that has led to these explanations. So you won’t find us agreeing there’s contradictions, because we’ve seen the evidence that supports these explanations, which gives us a foundation. Don’t have to know every detail (and no single person does, there’s just too much to know), if you observe it happening, you’ve measured it, and now use that knowledge and understanding in applied sciences like engineering.
If you’d like to now shift gears and examine some evidence that helps support these conclusions, I’d be happy to share some.
1
-
1
-
1
-
So he points to ancient artifacts and fictional stories from those times...and classifies this as evidence? No wonder people become Flat Earthers, this is not evidence of much. Romanticizing the ancients and assuming they were somehow smarter then we are today, is a logical fallacy. It's making a LOT of assumptions...so nothing conclusive here really, just a lot of empty conjectures. In a few thousands years from now, when they dig up a gold statue of Mickey Mouse...I'm sure they're gonna spin all kinds of bullshit around this as well...see why this shouldn't be counted as evidence of much?
We can assume a lot here...but we sure can't reach any definite conclusions from it. Doesn't mean we ignore these findings, but compared to actual observations we can make right here right now, today...these old statues and stories don't mean much. They just keep you focused on the wrong things. Why not observe the natural world that's right in front of you right now? Why focus on the past you can't really verify? You can verify much of the modern world...you're living in it currently.
What this video helps me understand, is that some people are fine reaching definite conclusions about geometry and physics....through statues and stories, speculations and inconclusive evidence. Not a very smart way to go about deducing a geometry problem.
Also, I love how he shows an oval sphere to describe Earth as an oblate spheroid...the difference from Equator to the poles is like 14 miles...sounds like a lot to you and me, the microscopic life that live on the surface of Earth, but if you take a look at this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ you'll understand how much difference 14 miles really is, compared the thousands of miles circumference of the Earth. Earth is an oblate spheroid...but Newton was not proposing it was an egg or oval...that's not what he was saying at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youtubebot6297 "Type nasa admits we cant go through van allen belts. Its so in your face people refuse to hear the words." Refuse to hear the words....how ironic. No, the people not hearing the words are Flat Earthers. I've watched the video you are referring too...have you? Have you watched ALL of it, or did you just see the parts that Flat Earth cut out and presented to you, taking them out of context? They go on to explain in that video, that with NEW technology comes NEW challenges. They have to TEST each NEW system in the same conditions as the Van Allen Belt...just like they did back in the Apollo days, with the OLD technology. That whole video was just trying to explain to people that engineering a new Lunar module and including all the NEW TECHNOLOGY, is not as simple as just slapping it all in and going to the Moon. They Have to test every single piece of new technology that goes into these new modules...and that is going to take time. The truth of the matter is, modern computer technology is not analog anymore, and it is easily damaged by the radiation in our Van Allen Belt. So open your ears...cause context is very important. Don't just watch the parts Flat Earth snipped out and presented for you...actually watch the entire thing and LISTEN to what they're actually saying.
The same goes for this "Nasa sais there not real they are composites from photoshop." NASA never said that...ONE GUY who works in their composite department said that what he does is stitches 1000's of satellite images together to form a composite...and the only way you can do this, is in photoshop or any other photo editing software. He does not represent the opinion of all of NASA...and he did not mean that EVERY SINGLE IMAGE OF EARTH is fake. He just meant that the photos HE WORKS ON, are composites of Earth. Flat Earth again took his words out of context from the original video and slapped them in a gish gallop presentation full of probably many other out of context quotes, that they knew you'd never check.
Here, here's 200 full images of Earth, unedited, taken long before the days of CGI, these are full images of Earth taken from far orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE&t=260s In the description of this video is a link to an archive where you can find many more images just like these. And again, David already mentioned above the Himarwari 8 satellite, so that takes full images every single day. There was also footage from the Galileo spacecraft back in 1990 that's quite interesting, I urge you look that up...point is, there is TONS of full photos of Earth from deep space. Flat Earth doesn't show you these photos, because they have a deep bias, they've created an echo chamber bubble of information that works to keep you from seeing this evidence. So I urge all people step outside that bubble...because it's very likely the REAL con men here, are these Flat Earth channels on YouTube, who make a LOT of money off of the gullible and uneducated and have absolutely zero oversight, aside from the people in the comments sections doing their best to shine a light on their bullshit claims.
I get it, it's not wrong to question reality and Flat Earth often asks some very good questions...but they also tend to chase patterns that are not there and there is just as much lies and deceitful tactics being used by the prominent Flat Earth channels here on YouTube...so question EVERYTHING! That includes Flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
@markmead6742 I don't mind talking science, if the person I'm talking to is mature enough to have a civil discussion and actually pay attention, rather than resort to childish insults. So a good starting evidence of Earths spherical geometry is found when observing a simple sunset. How exactly does the sun set on a Flat Earth exactly? The Globe answers for this with absolute ease, the Earth rotates away from the Sun...there, explanation over. But to make this work for a Flat Earth, you really got to get to ramming that square peg into a round hole...and even then, the hypothesis you come up with, doesn't fit with the data and observations.
But I'll give you a chance, what is your explanation for a sunset? How does it work, please give me a detailed explanation, enough that a hypothesis can be formed from it. Then, once you have your hypothesis, do you have any observations, experiments, data, pre-calculations using your model and evidence that supports your hypothesis?
Cause the Globe sure does. Here are a few simple experiments that have been done in the real world, that supports the hypothesis of a setting sun caused by Earths spherical shape and its rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s - Measuring and plotting sun shadow angles, data collected all around the world during the Equinox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t - Same experiment, done in a different year, data plotted on several different proposed models of Flat Earth, to see if it fits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t - Plotting the observed path of the Sun on both models using perspective math and their measured degrees of inclination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1al9aGartM&t - Observing the Suns rise and set path in the South hemisphere, paths of the Sun making no sense on a Flat Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw - Making a simple mathematical observation of the Suns path through the sky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t - More sun shadow angle data plotted in 3D.
I can share more, but that'll do for now. These are real observations made in the REAL world, and then placing the data collected on each model to see which model fits with reality. In every case, the Globe fits the data...while Flat Earth just fails hard on every single experiment.
So take a look if you wish, and in the meantime, get back to me with your evidence that supports your position for the sunset over a Flat Earth, I'm more then happy to take a look at what you have.
If you'd like to see the experiments that have been done to verify Earths rotational movement, I don't mind sharing that either. It seems to me you could really use it, seeing as you seem to think it doesn't exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markmead6742 There is a very good reason why Rowbothams experiment is refuted, because he didn't do enough to render a more conclusive result. It's pretty simple. Science isn't about confirming bias, it's about doing everything you can to reach the most conclusive result, this requires you pay attention to EVERY detail and account for these variables, you have to remain objective. Rowbotham only took ONE observation, paying attention to ONE variable, collecting ONE data set...then he did the wrong math, and called his work done.
This is how you do science wrong. So his experiment stands today as the perfect example of reaching a false conclusion due to sloppy science. Upon all proper recreation, this experiment is found conclusive in favor of the Globe. Here's a very recent recreation of the experiment in case you're curious. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
This is a very thorough recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. You'll notice here they do A LOT more to render a more conclusive result, by collecting several more data sets, over several days of observations, paying attention to EVERY detail. The two big mistakes Rowbotham made, was he did incorrect math, and he ignored atmospheric effects like refraction. If you pay attention to the second half of that report, you'll notice it goes into great detail with refraction and illustrating in pretty clear visuals WHY it's so important not to ignore. This picture in particular should be an eye opener for anybody who thinks refraction isn't a thing you need to factor in long distance observations. https://ibb.co/rM91N1m
So there are valid reasons to refute Rowbotham, anyone who doesn't think there is, doesn't really know much about his experiment. It wasn't a bad experiment, he just didn't do it properly. He did it only so far as to confirm his bias, which is how you do science wrong and reach false conclusions. THIS is exactly why peer review is such an important part of the scientific method. People lie, make errors, chase bias and overestimate themselves all the time...so peer review must be conducted to weed these flaws out.
1
-
@markmead6742 "Say, where's that picture from outer space that shows antipodes, and upside down buildings and airPLANES?"
You do realize that buildings and planes are basically microscopic compared to the Earth right? If you're taking a full picture of the Earth from space, you're doing so from THOUSANDS of miles away. So how big are you expecting airplanes and buildings to look from thousands of miles away? You're not really thinking this through very well.
"If the earth is a tilting wobbly spinning 25k mile circumference ball, why do the shorelines taper to sea level at the North Pole but the shorelines at the ANTARCTIC CIRCLE have 200'+ tall ice cliffs?"
So you've been to the Arctic and Antarctic and know with absolute certainty that one has only high ice shelves and the other doesn't? Your claim is incorrect, here's an ice shelf in the Arctic https://www.rushhourdaily.com/canadas-last-arctic-ice-shelf-breaks-apart-due-to-warming/ and here's a tapered land entry in the Antarctic. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Palmer_Station_Antarctica_seaside.jpg/800px-Palmer_Station_Antarctica_seaside.jpg
You are correct that one has more ice shelfs than the other, but that's for a good reason. They are not the same at all. One forms directly over the ocean, while the other forms over a land mass with elevations that exist above sea level. Here's some good information on how iceshelfs form. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/iceshelves.html They require land to form from. So you're comparing apples and oranges and pretending they're the same...they are not.
Besides this...how can you think this is evidence that refutes the Globe? It makes sense on both models, so this is a pointless argument to make, it doesn't falsify a globe in the slightest.
"Why is the sun 24-7 at the North Pole, and not at the ANTARCTIC CIRCLE?"
Guess you haven't done your research very well. BOTH locations have the 24 hour Sun...which doesn't make much sense on your Flat Earth model, but makes perfect sense on the Globe. Here's a couple videos to help you out, since you didn't bother to look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4av1CD8smII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQlr366eels
So a far better question to ask is simply this, HOW does the 24 hour Sun occur at all in the Antarctica?
"Why is the official name of the North Pole, and the official name of The ANTARCTIC CIRCLE, ANTARCTIC CIRCLE?"
Lol. Nope...their both known as both. They don't just have single names...they're both known as North and South Pole and Arctic and Antarctic circles. This is the most bias claim I've ever heard. No wonder you're a Flat Earther. Is this REALLY a point you think as valid evidence? Jesus....
The rest of your ramble is just empty claims with no real questions or points to address. They're claims you're making, which requires you elaborate further with evidence to support them.
But damn...if THIS is your evidence, then I've never seen more bias research in a single post. You just made a bunch of assumptions and ignored the parts of information in your points that directly refute them. These are perfect examples of confirmation bias....which explains a lot about why you've reached the conclusions you have. Welp, it's fine if you want to post this as your points, super easy to point out how bias your conclusions are. So by all means, keep going, you're doing more to defeat your arguments then I am.
1
-
@markmead6742 "The sun does appear to get smaller as it moves overhead on its circuit. Do some research and tests"
Well if you actually paid attention to any of my experiments I shared for the Sun, I didn't really share any that had to do with the angular size of the Sun. But yes, it should shrink in angular size on a flat Earth, due to perspective. You really like to assume a lot don't you. I have done these experiments, I know for a fact the Sun does not change in angular size when you observe it throughout a day. Unlike you however, I will provide evidence of this, not just make an empty claim. Here's a video time lapse of the Sun observed throughout a day, using a solar filter lens to observe it's true shape and size, never once does it shrink in angular size throughout that day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtQiwbFD_Cc
It distorts due to atmopsheric refraction just before setting, but it doesn't change size.
The claim by Flat Earth is that perspective is what causes a sunset, saying that it's due to vanishing point. But you really don't care to know what that must require. It's not JUST that the sun should shrink, it should shrink so much in angular size, that it becomes impossible for you eye to render, thus reaching the vanishing point of your eye. So even IF it were to be observed to shrink a tiny bit (which it's not), then it's still not good enough, because vanishing point requires it shrink completely out of visible sight....and it doesn't even come close to that. It maintains the same size and then dips into the horizon.
Whether you like it or not, this is a HUGE problem for the model you're looking to support.
"Tell me one scientific test that proves the Earth is a tilting wobbly spinning ball"
There is no single experiment that verifies an entire model...a model is built from many different observations and experiments and mountains of data, that all point to the same conclusion. So you'll have to pay attention, cause I'm sharing the information you're asking for as we speak.
1
-
1
-
mark mead Boy, you really don’t seem to know what evidence is. You can’t just says it’s perspective that causes a sunset and then leave it at that...you then have to verify it with data, observations, experimentation, calculations. Place the data on your model and simulate it. If your work holds up and fits the model, THEN you can submit it as evidence....so far you’ve talked about ONE experiment, but didn’t offer me any video confirmation of that experiment being conducted. Meanwhile, I DID share a video of someone conducting a similar experiment, observing the Sun throughout a whole day, using a solar filtering lens to observe the true size and shape. In the video I shared, which you can find in a previous comment above, the Sun is not observed to change in angular size at all. It maintains the same exact size and thin sinks into the horizon. Under the laws of perspective, this would not occur, so your claim is falsified.
So I’m afraid you’ve offered me really nothing...just talked a lot about your delusions of grandeur. Meanwhile, I gave evidence that refuted your position. Not doin too well over there bud.
1
-
mark mead So your new video is making an argument from incredulity and committing a logical fallacy known as a false equivalence fallacy. So first the video and yourself laughs at the speed of our solar systems motion, basically saying “it can’t be possible because I don’t understand how it’s possible” that’s an incredulity fallacy. You and ALL of flat Earth seems to know nothing about the physics of motion, so because you lack this knowledge, you don’t understand how the motions are possible, so you just assume they can’t be possible...and never consider the possibility that you’re just lacking information and understanding here. So you make arguments from incredulity like “ha, you actually believe you’re spinning through space at thousands of mph?!” Which offers nothing, just ignorance and incredulity. So it’s a fallacy in logic, nothing more.
You’d have to successfully falsify the Laws of Motion, conservation of momentum and relative motion, to even begin making a claim that the motions of Earth are not possible. So until then, you can laugh all you want, but it just tells us you’re scientifically illiterate, and really don’t know much of anything here. Basically, just because you don’t understand how it’s possible, does not by default mean it isn’t possible...the other very real possibility, is that you’re just too stupid to understand it.
Second, the false equivalence fallacy is pretty simple, comparing two things that appear similar but really aren’t, but then claiming they have to be anyway. He claims that nature is all about vortex, then shows some pictures claiming these as his evidence, then pats himself on the back as if he’s really falsified anything here. No...that’s not how things work. You don’t just claim EVERYTHING has to be a vortex, because a few things are, then call it a day. That’s...wow...like it’s reasoning like that, that is the reason why you fell for an internet scam like Flat Earth. xD
Again, his assertion ignores the laws of motion and offers no experimental evidence to support his claim. So it’s just a straight up logical fallacy from front to back.
You’re really treading water bud...but is quite clear now how you’re a Flat Earther...you’re stupid. I don’t like throwing that word around lightly, but the shoe sure seems to fit, judging by your terrible arguments so far and complete lack of evidence.
1
-
mark mead You’re not really doing much Mark, just ignoring everything I’m saying and then running on redundant temper tantrums. Questions are not proofs, you have questions and you hold them up as your evidence...but just because YOU don’t personally know the answers to your own questions, does not mean they don’t have answers. It’s just one argument from ignorance after the next with you. Just one big logical fallacy after the next.
This has been pretty easy so far, you’ve offered nothing but ad hominem and logical fallacies...so not very strong arguments at all. And nothing scientific so far that supports your claims, just empty claims and simulations that don’t prove anything.
I’ve already shared an experiment with you that is a very thorough recreation of the Bedford level experiment, that conclusively observes the declination you keep yammering about. Here’s that experiment again http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
In my experience reviewing the claims of flat Earthers, your observations for declination always have errors in them. A huge error I come across all the the time with curvature observations, is you often use the wrong math...and then never think to check your own work to make sure. So...shocker, you didn’t see what you thought you should, because you suck at math. Should be pretty obvious but use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, pretty simple stuff. 8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender of bad math that I come across, but there are many other examples...you people just really suck at math...that’s not our problem, it’s yours. The other error I often spot, is you guys very often fudge the details, getting the distances wrong, the heights wrong, the observer heights wrong, etc.
So I no longer trust you people when you say you made “observations” and didn’t see any curvature. You are strongly bias, so I have no doubts you just messed up somewhere and then didn’t bother to check your own observation for accuracy. I would normally ask that you share some of your observations...but you haven’t been a very level headed guy so far, so I don’t expect you’ll share any observations you’ve made even if I did ask...you’re likely just gonna pile on more insults and ignore everything I’m saying again, wasting both our time. If only there was such thing as a rational flat Earther...sigh...would be so nice to have a rational conversation for a change.
A sunset is one of the top proofs of the Globe Earth, all observations, experiments and data collected in the real world fits with the Globe model, as I shared earlier...and you ignored. You didn’t refute or even look at any of that evidence I shared, you just keep rambling on about how I didn’t share anything....which is the same song and dance of the irrational flat Earther. So I’m really not surprised. Ignorance is your bread and butter...like talking to a toddler.
I just didn’t wanna move on from the Sun evidence, until you gave me a rebuttal, so I was trying to keep you focused ...and so far you just gave me ONE experiment, which I refuted with my own experiment. So you haven’t successfully falsified any of my evidence for the Sun yet....so that’s why we haven’t moved on yet. See science is a long process of back and forth falsification...you have to have patience bud. You haven’t falsified my point yet, so we’re still talking about it...it’s not difficult.
But alright, if you want to move on so badly, I’ll just conclude you have no further rebuttal, so I win the point because you haven’t successfully falsified my evidence, you just ignored it. So let’s move on to another point now if you’d like. The Southern Hemisphere...I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere, I’ve seen the second celestial rotation of stars around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis....so if the stars are rotating above, around Polaris like in your model you shared, how exactly is there a second circular rotation of stars in the South? If you’re going to go with the AE model, then you have to address it’s long list of flaws. The entire Southern Hemisphere doesn’t make sense or match with reality, on that model. But guess which model it does fit with.
I’ll share some evidence of this soon, it’s well documented. But feel free to give me your ignorant answer for how exactly this magically somehow works on your model. I’ll wait.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KangenAlec Not really, it’s not a big secret that governments and power structures lie and conceal information, it’s pretty common knowledge. What’s different between some people is how much they allow their imagination to wonder on the subject, creating shadows from their fears that likely aren’t real. It’s made worse when these paranoid ideas need more, when you’ve already reached a bias conclusion from pure speculations, but now you go searching for bread crumbs in the form of even more speculations and misinformation, looking for anything that can confirm that bias even more...reverting back to mans primal instinct of finding patterns, even when there are none.
Believe me, I understand the logic that drives you, I used to think the exact same way, thinking in absolutes, pretending my life sucks not because of my doing, but because of a boogeymen I believed was at the helm pulling the strings. Do I still entertain the idea, sure, but I don’t believe it outright anymore. Paranoia, fear, bias, speculation...none of this will lead you to any real truth, just makes you miserable. Evidence and keeping your head on your shoulders, following objective reasoning over emotion and confirmation bias, that’s a far better way to get to truth. It’s slower yes, not as addicting, doesn’t quite feed that hunger for pattern seeking nearly as much, but it’s honest.
Point is, most people get it...they have the same anxieties and they entertain the same crazy ideas from time to time. We know lying occurs, the question is how much...and how much does our own mind fabricate, simply cause it wants to be right so badly?
1
-
1
-
Alright, but don't just listen to what Eric Dubay says blindly and without question...he's very good at fooling you into thinking he's an expert on these subjects, but it's just because lying is like breathing for that guy. Just spend some time watching this break down of one of his videos on why he thinks dinosaurs are fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4&t=7s This is an ACTUAL paleontologist going through his video and pointing out every time Eric lies...it's pretty eye opening, I wouldn't trust a word Eric says if I were you, but give that video a watch sometime and decide for yourself.
Many of us have gone through his Flat Earth videos now and have outlined the many times he lies in these videos as well. They're not hard to find, so I feel it's worth your time to seek these videos out as well. What he does is called gish gallop in debating...it's a method of convincing a person by dumping a shit ton of info on them all at once, that overloads your ability to process things one at a time. Hypnotists do the same thing in their acts to put you in a more suggestive state of mind...it's a clever tactic, but it's all bullshit. Take the time to question what he's saying, don't just listen to him blindly. Slow down his videos and tackle each point individually, one at a time...it takes time, but it's worth the effort.
1
-
1
-
@knightmarefuel4499 Not pointless at all, you just have such a pessimistic way of looking at life. Got any friends? Ever go out and enjoy life? There’s lots of great things about life, and our accomplishments just enrich the experience. The fact that it could end tomorrow just makes it more precious. You seem like a sad, pessimistic, little person. There’s just as many good things in modern society, as bad. If you only focus on the bad, then sure, life will suck for you. Focus on the good things, like art, music, community, friends, family, lovers, good food and good experiences...and then life can be pretty sweet. That’s heaven on Earth right there, it’s all how you look at things.
1
-
@knightmarefuel4499 And you will likely never understand the beauty of a fleeting existence, it makes life so much more worth living, knowing how precious our time really is. I’m not afraid of my fleeting mortality, I don’t require anything more than the life I already have, it’s my short time here that makes it so exciting and interesting...and best of all, no sky daddy required. You sound like someone in an abusive relationship, unable to exist without someone else validating your existence. You get your purpose from someone else, I get it from life, just knowing I exist in a beautiful universe, is enough for me. If it’s created by a God or not, I could care less, just happy to be here. I respect existence, I don’t however have any respect for a God...that created me just so I can kiss his ass for eternity. That doesn’t deserve respect. But that’s YOUR fantasy God and is likely not true. See it’s not God we have a problem with...it’s you people and your bullshit.
Also, Evolution does not state we came from apes, it states we have a common ancestor...then you say I’m uneducated. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jgk381 I have a lot more then that actually, we didn't just conclude the Earth is a sphere over night...it took hundreds of years over a great many observations, all pointing to the same conclusion, I know of a great many of those observations now, I've been looking at this mess a long time. I'm just saying that these observations are easy for anyone to reproduce and if you do, you'll reach the same conclusion. But fair enough, I have not been up into space yet, so you're right on that, I have not seen it for myself. But though I haven't been to space yet, mankind has and those people who have, have taken a lot of really great pictures. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
I argue with Flat Earthers, because all they're doing is spreading misinformation, that is designed to make people doubt. Once they got you doubting, then they got you hating mainstream science, fearing it even a little bit, which makes you paranoid...and we don't need more paranoia, we need less of it. That is dangerous, if enough people fall for that scam, then it brews into a mob mentality, and next thing you know, we got Flat Earthers in the streets rioting, demanding the heads of NASA or government. That's worse case scenario, but even if that doesn't materialize (and it likely won't thankfully), it's still effecting our youth. Kids that won't go into the sciences, who won't get secondary educations in these fields, because they now believe it's all bullshit...that's going to cripple their future, and it's going to slow us down, that's all this is going to do.
We do not need to see the Earth, to be able to deduce the truth of it. But we have...so I agree, this is a dumb fucking argument. But we have to have it apparently, cause if we don't then this shit just fly's by the radar unchecked and unchallenged, and then we have a real mess on our hands. I argue with these people, to provide a little peer review of their conclusions, cause I don't think potential misinformation should go unchallenged. It's not to change their minds, if they're Flat Earthers then they're already gone, I share information from the opposite perspective, for those on the fence still, who are seeking it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Color corrected and sharpened, but other then that, not really sure what you mean by altered, can you share what else they have altered? You are aware that Photoshop didn't exist in 1972 correct? So how exactly were they digitally rendering full Earth images, before the technology and software even existed to do so? And that was far from the only picture taken during those missions. Here's a great site that has archived many of those photos, one of many online that shares hundreds of photos of Earth taken from space. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums They used that one image for the cover of a magazine, I believe it was TIME magazine, because it was the clearest and best of the images taken...not much different from any other photo shoot. It was color corrected to brighten and bring out the colors more and sharpened to render a clearer image, just like most magazine cover photos are. But there were hundreds more images taken, probably even thousands in just those Apollo missions alone...and they're not hard to find.
Here's some great shots from Apollo 16 https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544. These are in high resolution, so just click on one of these and blow them up to max...and let me know how you think they faked these in the 70's, before digital imagery was even invented.
So we still believe these are real, because we have no reason to believe they were faked, nothing substantial that is. No actual evidence that supports that claim...just a bunch of ignorant people making up empty speculations to feed a bias they have against NASA. That's all I'm seeing anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@63phillip That’s fine, it’s good to question things, it’s how we learn. But consider this please; the Earth is measured spherical, we prove that every single day, with every successful navigation that uses that model to chart their routes with. So probably millions of sailors and pilots per day, all using the same geographic coordinate system, designed for a globe of 24,000 miles circumference, all reaching their destinations with pinpoint accuracy. If the model they’re all using were wrong, then it simply would not work, it’s really that simple. Can’t navigate successfully until you have accurate knowledge of the surface you’re navigating. All Navigation uses the globe model, so Earth is spherical.
Do things fall towards the Earth whether you’re in America or Australia? Yes, they do. Does water adhere to the Earth whether you’re in the North or the South? Yes, it does. Okay…then it’s simple deduction at that point. If we observe everything falling and adhering towards surface no matter where we are on Earth, and if Earth is without any doubt measured spherical, then gravity pulls to centre…that’s how it works.
Obviously there’s no forces out in space pulling our oceans off, because the ocean remains in place no matter where we are on Earth.
Earth is the practical example you should be paying attention too. Gravity is just the name we gave to the falling motion we all observe and have experience with. Nothing is put into motion without a force to cause that motion, that’s physics 101. Is falling a motion? Yes, it is. Do things fall towards Earth when you drop them? Yes, they do. Okay, then there’s clearly a force attracting things to surface, because that motion doesn’t just happen on its own, only a force can cause motion. That force exists everywhere on Earth…things fall towards Earth no matter where you are on Earth.
It’s fine to question things, but there’s just some things about reality that are undeniable, and that are easy to confirm for yourself at any time. Why is it so hard to accept that there’s some things other people are not lying to you about?
Anyway, I hope that information has been helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
@63phillip You have an up and a down, down is towards surface, up is away from surface. I’m saying direction is relative, and Earth technically does not have a top or bottom. You have an up and a down because of gravity, gravity orientates you to surface, so gravity is your frame of reference, relative to your gravity vector, down is towards surface, up is away from surface, because that’s how you experience gravity, it pulls you in one vector, towards surface. So up is away from that pull, down is towards it, simple.
But Earth itself can’t do that, because for it, gravity is all around it in a 3 dimensional field of force, all vectors pulling towards its centre. So every point of its surface has equal gravity…so it has no top, and it has no bottom, it can’t orientate itself the same way you do. But I suppose if you wanted to get technical, if you do use gravity as the reference, its bottom would be its centre, because that’s how gravity works, we understand it better when we imagine it like a hole or a well, centre of Earth being the bottom of that gravity well, the point on Earth that everything is attracted towards, the point that everything falls towards. Make better sense yet?
Direction is relative, you can’t determine a top or bottom of anything, without first having a reference point. We choose gravity as our reference point…but Earth itself can’t do that, because it doesn’t have one gravity vector like we experience at our local scale, it has countless vectors all around it…so which one would you choose? 🤷♂️
So there is no top or bottom of Earth. It’s a common misconception to think the South is the bottom. It’s not actually.
So that’s why the South has no trouble keeping the ocean on…its gravity is just as equal as the North. There’s no other forces present, just the force we call gravity pulling everything towards centre, so the ocean has nowhere else to go, but towards that forces influence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@63phillip Do you understand that direction is relative? That down is something you can only determine after you’ve chosen a reference point to determine it from? If two astronauts meet in space, but they’re both oriented with their feet positioned at the other astronauts head…which one is upside down? They both are, and neither of them are…at the same time. To each other, it’s the other astronaut that’s upside down…but that’s because they each have chosen themselves as the reference point for upright.
So this little thought experiment proves that direction is relative. Something can be both upside down and upright at the same time, it all depends on the reference point you’re viewing it from.
Same goes for Earth, it has no top or bottom, because gravity is equal everywhere, but for you, down is towards its surface. No matter where you are on Earth, that holds true, because gravity is your reference point no matter where you are. So you have a down, Earth does not.
So when you make a snarky response like “so now there is a down”, you think you’re catching a contradiction…but it just tells me you’re not really grasping this yet. I can only explain things so well, the rest is up to you, I can’t make you understand. But I hope it’s been helpful.
Let me know if that makes better sense. If not, feel free to explain why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 There you go making empty claims again. Bring me the details for any one of those observations you are claiming, observer height, distance to object, objects elevation, etc, and then I’ll go through the real math with you.
But it’s simple really, if you’re seeing things at great distances, then it’s because you are really high up, or the object you are observing is really tall, or both. It’s common sense, observation height extends how far you can see, even hundreds of miles if you’re high enough…it’s really not difficult to understand. That equation I gave you includes observer height, 8 inches per mile squared does not. This isn’t difficult stuff…for most of us anyways.
My one single proof? How about EVERY FIELD OF APPLIED SCIENCE THAT USES THE GLOBE MODEL AND WORKS! We’ll start with a simple example, navigation. You think pilots and sailors can successfully navigate the planet, with extreme accuracy, without knowing the shape of the Earth? You are delusional if you do. 😄
You don’t seem to get it, I’m not debating with you, I’m just telling you how it is. Flat Earth lost this debate hundreds of years ago, now we just talk to numpty’s online on occasion, to sharpen what we already know, it’s a good exorcise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 I've debunked several of your points, with pretty simple explanations for why they're invalid. For long distance observations, your math is wrong and you're not accounting for every variable, such as height of the observer and refraction, just to name a few. So you reach false figures, cause the math and information you're using is wrong. So of course you're numbers aren't going to fit what you observe in reality...it tends to do that when you don't do the math right.
I've asked nicely several times for some examples with all the precise details so we can go through the math on at least one observation, but you duck and dodge and ramble instead. So not much I can do if you're not willing to go to the basic work required to verify or falsify a claim.
For the rest of it, it can mostly just be ignored, because you have stated conclusions without providing the evidence that led you to the conclusions. You expect me to agree to the conclusions, before you've even done anything to prove them as accurate. Pretty standard rule of thumb in scientific review; claims made without evidence, can be discarded without evidence. It's that simple. Conjectures and empty claims mean nothing in science. Provide some evidence for those claims, THEN we can go through that evidence. So far I've received none, that's been our conversation thus far.
I've just being doing my best to help you see how flawed your reasoning is. But you're not listening, your only interest is to win something here...rather than consider how you could have been duped.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Again, they're empty claims, so they mean nothing. You debunk yourself, the moment you state something without providing the information and evidence that verifies it, all I had to do was point out to you how they're empty statements, though I shouldn't have too...it's pretty common sense. So I can only assume, if you're seeing things at 100 - 200 miles away, it's because either your observer height is also really high, or the object you're viewing is really big, like a mountain range for example. Since you’ve provided NO further details, all I can do is assume…that’s why the details are kind of important. So your claims mean absolutely nothing, unless you have evidence supporting them. You've so far given me nothing, so those claims are debunked just by pointing out how lacking the details are.
For Chicago, refraction explains most of the observations, though at 40 miles, the math checks out just fine even without factoring refraction, leaving about 200 feet of the taller buildings visible and there are several. The 60 mile photo, from what I understand, was taken from the top of a 200 meter sand dune close to that shore line, but refraction can absolutely account for the observation as well. I've done the math on these, they check out, if you'd like to go through the math, then we can do that, but I need specifics. Which observation in particular would you like to go through?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Well, say hi for me. In the meantime, it appears YouTube scrubs all comments with links now...I can see any I post with the links I share, but you can't. That's really annoying. Kinda makes arguing on this platform pointless, cause if we can't share evidence, then it's tough to make our points. So you obviously also missed all my posts demonstrating refraction, as they all had links in them....that's just great.
Ok, well you'll have to search them yourself then, I won't bother posting links. I can share two points of evidence that are really easy to find in a single search.
The first one is the Turning Torso Tower observation, by Mathias KP, who has observed it from various distances, clearly showing it slowly descend into horizon the farther he gets. Unlike other towers it's difficult to determine an accurate height being obscured by horizon from just eyeballing it, this tower however has very clear sections, each are roughly 20 meters, you can see each section from a distance, so you can count the sections as it drops more and more into horizon...clearly displaying curvature. Many have done the math for this observation, if you search it, I'm sure you'd find many links from those crunching the figures. The amount it drops and becomes obscured by horizon is consistent with a spherical Earth of 25,000 miles circumference.
The second is the Rainy Lake experiment, you type that into YouTube, it should be the very first video. It's a modern recreation of the Bedford Level experiment...because this experiment is repeated quite often, and every time it is done properly, it actually detects Earths curvature, not the opposite like you've been led to believe. You'll find a link in the video description leading to the official report, where you'll find an in depth scientific report on that experiment, with its final conclusion being very conclusive, that Earth is curving. The reason Robotham failed here nearly 200 years ago, is because he only took ONE observation, using only ONE marker, using the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared), taking only one data entry, completely ignoring refraction, then he called it a day. That's why he failed...it was a sloppy experiment, poorly conducted. Upon all peer review, his work was found to be extremely inconclusive, due to multiple errors in experimentation process. It was clear after peer review, that he was just trying to confirm his bias, not conduct a thoroughly objective experiment. So his work has been long falsified.
So feel free to review those, I'd share the other 3 as well, but they were very specific links, and I doubt you'd find them. But those two should be easy enough to find, so feel free.
1
-
@Hebrew816 What they’ve seen is a boat being brought back from vanishing point, which is your eyes optical limit to render things visible due to perspective, which can and does occur BEFORE horizon. Once something has gone over the physical horizon, no amount of zooming in will ever bring it back into focus. So it’s simple, the videos you’ve seen were not yet over the horizon, they were being brought back from vanishing point…not horizon. So you were tricked.
Clever trick really, all they had to do was show you bringing a boat back into focus, then claim it was being brought back from horizon, and then never once mention vanishing point or perspective or your eyes optical limits. They knew some people wouldn’t look into things any further, they knew some wouldn’t question an empty claim, and they were right…sadly.
That building is still dropping into horizon…perspective and vanishing point do not do that, only a curvature can account for the base of that tower slowly appearing to sink into horizon.
So you were duped, successfully I might add. Do some research on the vanishing point and optical limitations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 The math also checks out, in both observations, math that is consistent with known and measured travel distances, that also verify Earth’s circumference. Cause it’s not just curvature observations that verify Earth’s a sphere, I hope you do realize. It’s ALL the evidence compiled together, that can’t be falsified, that leads to that conclusion. And navigation is a big one.
So even if you could verify conclusively, that the building is being obscured by waves, it’s a hypothesis at best, that in no way falsifies the globe conclusion. And it doesn’t answer for why it also drops below eye level. It’s a pretty basic rule of perspective, anything above eye level does not drop below it, anything below eye level does not rise over it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Really? So the waves are still there, obscuring the object, but zooming in makes it visible? So wouldn’t it be logical then that zooming in more could fix every observation? Why do many observations then, who zoom in, eventually reach a point where no amount of zooming will bring it back? 🤷♂️ And there are many. It also does nothing to explain how things drop below eye level.
So are you denying the vanishing point as well? I’m sure you’ve experienced it many times, ever spot a fly or mosquito, only for it to get further away and then seem to vanish from sight? It didn’t really vanish, it just reached the limits of your eyes resolution. It occurs due to perspective, an objects size and its distance from you. Boats on the ocean do this all the time, doesn’t even have to go too far. A few miles away is more than enough, so it can and does occur before horizon. Magnifying and increasing resolution on the vanishing point is how they’re able to bring boats back into focus…so you were tricked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 It’s really not that difficult to understand, it’s just a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment. The first few images lay out the perimeters of the experiment, how they’re placing the markers, explaining eye level and including controls for that variable specifically. It then does the math and simulates it visually for both a globe prediction and a flat Earth prediction. It then conducts the experiment out on the ice, placing the markers at various distances, up to 10 km. Then they photographed and took video over several days. Then that footage was compared to the mathematical visual simulations, to see which model fit the physical observations.
They then have a full section on refraction, images 31 and 32 being the most interesting to that variable.
It’s in depth…..covering every variable, cause that’s how you conduct a REAL experiment. This experiment has been repeated and reviewed MANY times, it has stood up to peer review, making it conclusive.
It is thorough, but not difficult to understand at all. Just takes time. You asked for evidence…well that’s evidence. What more do you want from me? I hope my summary helped, but I urge you to go over it yourself, because all ribbing aside, it’s fair to ask for evidence. It’s fair to not agree to conclusions until you’ve seen the evidence supporting the conclusion. I 100% agree on that. So I have no problem being civil about evidence.
And if you have valid rebuttals, I’m all for it! That’s a healthy discussion of science….all this childish ribbing is pointless and childish. I’d much prefer talking evidence, with respect. When the conversation turns into a pissing match, it’s just childish. But I’ll go there if I have too.
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 First of all, your argument is completely ignorant to gravity physics, particularly center of gravity and gravity vectors. But it’s worse than that, it’s ignorant to simple geometry as well. A plane that experiences zero G is dropping down at a rate of near terminal velocity, at a sharp angle down, a nearly instant dip to 45 degrees. They go from an altitude of 34,000 feet to 24,000 feet over the span of about 30 seconds, before they level off. It takes roughly 70 miles to arc even 1 degree difference on an Earth of 25,000 miles circumference. Even at 500 mph, it would take 15 minutes to arc one degree. So if it takes 30 seconds, of a constant 45 degree decline, to create weightlessness, what do you think a gradual 15 minutes to 1 degree would do? Especially with gravity vectors shifting with you as you travel. Hmmmmmm….I wonder. 🧐
So wow…you’re making a gross over estimate, and yet another false assumption. Good job…you express more and more with each comment, how incapable you are to understand basic physics and geometry. These are just false assumptions you're making...you're assuming your conclusion correct, before really looking at all the variables involved, and then you're defeating the assumed premise YOU invented. So basically a strawman argument....as all your arguments have basically been. Good job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Why are there hundreds of different models of Flat Earth (none working)? Why’d it take so long to realize the Earth is spherical? Because science is a process…we don’t just magically know everything instantly and without research, we have to learn it first, this is a process of trial and error. Mankind as a whole does not know everything yet, we’re still learning. So this means old information will always have the potential to change, as new information is acquired. Welcome to the reality of science and information gathering…it generally doesn’t think in absolute certainties, it prefers to think in percentages of certainty, based on all available evidence at the time, and it allows itself room to change and be updated, as our knowledge grows with time. That’s the best way to do it…but if you think you have a better way, then by all means…but then, I’m sure even you have to understand, that learning anything takes time, you don’t just know things instantly.
There isn’t two theories of gravity, there’s still only one, it’s just been updated a bit. But, there’s the simpler form of understanding it (Newton) and the more advanced way (Einstein). We keep them separate for teaching purposes, largely because sometimes to learn where we are currently, you have to understand how we got there. Both are the same basic principle, mass attracts mass, Einstein merely refined the theory, added to it, updated it a bit…that’s all. And Newton’s math is FAR simpler, and still works for most applications, so it’s still used, in many more applications than Einsteins equations, it’s just when you get down to more precise measurements, you require Einsteins more advanced field equations. It provides far more accurate figures at more precise scales…which you require for things like advanced orbital trajectories, or creating fusion reactions, etc.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Lol, again, your arguments are now just “nuh uh! It’s flat, cause I say so!” 😅 Empty claim after, after empty claim, round and round we go. Everything in that ramble is just repeated nonsense and biblical gibberish, most of which we’ve already gone over and I’ve falsified, but there is one more thing to point out. The Greeks were actually among the first to verify Earth was spherical, it’s well documented, so feel free to research it. So we’ve known the Earth was a sphere for over 2000 years now. Your ignorant ramblings do not change anything. 😄
Sorry bud, until flat Earth has a working model we can actually use in any field of applied science, it has no argument. It’s just contrarian bullshit perpetuated by the village idiots of the world, who found themselves online.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Alright, you just get back to me when you or anyone can demonstrate any industry of applied science, from engineering, to navigation, to communication, to infrastructure, that uses any Flat Earth model to do their jobs. You just try plotting a navigation route from New Zealand to England sometime, see how well you do. 😄But seriously dude, you gotta wake up. It’s cute to have these little arguments online, but you are well aware that Flat Earth is a long falsified theory, that nobody in actual science uses. For good reason…because we can’t do anything with false information. Junk science simply does not work, so it is discarded.
1
-
@Hebrew816 You obviously haven’t been paying attention to how much I know. I’ve challenged it as well, namely the applied science of navigation, which is an easy one for anyone to learn and test for themselves. I’ve confirmed for myself that the stars do drop at a consistent rate to horizon, the further down lines of latitude you travel. That is simply not a geometry that could occur on a flat Earth. The stars would drop a little due to perspective, but they would not drop at a consistent rate by latitude, the drop would be inconsistent on a flat Earth, reducing inversely to the squared root of the distance, so they would drop less and less as you travel further. It’s basic geometry…this is how sailors have been able to use the stars for celestial navigation for centuries, because of that consistent drop. Each line of latitude, is a drop of the pole star Polaris, of 1 degree…consistently 1 degree, for the same distance of roughly 69 miles travelling directly South. At the Equator, you can no longer see Polaris at sea level and then a completely new set of stars become visible in the South, rising up from the horizon at 1 degree every latitude you continue to travel South.
This is basic geometry…that simply would not happen on a flat Earth. I have tested this myself, I’ve travelled a lot in my life and celestial navigation has been an interest of mine for awhile. I’ve even spent some time over the years making simple observations of the stars, sun, moon, planets in both hemispheres. This is how I have confirmed the Earth’s spherical shape for myself. Here’s what I have confirmed. The stars are completely different in the South to the North, there is a second rotation of stars around their own polar axis in the South, North rotates counter clockwise, South rotates clockwise. The stars drop consistently in degrees by latitude, the Moon is flipped for each hemisphere, the Sun rises and sets to the Northeast to Northwest for the North Hemisphere, while rising Southeast and setting Southwest in the Southern Hemisphere.
This is all basic geometry that is impossible on a flat Earth…meanwhile makes perfect sense on a globe, because it’s exactly what we’d expect to see with that surface geometry changing your angle relative to the sky.
So I know for a fact, that Flat Earthers are lying. They have not tested any of these applied sciences, you all just listened blindly to some conmen on YouTube videos, feed you bullshit information, and for some reason you agreed to all of it without question. None of you have actually tested it…heck I bet most of you have never even left your home country. Learn to navigate Keithan, then put that knowledge to the test, I dare you to challenge what you think you know. It’s not difficult, anyone can learn and anyone can test what I’m telling you.
I’ve also talked with a few civil engineers, that have told me their job is made a lot harder, because the Earth is spherical. If they do not factor Earth’s circumference, when designing city zones and mapping future road ways, then they will be off in their measures and the contractors that are hired to build these sections, will find they don’t have nearly as much room to build as the plans said they did. So you just go ahead and talk to a civil engineer or a geodetic surveyor sometime. Go ahead, I dare you.
You are lying to yourself, to win an argument…that’s all you’re doing Keithan. Is it worth it? Is living in ignorance worth it? I’ve talked with hundreds of Flat Earthers now, you know what’s been consistent? None of you are engineers, pilots, scientists, sailors, surveyors, etc. Very few have ever been to university or taken secondary education in science. Most of you have never travelled. Most are deeply religious, citing the Bible as their truth. It’s no surprise to me at all that none of you are actually experts in any field relevant to the discussion…yet you believe yourselves to be the true experts anyway, regardless of your actual experience. You should look up the Dunning Krueger effect sometime, you are all prime candidates.
1
-
@Hebrew816 You can usually tell who’s actually winning a debate or argument, when your opponent can’t argue with legitimate rebuttals any further, they can only mock, insult, laugh and deflect. Like I said from the start though, I’m not really debating you, I’m just telling you how it is. Flat Earth lost this discussion centuries ago, and that certainly hasn’t changed through our discussion. Mock, laugh, deflect if you feel the need, whatever helps you cope I guess. Or you could reread my last comment, and give me actual rebuttals to even one point, with evidence, rather than the runaround deflection. Or demonstrate your model, use it for an application of some kind, show me one real industry of applied science that uses it. Good luck with that.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Well, let’s review a little then. Here’s the conversation so far as I’ve experienced it.
- We started when I pointed out to you that 8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math for long distance observations. It is a parabola equation, does not represent line of sight, nor what is hidden from line of sight. I’ve explained in great detail why it’s not the correct math, so far, you’ve given me no answers to why you still believe it is the accurate math, you just blindly assert that it is.
- You then fired back with gish gallop, dumping multiple empty claims with no evidence supporting any of them…that’s been a standard from you actually, endless empty claims. Gish gallop…a typical tactic from those who have no single strong argument, so you instead barrage people with several weaker arguments, dumping them all at once.
- So I tried to focus the conversation on one claim, your claim that you could see the Statue of Liberty from 60 miles.
- I asked for the details of this observation, such as viewing height and location, very simple details that anyone would be required to provide in an actual scientific review, variables that are required for the basic geometric math…and you still have provided none, even though burden of proof was yours, and worse yet, you don’t even seem to think it’s important….as if you believe these variables don’t matter.
- I then tried in vane for several comments, just to get some further details for that ONE observation, so we could do the proper math…but I never got any, so we could not do the math. For someone who claimed there were hundreds of observations, you couldn’t provide even ONE.
- So you moved on, completely ignoring the burden of proof that was yours. So the claim wasn’t resolved at all, we did zero math, nothing could be verified or falsified…yet you think you won anyway. Ignorance, that’s been your main method of argument this whole conversation.
From there it’s rinse repeat. You make an empty claim, I ask for evidence that supports that claim, you don’t provide any, then you declare victory. Rinse repeat, rinse repeat.
That’s been our conversation….wow, you’ve sure showed me alright. 🙄
Evidence is required to conclude a claim….or at the very least, an explanation, that’s basic common sense Keithan. Only once from what I can recall, did you ever provide a valid rebuttal to anything I said. When we got to discussing some of my evidence, particularly my evidence of the building sinking into horizon the further away the observer got, you FINALLY joined the conversation with a rebuttal that showed some real effort, that wasn’t just deflection, insults and gish gallop. You said it was waves out on the water, that obscured the perspective. FINALLY a valid rebuttal, hallelujah! And for a moment it seemed we were FINALLY going through the steps of a legit scientific falsification process, where you gave actual reasons for your point…it was refreshing.
But it didn’t last…I kindly pointed out that the tower wasn’t just obscured by horizon, it was also dropping below eye level…which falsified your claim of waves obscuring the perspective. Because eye level remains constant on a flat surface, if something is at eye level…it does not go below it or above it. It’s a very simple fundamental truth of perspective, artists have been teaching art students this fundamental law of perspective for a long time now, its basic perspective knowledge today. If something is at eye level, it does not go below it…that tower is sinking below eye level, it’s not just that it’s being obscured by horizon, it’s also dropping. That falsified your claim of waves causing this effect…the ball was then in your court to give a counter rebuttal, if you could.
But you gave absolutely NO explanation for that dropping from eye level…you just ignored it completely.
Then you moved on, dumped more gish gallop, and declared victory. Sigh….and we were doing so good there. From my experience, it’s like I’m talking to a pigeon…you are the pigeon playing chess analogy, in the flesh. Knocking over pieces and shitting on the board, calling it a victory.
Now here we are, several comments of gish gallop later. I gave a full explanation of evidence that I have personally confirmed for myself, concerning celestial navigation and Earth’s basic geometry. I’ve verified the model for global navigation, I’ve tested it, I provided a few good points of observation for how you could also verify it. You ignored the entire comment, simply just called it a “dud”, but gave no reason for why, just dumped more gish gallop, and moved on. Great….round and round we go.
That’s been the conversation so far. No points have been resolved, you’ve proven none of your claims, provided no evidence for any of them, no explanation, just endlessly asserted they are valid, expecting me to just agree, blindly and without question. Not very scientific or honest of you, in the slightest.
Try this, pick a single point, and we’ll discuss it until it’s resolved. You think you can remain focused enough to stay on a single point?
1
-
@Hebrew816 Ok, let’s get into that math….again.
We are making line of sight observations, correct? 8 inches per mile squared does not represented line of sight, it calculates a figure for a tangent line at surface, going down to surface from that tangent. Does your eye rest at surface? No, at any given time, your eye is always several feet above the surface. As you know, the higher you are the further you see. The higher you are, the further your visual horizon extends.
So lets say your at 6 feet viewer height, viewing an object that is 150 feet tall, from 20 miles away. You can’t see it, and the 8 inches per mile squared math agrees. But now you go higher in elevation, say 100 feet. Now you can see it…your visual horizon has extended due to your viewer height, so now that tower becomes visible thanks to viewer height. But wait…the 8 inches per mile squared math hasn’t changed, the figure it provided still says you shouldn’t see it, but it has no variable for height of the observer, it only calculates one figure regardless of viewer height. See the problem yet? You went higher, and now you see the tower where before you couldn’t, yet your math still says you shouldn’t be able too.
So honestly…if it has no variable for height of the observer, and if you can see further the higher you are, then how can you honestly believe it’s still the correct math to use for these observations? 🤷♂️ How is this not clicking? Seriously…
It’s not difficult…you see further the higher you are, but 8 inches per mile squared has NO VARIABLE for height of the observer. It does not represent line of sight, but these are line of sight observations we’re making here. So it’s the wrong math.
What we have here is a half truth, it does accurately tell you how much the surface drops from a tangent at surface (accurate for about 100 miles), but we’re trying to determine a drop from a tangent, we’re trying to determine what is hidden from line of sight due to curvature…and that math simply does not represent line of sight. It has no variables for observer height, horizon distance, curvatures hump, arc length, refraction, etc. A surveyor can use it to quickly eyeball horizon drop from his eye level at his position…but that’s it. So you’re right to say it follows the curvature (up to about 100 miles), but it’s still not a line of sight calculation, so it will not accurately tell you how much is hidden from your line of sight by horizon, at a specific distance.
Not sure how much more clear I can be. I’m starting to think you don’t know that you can see further the higher you are. Ever climbed a hill before in your life? Been on top of a building? Ever notice how you can see further the higher you get? This is common sense…
1
-
@Hebrew816 Ever been on a plane? You can see a lot further than 200 miles. You know why that is? Because you’re really high up. You’re just not factoring observer height at all…it’s like you’re not even listening. You keep ignoring observer height.
Observer height matters. 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t factor observer height…so it’s lacking variables that are important for the observation, so that’s why it’s wrong. This isn’t hard to understand.
I’ve seen photos seeing objects at 100-200 miles distance as well, but they’re never observed from sea level. These photos and observations are always made from really high elevations, observing MOUNTAINS that are also really high in elevation. If you do the proper math, including observer height as a variable, it does check out. These observations are not impossible on a globe at our scale…if you’re high enough in elevation, it works just fine. Of course 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t work…it has no variables for observation height, it completely ignores observer height. That’s why it’s wrong….it’s not hard to understand.
It’s incredible that someone honestly can’t understand this…I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.
Bring up any observation of objects seen from 100-200 miles away, I guarantee you, the observer height in every one of those observations will be a few thousand feet from sea level. And I bet the objects being seen are typically really tall buildings or really tall mountains. That’s how you see them from those distances.
What’s sad is you honestly can’t understand this it seems…I don’t wanna call anyone stupid, but there’s really no other explanation.
1
-
@Hebrew816 So I’ve pointed out several times now why 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math to use for long distance observations. The simple answer is because it’s missing important variables, relevant to the observation, height of the observer being a big one. So now I have a question for you, you’ve so far ignored every time I’ve mentioned height of the observer, so I can only assume it’s because you don’t understand how it’s relevant, or you don’t feel it is relevant. So if it’s the latter, can you explain to me why you feel height of the observer is not relevant to these observations?
If you can’t give me a valid answer, then you’ll have to concede you’ve lost this point. If you say my argument is just BS, without giving me a reason why, then you’ve lost the point as well, because that’s not a valid argument or explanation.
1
-
@Hebrew816 That doesn’t address the math. Don’t run away to a different point again, before we’ve addressed the main point we’re discussing here, the math. Where is the variable for height of observer, in the equation 8 inches per mile squared? Feel free to point it out to me, but I already know it’s not there. If we both agree height of observer is important for how far you can see, but 8 inches per mile squared doesn’t have a variable for height of the observer, then we technically both agree the math is wrong for long distance observations.
So if you now agree that height of the observer is important, then you now should understand why 8 inches per mile squared is the incorrect math to use. You asked me why that math is incorrect…that is why it is incorrect. It gives you the same exact figures, regardless of viewer height, even though viewer height extends how much further you can see. So it’s the wrong math, so if you use it for long distance observations, then that’s why the math won’t fit the observation. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s that simple.
It is the wrong math, so you can’t use it for these observations. So your error was in using the wrong math. The correct math can be found at the Metabunk curvature calculator. Search it sometime and learn it, it’s what you should be using.
We now both agree the math equation 8 inches per mile squared is wrong for these observations, because height of the observer is important and it has no variable for that, among others. So now we can conclude that point. You were wrong. Now let’s keep going, let’s focus on another singular point. Which would you like to address now?
1
-
@Hebrew816 We’ve concluded you were wrong about the math, that point is done. 8 inches per mile squared is the wrong math, and we both agree, because it has no variable for height of the observer and you agree observer height matters for how far you can see.
You’ve provided no reason to dispute the math being wrong, so until you do, it’s concluded and you were wrong, that’s the conclusion. So now we’ can move on to another point.
You’re now claiming there are observations of objects that are seen 100, 200, even 300 miles away, from a 6 foot viewing height. This is absolutely false. The longest distance photograph on record is the Pic Gaspard photo, which was 443 km (275 miles). The photograph was not taken at 6 feet, it was taken from the peak of Pic de Finestrelles, which is at an elevation of 2826 m (9272 feet). You do not see the entire mountain of Pic Gaspard, only the very tip of its peak. Do the correct math, including every variable, including height of observer and standard refraction, you get a hidden by horizon calculation of 3810 m (12,500 feet). Pic Gaspard is 3380 meters (12,730 feet) tall, so that leaves about 70 meters (230 feet) of its peak still visible over horizon from that viewer height.
So the math checks out. You can crunch the figures yourself with the correct equations, at the metabunk curve calculator. So feel free. You can confirm this is the current record holder for long distance photography on the surface, at any time, with a quick Google search. So feel free.
You’ve presented no evidence for your claim of any observation at that distance, seen at 6 foot viewing height, so it can be discarded until you do…and good luck with that.
So that concludes that point, you are wrong again. The math checks out perfectly, the observation fits.
If you wish to dispute this point, provide another observation with your evidence supporting it. Go ahead, until then, you have nothing and this point is concluded.
Any other points you’d now like to discuss?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Your claim was that you could see 200 miles away from 6 foot viewing height. That was proven false. Any long distance photography of distances like that, is never done at 6 feet, they’re done at thousands of feet elevation. Which works just fine, an extreme viewer height would of course make that distance possible, as the math verifies.
So until you provide a 6 foot viewing height seeing 200 miles or more, then it’s just an empty claim and means nothing. It’s that simple.
Sure, search Scott Manley Earth, the first video that comes up should be ‘Satellite photos show the true shape of Earth’. This short video demonstrates the tiny difference between Equator and poles, demonstrating why you can’t just eyeball that tiny difference so easily. Our eyes are not very good measuring tools, that’s pretty common sense. The Earth is oblate, but it’s such a tiny deviation, it’s not easy to detect with just your eyes.
Anything else?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Holy shit, so I watched your video “29 reasons why the Earth is flat” and it’s all the exact same dribble…none of these points you’ve brought up so far are your own, you’re just repeating every thing from that video, almost word for word. 😂 It’s the same empty claims with no evidence, he CLAIMS everything is as he says it is, but doesn’t do much to provide evidence for each claim he makes….which is exactly YOUR problem, thinking that empty claims somehow count as evidence. Empty claims, with no evidence, that’s the bulk of that video. So you basically watched that video, and then agreed to it 100%, without questioning any of it, and now you repeat it all as if it’s fact. Good job…you are basically a zombie, repeating the bullshit of your masters without question. 👏
By all means, find me an example of someone using a more powerful telescope at 6 feet to view an object 100+ miles away. He didn’t share any examples in his video, so not sure what you’re talking about. 😅 He zooms in on some buildings with a telescopic…which revealed hundreds of feet of their base obscured by horizon, zooming in more doesn’t ever reveal the base…as you’re claiming it should. That observation also didn’t say the buildings were 100 miles away, it didn’t provide any details for that observation actually. So that video sure doesn’t verify your claim, of just requiring a more powerful telescope…not sure how you can think it does. 😄
Near the start he rattled off a bunch of observations….but did you bother to check ANY of them for yourself?
The first few he claims are seen from various distances, but he provides no actual pictures that verifies any of those distances. So they’re empty claims. So they mean absolutely nothing, empty claims with no evidence supporting them, mean nothing in science, so they can be discarded. Until evidence is provided for each claim, that can confirm what’s being claimed is accurate, then you should not take them as fact. That used to be common sense…so I really shouldn’t have to tell people that.
He then mentions a few skylines, and does provide some pictures, so good, we have evidence to go off of for these observations, that’s great….but you’ll immediately notice, none of them are from 6 foot viewing height. 😂 He shares the Philadelphia skyline observed 40 miles away…from an elevation 205 feet. Making the observation perfectly visible. He even does the correct geometric math, and even says only 335 feet would be hidden by horizon…but is he or you aware that on average the Philadelphia skyline elevation is WAY above 335 feet? 🤣 On average today, the skyline is about 500 feet, that leaves a good 165 feet of buildings still visible. The tallest building being 1121 feet, the next tallest is 974 feet, the next tallest is 945 feet. So you’d easily see these buildings over 335 feet. And that’s just the Geometric hidden…he completely ignored refraction, which even at standard refraction drops that 335 feet to 253 feet. So holy crap man…you just ate up every word he said and agreed to it without any questions. 😂
Then he mentions the New York skyline, observed from Bear mountain 60 miles away, at an elevation of 1283 feet. He gets the geometric calculation correct again, the horizon should hide 170 feet from that elevation…but I hope he’s aware that New York has some of the tallest buildings in the world, an average skyline of about 1000 feet. Do I even need to list how many buildings here EASILY tower over 170 feet? 🤷♂️
THAT video was your evidence? You really think THAT video debunks my points? 😅
He confirmed my point. If you’re seeing things from really far away, it’s because they are REALLY TALL, and your elevation is REALLY HIGH. This isn’t rocket science my man. 😂
But thank you, I haven’t laughed that hard in awhile. 🥲
You just verified my points, so thank you. You are a drone, listening blindly to conmen feed you bullshit. I hope you realize that someday. I think we’re done here.
1
-
@Hebrew816 And yet you argue with empty claims, acting as if every little made up thing you say is accurate, as if I should just blindly agree to anything you say, without question. 😅 And here you are again, claiming you’re right…yet providing no evidence that verifies or even suggests that you are.
If your claims were true, then you’d have no problem sharing evidence that verifies it. So go ahead smart guy, show me an example of someone at 6 feet viewer height, seeing an object from 100+ miles away. 😄
You verify for me that you never questioned or researched any of the claims made in that video you shared, when I clearly demonstrate how the points are so obviously bullshit, without much effort. I didn’t have to go very deep beneath the surface of that information, to find out he was lying and making empty claims. Had you actually done any further research of those points he makes, you’d realize pretty quickly as well, that they’re all bullshit. 😂 So I can only assume you never did question or challenge any of them, you just stayed on the surface and gobbled up every word he said. Good job. 👏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 The 29 reasons video doesn’t include any observations for anything seen 100+ miles away, at 6 foot viewing height. Did you even watch your own video? 😂 I mean, I know you at least heard it, cause you repeat a lot of the same bullshit. Seeing the statue of liberty from 60 miles away, one such example of you blindly repeating what’s being said.
And again, Convex Earth is a fake documentary, it’s been verified. So nothing in the documentary is factual. I haven’t watched it in a long time…but I sure don’t remember them ever making an observation of anything 100+ miles away, from 6 feet viewing height. But it doesn’t matter either way, because those were not scientists, and none of the observations were real. They were faked, to fool gullible suckers like yourself. 😂
So no, you haven’t provided me anything. Give me one observation, just one, of anyone observing something 100+ miles away, from 6 foot viewing height.
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 I see a horizon of ocean, and then the peak of a mountain or the top of a building, but not the base. 😂 Which verifies the Globe. You’re arguing against the globe, which means you absolutely do have to factor height of the observer…because in long distance observations, all you ever see is the tops of the distant objects. You might be able to lie to yourself, but I sure can’t. 😂
Your 29 reasons video doesn’t demonstrate any examples of seeing a seashore, from 6 feet viewing height, from 100 miles distance, or 200 miles…so really not sure what you’re talking about. There’s a guy near the start who’s in a Lake seeing a shore line…but both observations he makes are really quite close, nowhere near 100 miles. I actually know the lake he’s in too cause I’ve seen that particular observation before, I’ve reviewed it and debunked it, it’s a lake found in Banff Alberta, Canada. The first shoreline he’s observing is more like 3 miles away, the second is right next to him…it’s maybe 200 feet away. So I hope that’s not what you’re referring too…cause if so…hoo boy. 😅
Be more specific, is there a specific point in the video you’re referring too?
1
-
@Hebrew816 Again, show me ONE observation made at 6 feet, where we see an object, any part of it, from 100+ miles away. A specific observation, stop leaning on the bullshit documentaries full of gish gallop, give me ONE location, ONE example of an observation. Saying you see the statue of liberty from 60 miles away, without evidence supporting that claim, means nothing to me or actual science. Provide a location, that is confirmed to be at 6 feet, that clearly sees something 100 miles away. Should be countless examples, if the Earth were actually flat, so this should be easy for you. 😂
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 Ok, so I’ve reviewed the Convex doc again, or at least the observations where they use a telescope on the beaches. The first 4 observations of boats, share absolutely no verifiable details regarding the distances, so they’re basically useless. But then finally they make an observation, from 10 feet, that they claim is 110 KILOMETRES away…not miles. You know there’s a difference right? 110 km is only about 68 miles. But it gets worse for them here, cause they point out where they are on a map and trace their line of sight. Go on any map, you can find that exact location and measure the real distance….and it’s not 110 km, it’s only actually 36 km (22 miles). Which makes the observation completely possible from their elevation.
Don’t believe me, then check it yourself…instead of just agreeing blindly to their claims. The location is Lake Titicaca in Puru, observing from Amatani island, and the line they trace is from there to the tip of the Jachaja region…which is only 36 km, not 100 miles, not even close.
How many more examples do I have to go through, before you realize these people are lying to you Keithan? Check them yourself…this is exactly what I’m talking about. Remember the guy I told you about who said he was observing a 150 foot tower from 20 miles away, at 6 feet observer height, and then when I got his actual location, it turned out he was lying, the real distance was actually only 8 miles away? That’s exactly the same kind of bullshit they’re pulling in the Convex documentary…again, these were not scientists, it has been confirmed, they are mostly actors and self help coaches.
These are conmen…who are bullshitting you. That’s all they’ve ever been.
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 No, you used the wrong math, we’ve determined that, so you didn’t debunk anything mathematically. Your “science” so far has been mostly empty claims or referring to what you consider authority, by claiming somebody else debunked it and then referring to their videos. I’ve reviewed those videos, and demonstrated that they were all in error, so they have been thoroughly debunked time and again. Some of the only physics I’m aware of that we discussed was refraction, and you basically just denied it was a thing…so no, you didn’t debunk anything, you just denied it. Do you think…denial, is a valid argument? 🤦♂️
So not sure how anyone can think they’ve “debunked” anything, with how poorly you’ve argued here. You’ve done almost nothing to verify your points, or falsify mine. The conversation has been very one sided this whole time. You sure make a lot of empty claims, stating that my positions are wrong…but you’ve so far done basically nothing to demonstrate or prove how they are. 🤷♂️
Mostly just appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance…ya, that’s some real good debunking alright. 👌
And you still have yet to provide a single verified observation, of someone seeing an object 100+ miles away, from 6 foot viewer height. That’s been your dumbest claim so far…saying that people just require a more powerful telescope and then they’d see further. If that were true Keithan, then there would be hundreds, probably even thousands of examples of this…you don’t think Flat Earth would be all over that observation, if it were actually possible? But you couldn’t even provide me with ONE example of this, nothing solid that is, because I reviewed your ONE observation you felt fit that bill, and it was proven that they weren’t seeing 100+ miles away…they were really only 22 miles away. 😂
Oh ya…you’ve debunked me alright. 😄 Oh boy…no, you’re so far up there as one of the worst Flatties I’ve talked to in the nearly 5 years I’ve been debunking you people. Your arguments are terrible, this has been very easy for me.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Oh boy, 🤦♂️ well you clearly forgot when I mentioned eye level, being a major factor to perspective. I didn’t deflect, you just have a terrible memory, so let’s review.
If anything is below eye level, then it will not rise above eye level the farther away you see. Perspective converges at eye level, so nothing below eye level goes above it, nothing above it goes below it, it’s basic perspective. So your wave argument is terrible, in that those waves out on the distance probably don’t get any higher than a meter, meaning they’re way below eye level even at 6 feet, meaning you should be able to see over them just fine, at distances. And you’ll easily see over those waves from higher elevations, so it’s a pretty poor argument that’s ignorant to basic perspective. The fact that you can’t see over horizon, even after zooming in with the most powerful telescope you can, suggests a curvature is obscuring your view. The base is missing in every one of the observations we reviewed…waves can’t account for that, cause your line of sight and your eye level are well above those waves, so it’s an easily falsified argument. It’s also falsified by the fact that things aren’t just obscured by horizon, they are also dropping into it, confirmed again by eye level…because in all these observations, it’s clear that things are dropping below eye level, which they would not do, if Earth was flat. Research basic perspective sometime…namely the topic of eye level and how it debunks your waves argument.
You have a bad memory my guy, we went over this. Unless it was a comment I shared a link in, cause then it would have been auto deleted by YouTube without me noticing, so that’s possible, but I’m pretty sure I went over it several times, many without links. I’ve since stopped sharing links for that reason, but I’m sure at least one of my responses on that topic made it through. So I feel you’re just being ignorant again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hebrew816 It’s common sense, you make a claim without evidence supporting it, then what reason does anyone have to believe you? 🤷♂️ I know Flat Earthers think an empty claim should mean something, cause if there’s one thing I’ve noticed that’s consistent with all of you, is you never seem to check ANY of the claims that are fed to you, yet you believe every single one of them. You believe them all, despite having any actual evidence to verify them, that’s pretty consistent with all of you.
Let’s take your Statue of Liberty claim for example….you CLAIM it’s seen from 60 miles away, but yet you can’t bring me ANY examples of it actually being seen from that distance. I know you strongly believe that to be true…but what EVIDENCE do you ACTUALLY have to support the claim? Why…would you ever agree to anything, without evidence? Again, are you stupid? 🤷♂️
Then you CLAIM that we see a seashore from 100+ miles…and the only example you have is actually only 22 miles and you don’t even actually see the seashore…yet you think I should just agree, even though your evidence is shaky as shit and easily falsified with even a few seconds more research. You don’t see the seashore…but that’s not even your bigger problem……they LIED about the distance, and you don’t seem to care at all. 😂
Now you CLAIM that “modern science and technology” proves Einstein, Newton and Copernicus wrong….yet you’ve not demonstrated ANY evidence that verifies that claim, in the slightest. Are you seeing a pattern yet?
This is common sense, it’s not “scientific doctrine”…how….have you gotten through life so far, not realizing that claims made require strong evidence, before they should even be considered viable? 🤷♂️ If you commit a murder by shooting someone, then put the gun in someone else’s hand, then point and say “he did it”, does that now mean the law should take you at your word and agree without question? 😂 You have to be the dumbest person I’ve ever met.
1
-
@Hebrew816 I’m just saying, when you’ve brought me a claim with evidence I could actually analyze, I’ve demonstrated it to be false. I’ve provided locations you could check yourself, I’ve provided the math, or pointed you to where you could find them, I’ve given you everything you require, to check for yourself. You have so far only provided me with 2 videos, both hours long, with no time stamps or any way of me knowing exactly what you’re talking about. It’s like you seem to think I can read your mind…I’m not watching a full 1 hour documentary, just to get to the ONE point you are arguing, but if you provide a time stamp, an image, or any way of narrowing it down, I will gladly review a claim. When I make a claim, I provide information so that YOU can also review that claim for accuracy…that’s not “scientific doctrine”, that’s common sense.
The math you can find at metabunk curve calculator, the locations data you can look up yourself on any online map service, they have ruler tools you check the accurate distances yourself. I’d gladly share direct links, if YouTube allowed for it, but they don’t, so it means you have to do some of your own work.
When I have locations I can verify, I can then do the math…until I have that information, it’s just an empty claim, that’s how this works, it’s not difficult. Many of your observations haven’t provided direct details, the ones that did, I was able to demonstrate their errors very easily…the fact that many of them had to lie to you, just to sell you the conclusions they wanted….should be a HUGE red flag.
1
-
@Hebrew816 I went through the proper math with you, using all the correct figures, we’ve concluded that point, it’s not impossible at all. Your friend, if she’s actually real and not just a voice in your head, is just not quite capable enough to understand how. It’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t really matter. If Earth was flat, you’d be seeing a LOT more of that mountain at 270 miles, not just 70 meters of its peak. You both don’t seem to get it, the fact it’s obscured by thousands of feet at all, is evidence the Earth is spherical…because that would not happen on a flat Earth, you’d see all of that mountain, not just the peak. And it’s dropped from observers eye level significantly…how exactly does a taller elevation, which was at least 1000 feet taller (Pic Gaspard), drop below your eye level from a much lower elevation, if the surface they’re both on is flat? 🤷♂️ There’s plenty of more thorough reviews of that observation, that all verify what I’m saying, so go look them up sometime. The point is concluded, until you can bring a rebuttal that hasn’t already been addressed.
My people? It’s just me and you bud, and I’m just addressing claims made and correcting them in my free time, that’s all. There’s no debate on this subject anymore, nothing we say here changes modern consensus, I’m just telling you how it is. Despite your extreme ignorance, it’s still a good mental exorcise and the psychology of online trolls is fascinating to me, so I’ll keep addressing any new points, for as long as it interests me.
Maybe I’ll look at your other claims later.
1
-
@Hebrew816 Alright, I’ve reviewed the Lake Winnipeg observation, it also works fine. He of course used a purely geometric calculation, even though there’s clearly a great deal of refraction occurring. That shimmering in the distance, that’s refraction. If you’re curious why that matters, I urge you to look up the Rainy Lake experiment again. Find the Walter Bislin blog page that documents that observation, then scroll down to images 31 and 32, it clearly demonstrates why refraction is important to factor in calculations. It can’t be ignored, yet Flatties conveniently ignore it every time.
It’s typical really, ignoring refraction is one of many common errors flat Earthers make. At least he’s using better math than the 8 inches per mile squared equation, so props there, his geometric calculation is correct. However, just a couple side notes, he wasn’t 1 foot above the ice, he was 2 feet. And I double checked his distance, it’s accurate…but only from the town where he put his marker, but he’s clearly out on the ice and there’s really no way to verify how far onto the ice he is, all I can do is take him at his word, but I’d be willing to bet he’s at least a good kilometre or two further out than his marker suggests. He’s not in the town anyway, that’s for sure.
But either way, even with just standard refraction (there’s always at least a standard refraction), you get a calculation of 125 feet, leaving 20 feet still visible, you only see the very top, about 20 feet, so the math checks out just fine. Refraction is always important to factor, we make every observation looking through our atmosphere and it does have an effect on what we see at distances, so it can’t be ignored. You even agreed to that not to long ago. Refraction can’t be ignored, he ignored it in his calculation, that’s his error.
Now, there’s no waves out on that ice to obscure his line of sight here, so how exactly is 125 feet going missing? If Earth were flat, you’d be seeing the whole tower, not just the top.
You can check the refraction calculation at the metabunk curve calculator, they even have a section ob refraction. The Walter Bislin blog as well has a whole page on refraction, demonstrating its effect and explaining how to calculate for it. So feel free to check it out anytime.
On that note, I seem to recall you completely ignored the Rainy Lake experiment I shared some time ago. You do realize it’s an observation out on lake ice as well, it’s a recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, done on 10 km of a frozen lake, making a very conclusive observation of curvature. Care to review it? You just hand waved it aside last time, but as you said above, ignoring evidence is not much of an argument. 😛 I’ve reviewed your observations, the ones that included verifiable details and photos, so now feel free to review the Rainy Lake experiment.
1
-
That wasn’t really the point of the video I would say. The title of the video was WHY people believe the Earth is flat. So that’s the question he explored and I believe he did a good job answering it. It wasn’t so much to present an argument proving or disproving either model, it was more an exploration into the ideology and psychology of those who believe it, to figure out why they believe it.
He shared two experiments in particular, to help answer his question. They’re both examples of inconclusive experiments, the first one (level on a plane) simply can not measure or detect Earth’s surface geometry, that’s not really how a level works. The second (the Bedford Level experiment) is a good experiment, but conducted poorly just to confirm a bias. It’s been recreated and peer reviewed many times over the last couple hundred years, and it’s actually been shown to verify Earth’s curvature, not the opposite.
So his point there was that Flat Earthers are generally made up of laymen, who don’t really know much about conducting a proper experiment. Due to that lack of knowledge and experience, they can’t seem to tell the difference between an inconclusive and conclusive experiment…and worst yet, they don’t seem to care either. It doesn’t mean they’re necessarily stupid, just not well versed or well practiced in scientific research and experimentation. So a conclusion can be drawn, that they’re generally a tad under educated. Which unfortunately can cause them to be easily misled by misinformation.
Though I would agree, he probably could have provided a bit more information on those points, and elaborated further. Because it did seem lazy and gave the impression he was just appealing to authority, rather than researching a bit deeper for himself.
Anyway, hope that gives a little more perspective, but you’re right, had he made himself clearer, there wouldn’t have been any need for it really. So he could have done a bit more, I do agree.
1
-
Well, we know the Earth’s mass and we know the distance of certain celestial objects, like the Sun. With direct measuring methods like reflecting radio signals off of planets, we can measure their distance and their mass. Much of these objects are much larger than Earth (the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, etc), or similar in size (Venus, Mars, etc). So if gravity is dictated by an objects mass, then it’s just not likely at all that these other celestial masses, are orbiting the Earth...it’s nowhere near large enough.
So the evidence is in our understanding of gravity physics (among many other fields of study). Earth does not have the mass required to be centre of gravity for the entire universe, it’s just a bit of wishful thinking to even consider that it could be. A better question is, where is the evidence that could ever suggest we are centre of the universe? There is really none...just human ignorance and wishful thinking.
You can even look at astronomy data, the orbital paths of everything within our solar system, do not suggest everything is orbiting Earth. When you actually plot that data with Earth as the reference point, here’s the kind of mess you get https://pasteboard.co/K1bTea3.jpg. The geocentric model is on the right, the heliocentric is on the left. The paths of the other planets are all over the place...and make no sense in the geocentric model. Put the Sun within the centre and suddenly the orbits make far better sense, and it fits with our current understanding of gravity physics.
Also, what makes you think the universe is finite? We can really only assume that, we don’t know everything about it. But we do know how gravity works and Earth certainly does not have enough mass to be the centre of the universe. Whether the universe has a centre, that’s really quite debatable, we don’t currently have enough knowledge to make that call. We do know that our supercluster of galaxies is being drawn towards something, that astronomers and cosmologists call the great attracter, but whether this great attracter is the centre of the entire universe, who knows.
What we do know for certain though, Earth is certainly not the centre of the universe.
1
-
1
-
@kunallusso What I'm trying to tell you is that space is not a SUCTION, it is absolutely a vacuum...it's just not the sort of vacuum you think it is, you're misinterpreting the meaning of the word in this context. That's not theory...that's basic English, it's linguistics...it's how the language works, words in the English language can have multiple definitions...that's common knowledge. Vacuum when used in the context of space means EMPTINESS...it's really that simple and that's all I was trying to tell you here. Sorry if I had to be a little condescending to get the point across, it's really not a big deal if you weren't aware of this, nobody knows everything, was just trying to point out where you (and many Flat Earthers) are going wrong here. Vacuum when used in the context of space does not mean "suction force", it means a place void of matter. Space does not suck on anything...it physically can't do that, there is no suction being produced in the void of space.
Now to address your question here quick "What air is space then". I'm not quite sure what you're asking here...are you asking me what space is made of? Cause that's a good question and physicists are still trying to figure that out...that's what Dark Energy and Dark Matter are working to figure out. They're more then just titles, they're a framework for trying to answer that very question. The short answer is...nobody knows for sure yet, not even scientists and they're happy to admit that.
So now I will actually address another word definition Flat Earth (or science deniers in general) gets wrong, because of how the word changes due to the context it's used in. The word "theory" means something a little different in the context of science. A theory in the regular sense, is an educated guess based on prior knowledge, it's mostly assumption and speculation that has plausible merit...everyone knows that, and that's the definition layman people use no matter the context...and that's where they go wrong again. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY means something different, the word takes on new meaning in that context and it is defined like this.
A scientific theory is the end goal of all research that works to describe HOW and WHY something works the way it does. A LAW in science describes WHAT is happening, a THEORY works to explain HOW and WHY that something is doing what it is doing. Does that make sense? Nothing in science graduates to the level of a THEORY until it has gone through the rigors of the scientific method. In science, a hypothesis takes the place of the regular meaning of the word theory. In science a hypothesis is an educated guess based on previous knowledge, while a theory is a tested and verified conclusion. It is the end goal of all research in science...NOTHING in science is higher then theory. So when people say "it's just a theory" or "you're just talking theory dude"...we can't face palm hard enough, because you're not getting it. It's not "just a theory", it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which is VERY different! And that's the truth...you can look this up and any place you look will explain this to you the same way. A scientific theory is not just a best guess...it has been verified to be more then likely true, it is far beyond guessing and shooting in the dark...NOTHING is labelled theory unless it has evidence to support it. Which is the case with all things in science that are labelled as theory...they EARNED THAT TITLE!
I hope that helps, apologies if I'm not articulating these concepts well enough for you to understand, but I'm not just bullshitting you here...words do take on different meaning given their context. These are a few examples of words that Flat Earthers (and science deniers in general) misinterpret. It's important in any conversation that everyone be on the same page with the language...or else we'll never get anywhere.
1
-
@kunallusso "are there any experiments that we can observe of gravity holding air next to a vacuum?" Yes actually, there are several examples I can share with you. Our own atmosphere for starters. I'm sure you're aware we've sent up balloons into upper atmosphere, Flat Earthers have even done this as well. When they bring back footage from these balloons, do you notice whenever the Sun is visible in the video how black it is around the Sun? Unlike when you observe the Sun while still inside our atmosphere, the Sky is always illuminated blue...indicating that we have an atmosphere...the blue is just the light from the Sun scattering through our atmosphere bouncing off of all the molecules of air. Well, if that is true...then why is it completely Black around the Sun? This would indicate that there is no matter surrounding the Sun, no molecules of...anything, meaning it is an empty void, a vacuum. So if watch those videos, you'll notice that our atmosphere sits directly next to this black void...no barrier, none that we have EVER interacted with or detected, so there's a good observation right there of air next to a vacuum. We've gone further then that though, we don't just observe it visually...we also take measurements. There is a point in upper atmosphere where the air is so thin...it's basically a vacuum, we have measured it...our atmosphere easily rests next to the vacuum of space.
That's one example, and quite frankly the best...but here is another.
Have you ever seen what smoke does in a vacuum chamber? You know how smoke operates in any other environment, smoke always rises...because smoke is a gas, it has mass, and that mass is less dense then the surrounding air, so buoyancy causes it to rise, pretty simple. But in a vacuum chamber, there is no air to displace smoke and cause it to rise...so do you know what smoke does then? It falls, it falls the bottom of the container and then it settles at the bottom, forming a perfect layer of smoke (you can also do this with any gas) at the bottom of the container. So if you really think about it, that means the smoke (or gas) is just like our atmosphere, the very top of that layer of smoke resting directly next to a vacuum of empty space...gravity causing that smoke (or gas) to fall to the bottom, instead of dispersing and filling the tank due to entropy.
So that's another observation we have made, and this also a good one because it's also a good experiment anyone can recreate if they know how to create a simple vacuum chamber. So it is VERY repeatable, even for the layman on a budget.
The truth is, there is absolutely no evidence for a Dome Firmament, so that's a bit inconveniant for the Flat Earth argument of their being a dome...so the next best option for you guys, butcher physics and twist it to your liking...that's what you're doing here by making the claim that gas pressure can't exist next to a vacuum. It's denial...an argument from ignorance and not much more. I repeat THERE IS NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE FOR THE DOME FIRMAMENT! We have not interacted with it, we have not photographed it, we have not discovered it and we have no theory in science that supports it either...just a bible, that has been wrong many many times now already...that some people just can't let go of.
1
-
@kunallusso A fact is something that just is, but it doesn't do anything to explain WHY or HOW something works...that's what a scientific theory is for. Facts make up a theory, they are included in the foundations of a theory of science...but at the end of the day, a fact is not used to describe how something works, so they are two different things that must be understood and treated differently. Go ahead, use a fact to explain HOW something works...the best you will come up with is "it just does". It's a FACT that the sky is blue, it's a FACT that things fall...but none of this describes WHY or HOW the sky is blue or why/how things fall....THAT'S WHAT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS FOR! Do you see the difference yet?
They are not the same thing and therefore we require both...and again, it's VERY important everybody understands the purpose of each. It's important we are all on the same page with the language and how it is used in each context. So here's a little review on these terms in science. Laws of science describe WHAT is happening, Facts are used to state what IS without any physical explanation for why or how something is the way it is, and THEORY is used to describe WHY AND HOW SOMETHING WORKS THE WAY IT DOES! That's its purpose....following me so far?
But thank you, I feel like I'm making some progress here. You did say this after all "A theory might be high in science..." which indicates we at least agree now that theories in science actually hold a level of importance.
So now I'm trying to dispel another misconception most people seem to have about science....scientists were correct not to label their end conclusions "facts" because that's not what a fact is...facts don't explain how something works, so they can't be used in that context. So they chose the word "theory" instead...and they were wise to do so, because theories have the potential to change, where as facts do not change, if they could...then they are not really a fact then are they? The reality of information gathering...is that it always has the potential to change. That goes for any information you gather, from the information and data that goes into a scientific theory, to the rumor you heard about your friends...the reality is that as NEW information comes to light, it has the potential to change OLD information. So because we don't know everything and likely never will...that means we are constantly gathering NEW information, that could someday potentially change OLD information...so scientists called their end conclusions "scientific THEORY", this allows them wiggle room. If they had called them "scientific FACTS", it would be wrong...and it would be too rigid, it would mean they're 100% confident with every conclusion...and that's bad science.
Here's something science deniers need to understand...no theory in science is set in stone, every single theory in science has the potential to change or even become completely falsified and every single scientist worth their mettle understands and accepts this fact. Big Bang is not set in stone...it's just the leading theory in cosmology because it has the most evidence to support it...that is all. If we ever find tangible evidence for God, you can bet science will accept it with open arms and admit they were wrong...but the thing is, they haven't yet (and that's not from lack of trying I assure you), so they go with what they HAVE discovered so far to be true and they go with the leading theories that have the most evidence to support them...in our current modern world, that leading theory is Big Bang...welcome to the fringes of modern science.
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, both are plausible, the math checks out, so that's why they're the leading theories today as well...but you are absolutely correct, we have not directly found or interacted with either...but there was once a time when radio, x-ray, microwaves, infrared, the entire electromagnetic spectrum was not discovered...did this mean these things did not exist? Of course not, it just means we hadn't discovered them yet. Science takes time...there is still LOTS we haven't discovered yet...but we're not going to discover anything if we don't try, so that's all scientists are doing...they are at least TRYING to figure out our reality! The best thing about it, through their efforts...WE ALL reap the benefits. This computer/phone we're both using to interact with each other, is the fruits of all that TRYING.
It's fine if people want to challenge Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Big Bang Cosmology, Evolution, heck even the shape our planet...but then why not ACTUALLY participate and ACTUALLY attempt at falsifying these theories and models in science? You think Dark Energy is bogus...ok, then figure it out, devise your own counter hypothesis and then test that hypothesis to see if it's more plausible then the current leading theories. Science doesn't care in the end who's correct...they just care about WHAT is correct. So go ahead, science welcomes people who are ready to challenge it directly...in fact it favors those who do. You think Einstein got famous for sticking to the status quo? Quite the opposite...he's famous today because he challenged modern science for the time, and was able to prove his concepts correct, essentially changing a LOT of what we thought we knew.
But...again, can't even begin changing science, until we're all on the same page with the language of science, so I hope I'm helping clear up some misconceptions here. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just telling you how it is...Flat Earthers and science deniers misinterpret a lot of what is being said in science...and that's the root to a lot of their problems in science.
1
-
@kunallusso Yes, it took a long time to accurately figure out that the world was a sphere, because from our tiny perspective it looks quite flat to us from just looking at it...but looks can be deceiving and our eyes can fool us, it requires we probe much deeper to get to the truth of things and it did take us a very long time to come to the conclusion we are at today. We have the evidence now today and a much deeper understanding of our physical world...but honestly, it all started with the Sun and the Moon. How does the Sun set on a Flat Earth? It can't...that was our first clue and it still holds true today. The Sun would not set on a Flat Earth, neither would the Moon, you would see them all day, every day. This is a fact...not an opinion. Flat Earth goes to some great lengths to butcher physics and perspective to make these things work...but the simplest answer is often the correct answer and a Globe Earth explains this occurrence with absolute ease. The Earth turns away from the Sun each day...creating Sun set and Sun rise, it's pretty simple. Not only that, it lines up with all angles of the Sun light. When measurements of the Sun angles and position of the viewer are taken, then when you place that data on a Globe Earth to scale...the Sunlight angles only work on the Globe model.
Here's a few great videos that have taken the time to look at Sun angle data (even collecting their own in the real world), and then placing that data on both models to see which fits. Spoilers...the Globe is the only model that works. These are some great demonstrations and experiments, so I urge you to take a look. They are also easily repeatable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGG3x3v8RA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=438s if you're pressed for time, just watch the last 2 mins of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=8s
I have been answering your questions for the Globe this past few hours, but I can just as easily spin it around and ask questions for the Flat Earth if you'd like.
Why are there two hemispheres with two different sky's? On a Flat Earth with a rotating dome, we'd only expect to see ONE hemisphere and ONE night sky, but there exists TWO in reality...which is something that doesn't make any sense on a Flat Earth, but it matches with a Globe Earth perfectly. It's exactly what we'd expect to see on a Globe. On a Flat Earth with a rotating dome, this is what we'd expect to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpLTztOP6-0
That's not what we see in reality...we see TWO hemispheres, both with perfect circular rotations around a central celestial axis...just like we would expect to see if the Earth were a Globe. I live in the Northern hemisphere and I have been to the Southern Hemisphere several times in my life...I have confirmed it for myself, there is indeed TWO hemispheres. The question Flat Earth needs to answer is, why is that? It doesn't make sense if the Earth is Flat with a rotating dome...and deep down you know this. It's odd to me that Flat Earthers would fight tooth and nail against something so very obvious, almost like you don't want to accept it...so you ignore it instead. I find that odd.
When Flat Earth can answer those simple questions and accurately account for these observations, then they MIGHT have some legs to stand on...until then.
1
-
1
-
@kunallusso "And suddenly now we cant pass through a van Allen belt yet we did 50 years ago." We can pass through the Van Allen belts just fine...the reason we haven't in over 50 years, is because there has been ZERO reason to go back to the Moon. We did all that we could do for now, the goal for the time was just to see if we could...and we did, several times...but why go back if there's really nothing there? So interest in Moon missions declined and the programs were cancelled because they lost funding...it's pretty simple. Kinda hard to put these BILLIONS of dollar missions into action, when you don't have that funding anymore. Yes, NASA still receives a lot of funding, but you have to understand that most of that funding goes into keeping the lights on for the thousands of buildings they operate. It also goes into the salaries of the hundreds of thousands of employees they keep, and then the rest goes into the supply cost for their R&D departments...they are a science and research facility, so they're not just sending rockets and satellites up into space, that's just a small fraction of what they do. So they don't have the dedicated resources for another Moon mission...and even if they did, why go back now? What would they do?
That's half of why they haven't gone back in over 50 years, the other half is because of the R&D. When you develop a new system...you have to TEST that new system rigorously, in multiple different scenarios and environments, to ensure that they are safe to use and will not fail on you out into space. In the last 50 years we have developed A LOT of new systems...that have gone far beyond the old analog systems they used in the old space craft.
Analog systems are sturdier, less likely to fail in areas of high solar radiation and strong electromagnetic fields...like the Van Allen Belt. The tiny microchips that are in many of our computing systems today, are far more susceptible to damage in these areas of space...especially the old magnetic strip hard drives we've been using for the last 30 - 40 years....today we have solid state drives that ARE NOT damaged by electromagnetic fields...so guess what, NOW we have the computing technology that is resistant to the Van Allen Belt! Which means, we have gotten closer to developing these new systems so that they too can go into space and be included in the new space vessels.
That's the reality Kunal...space travel is not a walk in the park. They're not just going to send a crew of people up into a new space vessel...that hasn't been tested properly yet. That would be stupid of them...they would be putting the crew at risk.
So why don't they rebuild the old space vessels and go back with the analog systems? Because what would be the point? Those old analog ships were VERY limited with what they could do for us...if we go back to the Moon, we would want to do a LOT more stuff then what we did previously. A moon base would be nice for instance, but a little hard to create a Moon base if the old Analog vessels can barely even get a crew there with a limited supply. The Newer vessels they are working on, will have more supplies, more equipment...which means more systems, that ALL NEED TO BE TESTED AND CLEARED FOR THE MISSION!
You're in luck though, there are new Moon missions scheduled for our future, quite recent in fact. Over the next 5 - 8 years they plan to send several new missions to the moon, the plan is actually to lay the foundations for a future moon base...so interest has returned in the Moon, so we are going back.
Anyway, I hope that helps put a new perspective on things for you. I see this a lot with space deniers, moon mission hoaxers and Flat Earthers...cherry picking quotes and information, taking it out of context and twisting it to fit the bias belief of space being faked by NASA. If you actually LISTEN to everything they say, rather then just filter out the bits you can twist for your own purposes, you might learn how you're jumping the gun on a LOT of your narrow conclusions. NASA never said they COULDN'T go back into the Van Allen Belt, they said they can't CURRENTLY, because they don't have the funding and the new technologies are not ready for such a mission yet. It pays to pay attention to every detail...not just the details that support a paranoid bias.
1
-
@kunallusso "flat earth doesn't need ti answer everything right now." But it can't just ignore these things either...plus, the flat Earth and geocentric cosmology came first LONG before the heliocentric model, so how much more time do they require? We moved on from both models, because it was discovered that neither conformed or fit with reality, so that's when we realized the Earth was a Globe and have since verified it a thousand times over. Heliocentrism is used today to predict eclipses YEARS in advance, it's used in applied sciences to put satellites into orbit and explore space, it's used in ALL world navigation. Pilots, ship captains, military and rescue crews...they ALL use lines of longitude and latitude that are designed for our Global system, and they work. It would be pretty damn hard for these people to get around (especially in the southern hemisphere) if these lines of navigation were wrong and if our maps were off. The model works and it explains reality, it explains everything. So the problem here, is that you're trying to convince people the Earth is Flat...but most of all you've done is demonstrate a lot of personal misunderstandings of physics, language, the heliocentric model...that's not a problem with the science, that's a problem with your ability to understand it.
It's fair to not know all the answers, scientists are the same, they don't claim to know everything and they are happy to admit if they're wrong...but Flat Earthers are being VERY paranoid and irrational here. You honestly think EVERY scientists around the world is lying to you? Have YOU discovered anything in science recently that is beneficial to society? Have you invented anythng? How much physics do you actually know? How many innovation patents for technology do you have? There are MILLIONS of scientists around the world...all using the science we know and understand today to create EVERYTHING around you that you take for granted...you honestly believe these people are pulling the wool over your eyes? That's paranoia talking...it's not being very rational.
It's fine to believe what you want, but the rest of us are FAR from convinced...because like I said, all we're seeing is a lot of people grossly misunderstanding a lot of science. Which again, is not a problem with the science...it's a problem with the people trying to understand it. At the very least, it's a growing problem of trust issues. Some Flat Earthers are not stupid, in fact a lot of them are quite well articulated and inventive...so they're not stupid, but for some reason they ignore clear evidence to the contrary of their conclusions...and in those cases it seems to have more to do with paranoia robbing them of their better reasoning. Trust issues...a lack of trust in authority of all kinds. Which I do see the logic in, trust me...but I try to remain rational and objective, paranoia can lead people to bias thinking...and that's what I'm seeing occurring currently with Flat Earth and science deniers in general. The Earth is not Flat, and you're being misled by huxters online. I'm just doing what I can to stave off that paranoia, so I hope all the information I have shared so far has been helpful.
In the end, it's fine to believe whatever you like. If there's one thing I DO admire about Flat Earth, is that they are challenging the current theories, which is actually pretty awesome! That's Science! Challenging what we're told and shining a light on the flaws, reevaluating what we THINK we know and seeing if we've missed anything. Falsification, that's the key to TRUE science, so I'm all for that. So go nutz I say...but just know people like me are just here exercising our right to peer review as well, so all I'm doing is making sure Flat Earth is checked for their claims...and honestly, I'm seeing a LOT of empty claims, speculation and misunderstandings being thrown around in these camps...so just doing what I can to point out any errors. I hope at the very least, the information I've shared is interesting to you.
1
-
@kunallusso Yes, I'm aware of the Selenelion eclipse, and yes I am convinced that refraction does account for this, as well as many other optical anomlies that do occur. The news was wrong in that Chicago example...it's not a mirage, it's just refraction. Refraction is slightly different from a mirage, a mirage is just basically a reflection, so you're correct, it's mirrored. Refraction however is light being bent by humidity and heat, which causes our visual horizon to shift upwards depending on the refraction index for that time and area...and it's always higher over water, because humidity plays a huge role in the intensity of refraction.
I watched your video, so please do me a favor and watch this video if you could quick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzLm6HVqI9o I may have already shared this with you, not sure, but either way it is a clear demonstration of refraction so it's worth looking at. It is well known and understood in physics that light bends when passing into denser mediums...this is all refraction is, the bending of light as it passes into denser mediums...like our atmosphere. So refraction is very real. If you were to reside INSIDE the object that is refracting that light, then you are going to see objects differently from where they actually are...they will shift. You've no doubt experienced this for yourself, if you've ever dunked your head under water while looking up. But you may not have been paying attention, but when your eyes go from above water to under the water, everything shifts up. Try it sometime...this is a perfect experiment for refraction that anyone can repeat, it's best done at a pool. Here's a video that goes into this phenomenon a little more in depth as well, including another easy experiment you can try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XafvfOGp4Ag&t=263s start this video at about 3 mins 20 seconds into the video and watch from there. If you're pressed for time, just watch his experiment starting at 4 mins 45 seconds. Another clear demonstration of how light bends downward when passing into denser mediums, causing what you see to appear to rise upward.
Here are a few more quick images demonstrating refraction.
http://www.khadley.com/Courses/Physics/ph_212/topics/waves/images/refract.jpg?crc=3925797755
https://www.assignmentpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Assignment-on-Refraction-of-Light.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/ff/d0/d4ffd0a879c33695d7ded3c950c7d07f.jpg
Refraction is very real, and therefore can not be ignored. It's also very understood in physics, so much so that we can accurately give a refraction index for an area and we can use that refraction index in mathematical equations that we can use to help us predict how much something will become distorted. So I'm sorry, but refraction is not up for debate...it exists and it does bend light over the horizon of Earth making it possible to see things that should be hidden by horizon.
Mirages do occur as well, but they are different from refraction...and so that Chicago news report was false...as most news reports tend to be...these people are not scientists, they fuck up all the time when reporting on science. So you really should take news reports with a grain of salt.
So back to the Selenlion eclipse. Don't you find it odd that these are very rare? That they only occur during sunset or sunrise? That they only occur if the index for refraction is great enough to allow for it to occur? That they only occur when the Sun is always on the complete opposite side to the Moon, and both the Sun and Moon reside very near the horizon during these events? I realize that refraction may sound bogus to those who don't accept or understand it...but this is explained by refraction and can even be demonstrated. This is just a trick of our atmosphere, causing light to bend. It's an optical illusion...and it is very possible.
I'll admit that it is quite interesting...but refraction can account for it. For me, if a Selenlion eclipse happened while the Moon was closer to the Sun...rather then on the complete opposite side, if it occurred higher in the sky and not so close to the horizon...if it happened at any other time other then sunrise or sunset, then sure, then there would be some missing variables...but Selenlion eclipses only occur when all these conditions are met, which makes it plausible on the Globe model...which means it's odd sure, but impossible...no, not at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kunallusso More cherry picked quotes...taken out of context and spun for Flat Earths liking. That video was showing pages taken from flight and aeronautic handbooks and schematic designs for aircraft...and cherry picking the parts where they were simplifying the science/math to make the problem or question easier to calculate for, by removing variables that don't hinder the end result anyway. This is done a LOT in physics...and is seen ALL THE TIME in research papers. We often simplify a problem by focusing on what we're trying to solve for, by assuming and simplifying some variables, essentially removing any variables that don't hinder or change our end conclusions. In the case with flight over our Globe Earth, it's understood that relative motion and conservation of momentum hold true in most cases...which means when calculating for aeronautic problems they don't have to include all the movements of the planet in their variables...because relative motion and conservation of momentum create a system that makes everything behave as if it's operating in a flat motionless system...so they can remove those variables and just focus on the singular motions of the plane itself. BUT they have to make that clear that this is what they're doing....so THAT IS WHY they mention "flat motionless plane". A layman wouldn't know this...because the average person doesn't write research papers or draw up schematic manuals for a living.
The best example I can give is with throwing something around inside a moving vehicle. Pretend you are on an airplane traveling at 500 mph. Now, I'm sure you've been inside an airplane, you're aware that once the plane maintains cruising altitude, you can get up and move around the cabin...and at no point are you sucked to the back of the plane. Well why is that? You're moving at 500 mph with the plane...shouldn't you feel some inertia? Nope...because you are now moving RELATIVE to the plane because of CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM...so you will feel no inertia from the movement alone, so long as that motion is constant with no sudden changes in forward velocity, this will hold true. So this means the inside of that plane now operates as if you were stationary and not moving, which is a basic rule of thumb for relative motion and conservation of momentum. Which means, you can throw a ball around inside the cabin of that moving plane, and it will behave as though you were throwing it around on the ground while not moving inside the plane. Make sense yet? Give it a try the next time you're in a moving vehicle by the way. So long as that vehicle maintains a constant rate of speed and a constant forward velocity, you can throw a ball around just fine and it will behave as though you're not in a moving vehicle. But hold on...you can't throw a ball at 500 mph can you? Of course you can't...but you don't have to, because the ball already conserves the momentum of the plane, moving relative to it. Pretty cool huh....that's relative motion and conservation of momentum in a nutshell.
So if you were writing a research paper to figure out some simple math for throwing something around inside the cabin of an airplane while in flight...you would then start that section of the paper with "we will assume the system is motionless". Because anyone reading it will already agree that relative motion and conservation of momentum are in effect, so stating that up front is just simplifying things to make it easier to do the math. But of course that's not the case, the plane is moving of course....it's just what you have to state when writing these papers, so that anybody reading it knows which variables you will be simplifying and discarding from any math equations or explanations.
This is how these papers are written out...so in the case with these aeronautic handbooks, or schematic designs for aircraft...that's all they're doing. They are simplifying things...and they are simply stating what exactly is being simplified. By saying "flat motionless plane", they are stating that the other variables such as rotation of the planet, orbit around the sun, orbit around the galaxy, curvature of the planet...these variables do not matter for what they are trying to solve for in that section of the paper and will not effect the math they are working on and therefore do not need to be included as variables.
So again...just more misunderstanding, from people who have NO IDEA what they're even looking at.
1
-
1
-
1
-
These are not proofs...they are misconceptions and conjecture, chasing patterns that are not there.
1. In space there is nothing blocking or filtering the light from our local Sun, so this makes it nearly impossible for the weaker light of the stars to be focused by our eyes. Essentially, the Sun drowns out that light. Only when the Suns light is being blocked by a large mass like our Earth or the Moon, does it become possible to see stars again. It's the same basic principle as how you can't see things in the darkness while close to a light source, but kill all the lights around you and suddenly your eyes can adjust to the darkness and will begin to be able to see in the dark a little bit, taking in the fainter light that is no longer being drowned out by brighter light sources.
Also...why would Buzz and Neil lie here? You really think if they were faking space, they'd say something like "we didn't see any stars"...if they were faking it, wouldn't they choose to rather appeal to most peoples expectations? Like yours...
2. Yes, those spacesuits have liquid cooling systems weaved into one of the layers of their inner suit...it had a leak and started filling his helmet. Which is very dangerous in space...because water in space clings to surfaces and could potentially drown the astronaut. So how is this a proof of anything? Oh I know...you think they film those space walks underwater...cause somebody on YouTube told you that and you believed him without question. Sigh...
3. What? The moon surface is not in "0 gravity"...the Moon has gravity, it's just less than the Earths gravity. Did you mean to say, how is it standing up if there IS gravity on the Moon? Cause that makes more sense to me. Here's how...if you take a closer look at that flag, you'll notice the top has a metal rod run through it to keep it up...pretty simple.
4. Yes, it would be a painful process to rebuild the technology required to go to the Moon, for several reasons. The first reason being, they obviously want to bring NEW technologies with them on the next mission...but each and every new system will have to be tested, just like the old systems were the last time we went. The trouble is, much of our new tech today is ran by tiny microchips and modern computers are not as sturdy as they once were. They are far more fragile...old computers were analog, new computers are not. Sadly, these new systems we've created...damage very easily in strong magnetic fields and radioactive environments. So each new system has to be modified and adapted for Space travel...this is painfully slow process.
The other reason why it's going to be tough, is because they have the blueprints for the old modules and rockets...but a lot of those systems were built by specialists...who did a LOT of tweaking of those designs during the testing phases...most of these tweaks and changes, were not added to the original blue prints, as a lot of it was custom designs these people built on the fly as they went. Most of these people are either dead today or very near dead...so we can't exactly pick their brains anymore on how they built these old systems. So we'll have to basically start over from scratch...using new engineers, with zero experience building these space faring systems.
You know WHY they don't have very many experts left who know how these systems were built? Because people like YOU don't see the value in funding the sciences...and so guess what, neither do people in government...you think NASA is well funded? Do me a favor, look up how much funding the military receives per year...and then bring up NASA's annual budget. Do you know how much it costs to launch even ONE rocket into space? Billions...and they have thousands of employees, pretty much all specialists, almost none of them are cheap to keep around...aside from the janitors and security. So 50 million a day may seem like a lot...to YOU...but to a major company...that really doesn't earn much of anything from it's endeavors...they're likely struggling just to keep the lights on.
5. The fuck you talking about? Artificial Moon? In what way? Certainly not in mass and scale...that would be quite literally impossible. So they made a tiny model of the Moon? Really, you'll have to share some more context on that one...cause none of us have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
6. Did your brain begin to fry out here...cause your last point is very poorly written and sounds more like gibberish. I can't tell what you're trying to say here...let alone try to figure out what your point is from that mess.
So none of your points are "proofs"...and none of it is science, so I can't really provide experiments...for any of this. Because you've made no scientific observations, these are just paranoid conclusions you've reached, rooted mostly in bias and a deep distrust in NASA. I'd love to share some experiments with you and some actual science, but there is nothing you've provided here that requires that, because nothing you rambled off above is rooted in scientific observation in any way. Sooo...until you do provide some scientific observations, you're not gonna get any scientific responses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master Ok, but like I said, we have SEEN asteroids and meteors contact the Moon, it makes sense that these create the craters on the moon, meteors impact Earth all the time. And we know that mars has tectonic activity, which can and does create deep fissures in crust...there’s even evidence to suggest the water on Mars was once liquid and flowing, which also creates deep fissures. So just because someone has shot electricity into some rock and made a visual correlation, does not mean it is proven science. Comparing things visually and thinking this is good enough to reach a conclusion with, is known as a false equivalence fallacy. If you look at the canyons made here on Earth from space...they look like electrical bolts too...but we’re not concluding these are caused by events like you’re claiming.
I get why people are drawn to electromagnetism, because we can scale it down and recreate it, I get it...but there is just way too many contradictions and limitations with electromagnetism, when trying to apply the theory as a substitute for gravity. The physics just isn’t there, it doesn’t fit with the calculated, measured and observed motions, that are explained so well by the theory of gravity. You really have to ignore a lot of science, to ram it in as a replacement.
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master Who has ever claimed they’re just “dirty snowballs”? I’m pretty sure modern science agrees with you on what creates the coma tail of a comet. Though I’d add that this break up also releases a lot of trapped gases in the process, which also adds to things, these gases being ignited by charged particles of the solar radiation from the Sun.
I don’t think anyone would really disagree with you on comet tail formation, though I’m not an Astro physicist so I really can’t argue that for certain. But it’s this extreme electrical discharge between planets that they would argue against. It’s an event we’ve never seen before, and even if it’s rare in our own solar system, surely we should have picked something up and witnessed such an event in our galaxy by now.
Black holes have been photographed now. Stars near galactic centre have been observed to orbit a massive object, that fits with what we understand about gravity under general relativity. So where GR has a lot of evidence now confirming it, this massive electromagnetic discharge event...doesn’t really.
But at least it has more going for it than flat Earth, I’ll give it that much. It requires a lot more advanced understanding of physics, to really argue against it...where as flat Earth is refuted from the moment you attempt to model it. So I’ll give you that much credit, it’s harder to dispute. So if they are able to verify their findings someday, that would be interesting.
1
-
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master So now you think you’ve falsified the first law of motion? A satellites orbit degrades and falls to Earth, because it’s still contacting a little bit of atmosphere which causes drag, which slows it down. The Earth doesn’t have the same problem, because it’s not contending with any drag force, so conservation of momentum is absolute. First law of motion is pretty simple, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an opposing force or mass. The Suns gravity isn’t slowing Earths forward momentum, it’s an orbital motion, only friction could slow the Earth down, friction caused by an opposing mass, like air...and there isn’t any in space, In large enough quantities between planets. So it’s conservation of momentum that keeps satellites in orbit...not centrifugal force.
So this is what I’m talking about...ignoring a LOT of other physics, and focusing only on electromagnetism. You should really retake a physics class, you’re missing a lot of variables.
1
-
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master Yes, ok, but you’re putting words in my mouth. Nobody would argue that electromagnetism isn’t a huge part of what constitutes reality. Modern science isn’t saying it’s not and neither am I. Electromagnetism is one of the 4 fundamental forces, so it is recognized and respected. But you are ignoring a lot of physics, and not just gravity, the laws of motion and conservation of momentum especially. They’re welcome to try, but where black holes have been calculated and observed, your “electromagnetic plasmoid” sounds very made up, with nothing supporting it. But I’d be very interested to read an in depth research paper on this anomaly, so feel free to share.
You guys are free to attempt at changing the standard model, people thought Einstein was crazy back in his time too...the difference was that he was able to prove his hypothesis correct with detailed experiments, data, observations and calculations. I just feel you are leaning HEAVILY on ONE aspect of physics, and forcefully applying it to other fundamentals of physics, like conservation of momentum and gravity. And I feel you’re doing it, cause you’re drawn to it, my guess is because you work in the trades (or have worked in the trades) and you have a lifetime of experience with things like welding and electrical trades, so it makes the most sense to you for that reason. But this is a bias, your experience and knowledge is built around those fundamentals, so you’re not aware or as well read in other avenues of physics, so I feel you’re slotting in electromagnetism to answer for other avenues of physics, that you don’t know much about. Much of what you’ve discussed, is solved for in other principals of physics.
Either way, I’m merely speculating there about your credentials, just a best guess. Though can I just say it’s been refreshing to have a rational discussion for a change. I’ve been talking to flat Earthers for so long, it’s just nice to talk to someone with a more level head, who doesn’t get triggered or offended when I start challenging their positions, who can shake it off and not take it personally. Though I still disagree, because I have yet to see any tangible evidence to support many of the Thunderbolts claims, but it’s at least based within reality, just with a strong leaning towards the Electrical. And perhaps I’ve never seen any evidence, because I haven’t really been looking. If Einstein could change modern consensus, then it’s possible to do it again, I would just stress the importance of proving it first, with conclusive evidence, before jumping to conclusions.
1
-
Iron Horse throttle master I have an open mind, but you need to understand that nothing in the thunderbolt project is verified science yet, so I’ll entertain it I’m not going to believe it outright. I don’t care if it makes more sense to you, you have a clear bias, you work with electrical components in your line of work, so you have a clearer grasp on that physics in particular, so of course it would make more sense to you. But until they can prove their claims, then it’s still only hypothetical. They believe craters are created on the moon from electrical discharge from Earth...even though we HAVE witnessed meteors striking the moon many times, even though craters blotch BOTH sides of the Moon and the same side always faces Earth due to gravitational tidal locking. What they’re claiming needs to be observed, and then it needs to account for a whole whack of other physics, from star formation, to orbits, to black holes, to expanding space, red shift and time dilation, the list goes on. We’re not putting satellites into orbit with the help of electromagnetism, we’re doing it with our understanding of gravity and conservation of momentum.
You mentioned an “electromagnetic plasmoid” as your answer to replace black holes...so where is the peer reviewed research paper that helps verify this could even be a thing? I don’t get my knowledge from potentially hoax documentaries on YouTube, I acquire it from reading the actual research and seeing if it’s properly peer reviewed and has repeatable experiments to back it up. So feel free to share those research papers, I don’t mind taking a look. People lie all the time and a former physicist who has more to gain by conning layman, wouldn’t have much trouble dusting off and plagiarizing old falsified physics, and reselling it to layman who don’t know any better. I just know enough about physics to know that it’s a very flimsy hypothesis currently and they don’t seem very willing to operate within peer review, which raises red flags. But yes, like I said, everyone thought Einstein was crazy back in his time as well, the difference is he was able to prove he was correct and today we have mountains of research and evidence to back up his conclusions.
So until thunderbolt project has something to verify it’s claims, and enough peer reviewed evidence that it can successfully falsify current general relativity and gravity, until then it remains a hypothetical, bordering on a hoax. If you have any papers to share though, I wouldn’t mind having a look, anything on these electromagnetic plasmoids you mentioned? Currently it sounds very made up, what exactly are they? What causes them, how do they bend light and why aren’t they discharging tremendous amounts of energy? Where is the evidence that verifies them...I hope you didn’t just watch ONE documentary, and then believed it outright. I’d also like to see something that can explain star formation, as we are currently recreating nuclear fusion in reactors today and we’re using our understanding of gravity to do it. I could share further info on that if you’d like.
1
-
@Livingtoblesschannel So basically, just arguments from personal incredulity. Gotcha...same ol’ creationist MO. The trouble is, you’re not even trying to understand...you’re just scoffing at it before even giving the concept a chance. It’s just one of many hypothesized ideas for how consciousness manifests, and so it’s worth exploring. No need to get upset about it, nothing is conclusive yet, still tons of debate here, so relax.
Either way, she’s not wrong, if you just look at the vessel itself, it’s just dead inert matter, clumped together, performing a series of chemical reactions...that statement is empirically true, so that is what she was talking about. Whether those chemical reactions are also responsible for our soul, spirit, consciousness, that’s up for debate...so any conclusion on that is largely wherever your bias leans you.
1
-
First of all, you can see curvature at 10 km (roughly the cruising altitude for most commercial aircraft), it is just very faint and not easy to spot with the naked eye. Furthermore, camera lenses have all kinds of lens distortion that make it tricky as well, these distortions are present in most camera lenses and do make it more challenging as well, but with the right equipment, you can snap a picture of curvature from 35,000 feet and you can detect it.
Second, we have detected the rotation of our planet in several different ways now and we have measured it. Even Flat Earth has measured it...with their now famous ring laser gyro experiment that detected a 15 degree drift per hour...just like our model says it would. So you're either not aware of these experiments that have proven and measured the Earths rotation, or you're in complete denial of their existence...in either case, your claim that we have not measured the rotation of our Earth is false.
So I'm sorry, but from our perspective, you're just not being very honest with yourself...or you're being very ignorant. In either case, YOU are the problem...not the science or the model itself.
1
-
@rajbrar8584 Neil was merely pointing out that it's difficult to see the curve from a plane with the naked eye, but 35k feet is roughly around the time it begins to become visible...problem is, with so much atmosphere blocking the horizon, it's quite difficult at this altitude and not very likely that you'll see it. 130k feet however, it becomes easier...but still even at this height, the curve is quite gradual, so if you don't do anymore then just look at the images and video, you could easily conclude the horizon flat. But, if you actually pause the camera, trace the horizon line and then match the images to calculations of what we'd expect to see at those heights, you'll find that the horizon we see at those altitudes do curve and they do match with what we'd expect. Here's some footage where somebody did just that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edsUrLXrlLg Here's another great demonstration that breaks down the Math and matches the calculations with actual pictures taken in reality. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Lots of good demos for curvature in this blog, but just watch the first tab at top left labelled "Curve", click on that and it will begin the simulation. There are hundreds of videos and demonstrations like this online now...but Flat Earth chooses to ignore them and see only what they want. If you got the guts to challenge what you think you know, give those links a look sometime.
I didn't mention any of the other experiments that test for rotation and movement of the Earth, because judging by your past comments here...you didn't seem all to interested in sharing information and keeping an open mind, it seemed to me like you were only here to troll, to flex your ego and to get a rise out of people. So I didn't feel like it was worth my time...if the chances were good you weren't going to look at anything I shared anyway. But if you are actually interested, I don't mind sharing those experiments.
No, I'd say it's hard to have a discussion with anybody who believes observations are not important for an experiment. You'd be correct to say that observations are not the only thing you should do while conducting a proper experiment, but observation is a still a very key component in almost any experiment...to argue otherwise, is ignorant and only shows a lack of a working knowledge of how science works.
Are you aware of the Ring Laser Gyro experiment? If not, here's a brief summary. The Earth in the heliocentric model rotates once every 24 hours, so if you were to slice the globe up into 24 equal sections, each one would be 15 degrees (360/24=15). So if the Earth is rotating, then it should rotate 15 degrees every hour, pretty simple. Ring Laser Gyros, are a very expensive, very precise piece of equipment, that are designed to maintain rigidity in open space, even better than their mechanical counter parts. Meaning the gyro itself will not move but it can read any shift in the housing unit, which it displays as a drift in orientation relative to the gyro inside the housing. So what happened was, one of your own groups (the Globebusters), purchased one of these gyros and used it to test the rotation of the Earth. Every single time they switched the gyro on, they detected a 15 degree drift in orientation...which matches with the heliocentric model of a rotating Earth.
They then tried to falsify these results, which is fair, that's exactly what you should try and do in any science experiment, look at it from every possible angle to see if there's perhaps any variables you may have missed that could have also given those results. But, try as they might...and they tried pretty hard, they could not falsify the results, results that only made sense if the Earth is in fact a Globe that rotates once every 24 hours.
Why does this qualify as an experiment? Because we formulated a hypothesis, that if the Earth is spherical and if it rotates once every 24 hours, then it should rotate 15 degrees every hour. Flat Earthers then found an instrument that would be able to detect this motion and then they tested it with both a Flat and Globe hypothesis in mind, collecting data in multiple data sets over several days, recording the results and comparing it the pre-calculations for each model. When they tested it...the results matched with the globe Earth hypothesis, not a Flat Earth hypothesis. Every time the gyro was switched on, it detected the 15 degrees of drift every hour...not 0 degrees (which is what they were hoping for), not 5 degrees, not 25 degrees...15 degrees, which matches with the Globe hypothesis of a 24 hour rotation of a spherical object. As well, the gyro detected a drift on 3 different axis...as it would also expect to pick up, on an Earth that is spherical. For more information on that watch this video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJOaBGAgyhw
There are several reasons why the sky couldn't have caused these results...because first of all, how would it? How would the sky physically be able to shift the orientation of the lasers inside the gyro? The lasers have no moving parts...that's why they are more precise than a mechanical gyro, the only way to detect a shift, is for the gyro itself to be moving...which means the ground it sits on must be moving. Not that they didn't try to come up with some excuses for how the sky could move that laser, one hypothesis put forward being Electromagnetic attraction...but try as they may, when they placed the gyro in a chamber that blocked Electromagnetic forces...the laser still detected a 15 degree drift, so that falsified that hypothesis pretty quickly.
It's not like science ignored the possibility of the sky being the cause of the gyros movement...it's just that so far, their has been no evidence to suggest that was the case. So as it stands currently, we can only conclude for now that it is the Earth below the gyro that is causing the drift. So this is actually one of the best proofs that supports a rotating Earth. We find it particularly funny as well, because it was actually a Flat Earth experiment that detected this motion...which we can't help but see the irony in. Not that we don't have our own laser experiments, this experiment isn't new...the people who build these lasers have been doing similar experiments for years now and there is currently a massive laser being built under the surface that will be the most precise laser gyro ever built. It will more then likely add further evidence for a rotating Earth.
So this is a very good bit of evidence that supports the Globe model...one of many. Flat Earth really likes to ignore this one or deny it as best they can...so I hope in your case you just were not aware of this experiment, but if you were, what is your conclusion for this experiment and why? I'd be curious to know your thoughts. Again, I'm more then happy to share even more experiments with you, but I suppose that will depend on your next reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lak0803 Exactly...your point of reference is in space...but understand, there is no direction in space, so it's a poor frame of reference to judge anything from. There is no up, down, east, west, south in space...there is no direction, so the only thing of reference near by that you could orientate yourself with, is the Earth. So if you were in the ISS flying above Earth, you would orientate yourself to the ground, feet facing down toward the ground.
Just watch this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQVu9i6CnU4&t=40s at what point in this sped up ISS footage, do you feel upside down or sideways? Even though it is curving along with the Earth, so from starting point to end point, the ISS has essentially flipped in orientation...but they don't notice anything, because they always orientate with the Earth below...it's the only reference point they have to know what direction they are facing.
1
-
Yes, but is it the actual speed that causes the increase in a Centrifugal force, or is it the amount of rotations? Technically it's both, but unlike rotations, speed is relative, so it doesn't scale...meaning 1000 mph to an object the size of Earth...doesn't mean shit, it's the rotations per minute that matters, the RPM's. Earth completes ONE rotation every 24 hours, which means it's not really generating much Centrifugal force at all.
Here's a simple thought experiment that can help you to verify that and understand what I'm talking about.
Picture yourself in a NASCAR, going it's top speed of 200 mph, around a 1000 meter long course. With a track at this length, the driver will have a hard time keeping to the road, and he will feel the Centrifugal force, as his body is sucked to the door. The car in this example will complete several rotations around the course in a single minutes time, so the rate of angular velocity change per second is great in this example, which means a LOT of Centrifugal force occurring.
Now just increase the length of the course to 1000 miles. The car traveling at the exact same speed of 200 mph, but this time going around a much larger course...how much centrifugal force do you think the driver will feel in this case? None, the course would feel like it's not even turning, he'd feel like he's on a straight road...it would now take 5 hours to complete ONE rotation.
The speed was the same in both examples, but one had more centrifugal force occurring than the other. Why is that? What can we conclude here? That speed really doesn't have much to do with Centrifugal force...I mean it does in that speed will effect the rate of rotation, but distance will effect it as well. But it's not really speed or distance that is the main reason Centrifugal force increases, it is the amount of rotations per minute, the RPM's. The more rotations per minute, the faster the rate of change in angular velocity per second, the more Centrifugal force occurs. That's what causes Centrifugal force to increase.
So knowing that now, the Earth completes ONE rotation every 24 hours...so how much Centrifugal force is that really going to create? Not nearly enough to overcome gravity and fling us off. But it does a little, about 0.3% at the Equator where the Centrifugal force is the greatest. Most people don't know this, but you actually weight slightly less at the Equator for this reason, because the Earth is rotating and that Centrifugal force it generates there, negates 0.3% of gravity. Here's an experiment that helps to verify this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o
So actually, no, our rotation does not trump gravity. It is not actually rotating fast enough, speed is relative, yes the surface is rotating 1000 mph, but it has a circumference of 24,000 miles to go around, which means the rate of angular velocity change per second...very slight. It takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree, it takes 1 hour to arc 15 degrees of our 360 degree rotation...it is a SNAILS PACE, in the grand scheme of things.
The difference between models is, most of the arguments against the Globe are just misunderstandings of basic physics...while the Flat Earth can't even explain a fucking sunset. It falls apart with the most basic of observations...and that's just one of thousands. There is REAL physics of motion that most people seem to have forgotten about, that isn't hard to relearn, that does help you understand how the Globe model works. And actually yes, the Globe can explain gravity...it's the only thing that makes sense of gravity, they help each other make sense. That's why Flat Earth needs to deny gravity so desperately...but we all know, gravity is pretty damn hard to argue against, drop something...it will drop every single time. It's the easiest force to verify...the hardest to understand, but super easy to confirm the existence of. And if gravity exists, then the Globe is really the only model that makes sense of it...heck the entire universe makes sense once you add gravity to everything we observe.
1
-
@LowerClassClique Really? Wow...schools today are really dropping the ball aren't they. Earth spinning does not create gravity, so not sure who told you that, but they were wrong...or you misunderstood the lesson that day and thought he meant rotation creates gravity. It doesn't. As we understand it today, gravity attraction is created by the mass of an object, bending space inward, to attract other mass. It's explained pretty clearly in this demo here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg Here he demonstrates the orbits of planets around a bend on a fabric sheet, which replicates the bending of space. The more mass an object has, the more space it bends.
We understand today that it is a bending of space occurring, because of experiments done so far that verify the leading theory of gravity today that proposed and calculated this concept, known as General Relativity. The Eddington experiment, time dilation experiment, red shift experiment, detection of gravitational waves, the visualization of cosmic background radiation, black holes, solving the orbit of mercury, fusion reactions, all of these experiments and many others have verified to us that space is bending and it bends inward to a central point, around all mass. Gravity then is caused by mass attracting mass, the more mass an object has, the more space it bends, demonstrated pretty clearly in the video I shared above. The experiment that first verified that mass was attracting mass, was the Cavendish experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6aFgQhM_A&t=153s Didn't just observe it here in this experiment, it also measured it, giving us the universal constant of gravity, we call big G in math equations today. This constant of gravity is used in the math for orbital mechanics, rocket science, construction, parabolic targeting, GPS, the list goes on.
So I hope that clears some things up. It is not rotation that creates gravity, so it's just a misunderstanding of gravity that you have currently. I hope you didn't learn that in school...cause that would be wrong, but I get the feeling you might have just misunderstood the lesson. Perhaps your teacher showed you that bending fabric visualization before, with the marbles attracted towards a center mass on the bent sheet? Actually, if I had to guess, he probably showed you a centrifugal force experiment, with a bucket of water spinning to keep the water inside and COMPARED that to gravity. That wasn't a demonstration of gravity, that was a Centripetal force demonstration...not gravity. That is a different force, caused by motion. Anyway, hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steelyatron You’re right, I don’t know of any other alternatives…that’s why I’m asking you. Do you have any suggestions for an alternative?
If you’re going to argue against peer review, then offer an alternative…cause it’s no secret that peer review isn’t perfect, you’re really not pointing out anything new here, you’re just stating the obvious. My point is that it is far better to have a filter for information, rather than not have it. And if you’re going to argue that we remove that system…then you should offer an alternative, otherwise it’s a bit pointless.
If there was a better system, then we’d have thought of one by now…you’re going to have trouble coming up with an alternative, because many have tried, but peer review is still the best system they could come up with in the end. If you think you got a solution though, then feel free to share it…but I very much doubt you’ll be able too.
1
-
1
-
@steelyatron “…you have no idea what would happen without the peer review system. None.”
Oh I think I could provide a pretty accurate prediction. Without any system to filter information, then ANYONE, regardless of credentials or actual experience, could say and claim whatever they want, and it would all be equally valid…because if nobody actually checked it, with a higher level of expertise and thorough analysis, then what’s stopping them from claiming whatever they want? The well of information would be an absolute mess, misinformation would reign supreme in that system. Conmen, grifters, pseudo intellectuals would have a field day…it would be a huxters paradise. That’s what would happen, and I’m pretty confident most would agree with me here…it’s not difficult to understand who really benefits from abolishing peer review…under educated pseudo intellectuals, who just want a free pass to claim whatever they want. And in worse cases…corporate entities who would absolutely love for standards of review to be removed, so they could sell you whatever they want!
I’m all for improving peer review systems, but removing them completely, absolutely not. You’re a bit naive if you actually think removing all systems of review would stop corruption…it would just give them a free pass to do whatever they want. It would be a thousand times worse, not better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@riandcaz Okay, but your belief in God is your bias here, don’t you see that? You’re rationalizing things so that they better fit a belief you have, so that bias is leading your conclusions, more than you realize. I’m not without bias, nobody is, but that’s why we have peer review in science. Is there any system of review with fringe conspiracy movements online? No…just echo chambers and arguments with opposition’s, that don’t achieve much. These conversations are as close as you’ll get to peer review, so I hope the information is at least considered. But whether you realize it or not, your bias is quite clear to me, it’s your spiritual beliefs, you filter information through that lens.
1. The video proves that a building is clearly dropping below eye level by hundreds of feet. If you know your perspective fundamentals, you’ll know that things above your eye level will never drop below it due to perspective alone. They will appear to converge AT eye level, but never will they drop below it if surface is actually flat. So what can account for that dropping? A curvature. A flat surface however cannot. So forget the math for a moment, and just ponder the pure observation; if the surface is not curving, then how is that building dropping below eye level by hundreds of feet? It’s a good question, and you really shouldn’t ignore it.
In my experience Flat Earthers make two major errors when reviewing long distance observations; they don’t use the correct math, or they don’t have the correct variables (distances, observation heights, locations are wrong, etc). 8 inches per mile squared is a common formula they use, but that doesn’t have any variables for height of the observer, horizon distance, refraction, etc, and it simply does not represent line of sight. It’s not even a curvature calculation for a sphere or circle, it’s a parabolic arc equation, so it’s not even accurate in terms of a steady surface curvature, it eventually drops off. So it’s the wrong math…use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Whenever I do the math for these observations, it fits just fine, and I’ve reviewed many. I use basic trig, you can find a great formula at the metabunk curve calculator. It’s far more accurate, it does the geometric math as well as a standard refraction calculation, so feel free to check it out sometime.
Sure, I can admit the surface of water is level. Are you able to understand that level doesn’t just mean flat? It’s one of those words in the English language that has many different definitions depending on the context. In geometry, a spherical surface can be defined as level, in that every point of its surface is equal distance from centre, at the same LEVEL from centre. That’s how the word is being applied in “sea level”. Water is held at equipotential distance from centre of gravity, much like how a bubble is held at equipotential distance from centre of the bubble, by forces of air pressure and surface tension. Forces can do that, so I have no trouble understanding how Earth’s oceans can curve and adhere to the curvature of Earth, gravity is a central force.
In any case, words we create have no real power or influence over physical reality. So even if the word ‘level’ did mean only one thing, it wouldn’t really matter as far as physical reality is concerned. You still have to account for that observation; how is that tower dropping below eye level by hundreds of feet?
Please do not deflect away from the question. If you can’t answer it, then perhaps it’s time you consider the possibility that Flat Earth may be wrong here.
I’ll address your other 3 points in separate comments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The ISS has a 24 hour live feed of Earth, and several geostationary weather satellites are in orbit right now taking round the clock photos of Earth, most with their own feeds you and anyone can access. Like Himawari, GOES, EPIC, DSCOVR, just to name a few.
Flat Earth doesn’t have arguments, what they have is willful ignorance. They’ll certainly tell themselves (and others) that NASA has no 24 hour live feed…but it’s really just a lie they perpetuate, one amongst many.
Also, so when they showed you these odd flight paths, did they ever demonstrate them on an actual globe, using the actual great circle flight paths? Or did they use the Mercator map (a flat map) and then the AE map (most commonly accepted Flat Earth map) to demonstrate with? If they used two flat maps of Earth, and never used a globe…then how exactly does that debunk a globe? 🤷♂️ Seems to me they just used a flat map, to debunk a different flat map…wouldn’t you say? Go back and rewatch those flight path demos, I guarantee they never once use a globe with their actual great circle routes, they used a Mercator map and then the AE map. A great circle route btw, is the shortest path between two points on a sphere, it’s what all airliners use. You can go on Google Earth at anytime and the ruler tool uses the great circle as well, so try plotting those paths on an actual globe sometime…you won’t find their “evidence” so compelling afterwards.
Here’s the world flights paths laid out on flat maps and then an actual globe https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho…you might notice something interesting.
1
-
1
-
Why would you think this? You do realize the Earth is tilted on its axis in the Heliocentric model yes? I think you're having trouble picturing in your mind 3D perspective...cause what you're claiming actually works just fine on a Globe and it's actually what we'd expect to see on a Globe...except for the Sun path you're claiming, it doesn't make a North arc, it makes a South arc. I live in the North on the tropic of Cancer as well, and it may rise and set North, but it actually traces a Southern arc...and I witness that every single day in the summer, so not sure what you're goin on about a Northern arc. It rises North, starts heading more and more South and then arcs back to the North setting to the North again...making a Southernly arc...I see it every single day in the Summer...and it's exactly what I'd expect to see on a Globe actually, with a tilt in its axis of 23.5 degrees towards the Sun in the summer.
You can even model it in 3D software to confirm it, if a visual is required...which it appears it is. Or heck, could even model it physically, just get a ball or a globe, place a few match sticks along the tropic of Cancer and then tilt the Globe towards a light source 23.5 degrees, and rotate it on that axis, paying close attention to the shadows. Also, did you know that in the Australian summer, the Sun actually rises to the South East and sets in the South west, casting shadows to the North? How is this possible on a Flat Earth? If the Sun rotates above, it would trace a Northern arc everywhere South on a Flat Earth, how would Australia or any Southern continent see the Sun rise to the South and set in the South and trace a Northern arc across the sky?
If you don't believe me, here's a fellow in Australia who filmed this occurring and confirms it with location data and information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJGczcwJ6TA&t=102s So how does this work on a Flat Earth? Cause your claim above actually works perfectly fine on the Globe, you're just having trouble picturing how it works and so I think you've reached a false conclusion from a lack of being able to visualize it mentally...so maybe try modeling it, cause it seems you require a visual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dustinbusche274 No, the Michelson Morley experiment was not an experiment for Earths motion, it was an attempt to detect the Aether…it did not succeed. Neither did any of the other experiments that were also an attempt to find Aether. So physics has absolutely ZERO evidence of Aether…meanwhile they had plenty of evidence for Earth rotation; the Foucault pendulum and Gyroscope experiments were already well established and understood by this time, as were observations and experiments done for Coriolis and Eotvos effect, and Astronomy had long since verified that the only model that fits and explained all celestial positions and movements, is the heliocentric model. And today we have further proof, the gyrocompass is a great example you should really try researching sometime…it’s a navigations tool used today on most large sea vessels, that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. There’s also the gyro theodolite which is very similar. So there’s really no debate anymore whether Earth is rotating.
So which do you think physics is going to reevaluate? Aether which still has zero evidence, or Earth rotation which had plenty? Hmmmm….tough decision. 🧐
Flat Earth has to really stop lying about things to force their conclusions…it doesn’t help their arguments, it just reveals your intellectual dishonesty. MM was nit a test for Earth rotation, and it most certainly did not prove Earth was stationary. The experiment in actuality is inconclusive, in both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. We don’t use inconclusive results to form conclusions with…anyone that does is doing so out of bias and intentional ignorance.
Get a better bullshit filter, DITRH is a known conman. You are being conned…worse yet you are helping them spread misinformation.
1
-
1
-
Water has no means to resist gravity...you do. When you lift your leg, you are expelling energy to do it, without that energy being used, you would not be able to resist gravity either. Water can't do that, because water is not alive. On top of that, gravity works by mass attracting mass. If an object has more mass, it's going to be effected by gravity a lot more then something with less mass...so it's actually easier to resist gravity, the smaller you are.
Also, do you think the oceans are one massive entity that is singular in nature...or is it more like triillions of little drops collected together that make up one big ocean? If I dumped 100 people onto a scale, would it now become impossible for any of them to lift their feet and resist gravity for a little bit by expelling energy? Did they become one massive person, or are they still they're own individual people? Water isn't much different, though it does bond a little bit due to molecular bonding, water molecules are still pretty independent of themselves...but again, they are not alive, so they have no means of resisting an attractive force of any kind, they will conform to any force that is applied to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonyhernandez9921 No, that's your assumption. You think because we don't agree with you, it must mean we didn't do our research, rather then consider that YOU could be wrong, you just assume right out of the gate that we're wrong and there's no other possible reason why we disagree with you. You assume that we just listen to everything blindly and without question...yet you made an empty claim that the Illuminati worship the devil and rules the world....where did you learn that exactly? Have you ever really bothered to verify any of this to be true? Did you read that on a meme on social media...and then believed it 100% the moment you read it? And then you say that WE just believe everything we're told....it's incredible.
Even if this shadow group exists, that you claim is ruling the world...they can't keep you from observing and studying physical reality, it's right there, you can test it any time you like. I have done that, the science doesn't lie, the Earth is undeniably a sphere. Unlike you, I can back that claim up with evidence....can you do the same for Flat Earth and the Illuminati? From all I've seen, all you have is empty speculations when it comes to this shadow government....and I'm really getting tired of people following speculations so blindly. People really need to learn the difference between speculation and evidence....it's sad that so many don't.
Consider the very real possibility, that we disagree with you, because we know the science here and we know exactly how you're wrong. If you don't, then you're arguing from ignorance, and we can't have a ration discussion with you after that. It's clear you are a religious fanatic though, and so you filter everything through that bias, so you're not likely going to listen to anything we or science has to say...so there's no having any rational conversation with people like yourself, if that's how you're going to reason, with pure ignorance. That's the real truth of things, you are bias, not objective...this is where you go wrong.
So I'll say again, your bible has no place in a discussion of science. Present evidence for the Flat Earth, or we can only conclude that you reached that conclusion on bias and assumption alone. It's really that simple.
1
-
1
-
@anthonyhernandez9921 Dude, did you forget how to punctuate proper sentences or something? Christ...
Definition of religion is as follows "The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe." You believe in a god that created the universe, so you are a theist, which means you're religious. It's not hard. I don't really care which religion you conform too, you admit to believing in a God and the Devil, these are superstitious beings, that you believe exists on mostly just faith. So you are religious, it's pretty cut and dry, whether you agree or not. Best to just own it, cause that sort of denial bullshit to claim some false sense of superiority, doesn't fly with me...it just further proves how irrational you are.
None of what your babbling about is proof bud, it's just empty rhetoric. Tangible, physical evidence, that's all that matters here. Do you have any that supports your claim of a Flat Earth? If not, then you have reached that conclusion on faith and assumption alone, which means it's more then likely just bullshit. Stop wasting time with babbling, share evidence or don't speak at all, those are your options. Nobody should ever reach full conclusions on empty claims, that's how you end up living in delusion.
1
-
1
-
@coryskizm Couldn't agree more with you on that one, we really shouldn't let something this stupid divide us...there's enough of that in the world as it is. From a Flat Earthers perspective though, they feel this is the most important thing there is, because it 100% verifies a malicious and evil entity that has been pulling strings behind the scene to enslave us all. Sooooo, it's far from stupid to them, they feel very strongly that this is the research that will free us all. Try having a rational discussion with somebody who has a bias that powerful....you won't get it, because in their mind, they're fighting evil and that's all that matters. Take away that boogeyman and they lose purpose. What they don't seem to consider though, is that if there is a boogeyman pulling strings, it is LOVING how misdirected these people are. They are wasting their time, looking in the wrong direction and getting mad at the wrong people. Divide and conquer and clever misdirection, that's how evil wins against the people, every time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@godschild7486 Yes, I get that you don’t understand...but you’d know how this technology and science works, if you’d just stop for a second and do some research on it. You wanted to know how science determined the inner composition of Earth, so I’ve pointed you towards that science...that’s all. You can either educate yourself on seismology, or you can continue to ignore what I’m trying to help you with and continue pretending like science just reaches conclusions like this from nothing...which is pretty much the argument flat Earth always makes, arguments from ignorance. Do you want to remain ignorant on the topic, or do you really want to learn more about it? Seriously, why are getting angry at me for just pointing you towards answers to your questions? :/
I didn’t say it’s exactly like sonar, it’s similar, in that just like sonar, it’s measuring wave propagation through a medium. In the case with sonar, that’s sound waves through air, bouncing off surfaces and returning to a receiver that measures direction and return time. In seismology, they use seismographs which are measuring vibrations in shockwaves that travel through the Earth during and after every Earthquake, these seismic waves are registered on these sensitive measuring devices, telling you the shockwaves intensity output, the type of wave (s or p wave, or surface wave, among others), logging the time of arrival for each seismic wave, pinpointing the most likely point of the epicentre, etc...it’s recording the shockwaves and creating data from the readings. Data that once you analyze it, can and does tell you a LOT about Earths inner composition and as a bonus even Earths shape.
I’m trying to help you understand how this technology works, but you’re not really listening. Why ask for the technology and science that helped scientists reach a conclusion...and then just completely ignore the answer provided for you? My guess is you just assumed there was no answer, you were really posing the question as part of your evidence for your larger argument...not because you actually wanted an answer.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there is an answer. If you want to actually learn more about the science, here’s a great video to get you started https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA. There are plenty more videos and articles explaining the science, so it’s really not hard to research...it’s a very well established field of study in science. You can also visit the official data archives for all seismic activity, just do a search on the IRIS seismology database sometime, this is the central hub for all the worlds seismic data, completely free and open to the public...so go nuts.
1
-
1
-
@godschild7486 Ok, but for someone who claims he’s just looking for the facts, you sure shut your mind off pretty quickly the moment anyone attempts to share some information with you. It’s hard to share facts...if the person you’re sharing with, won’t even look at what you’re sharing, just writes it off as false before giving any consideration at all. It’s a common thing people do when they don’t really want their mind changed, they’ve already made up their mind and are now just gloating about a position they feel is superior.
Just sayin, you asked a good honest question about how science determined the inner composition of the Earth. I then pointed you to the science, and then you just called it “scientism”, without really giving any reason for why it doesn’t qualify as science for you. Did you look at anything I shared? How exactly did you become an expert in seismology, enough to discern it was nonsense science, in such a short window of time? I can think of only two reasons, either you are an expert with years of seismological research under your belt, or you don’t understand it, don’t really want to understand it, so you just assume it’s wrong, no need to look or extend the effort to be sure.
See how that can be a bit frustrating? I’m all for sharing information, if you have the open mind, the intellectual honesty and patience to actually listen and consider anything I share. I’m more then ready to extend that effort for anything you have to share, I just don’t see much point if the person I’m chatting with isn’t really interested in having an open discussion. I’m not asking you to agree with me, just asking that you keep an open mind and consider a different perspective.
1
-
@godschild7486 But alright, I’ll extend a further invitation for civil discussion. You asked another great question about sound propagation on an Earth that’s moving, I’ll take a moment to answer as best I can, then I’ll pose my own question for you about flat Earth.
So this has to do with a term in physics known as relative motion. Apologies in advance if I’m just repeating science you’re aware of, you asked the question so I can only assume you’re not aware of the science that helps answer it, so bare with me if you have. The jist of it, is that anything existing in the same inertial reference frame of motion (that being anything moving together, in the same exact direction, at the same rate), will be moving relative to each other in that system of motion. Once you’re moving relative to something, it becomes impossible to know if you or it are even moving at all and everything within that same relative system of motion, will basically behave as though you’re in a stationary system. It’s why you’ll have no trouble talking with someone in a plane going 500 mph (which is pretty close to the speed of sound), or why you could easily jump and land back in the spot you left from, or throw a ball back and forth in the plane like you’re playing catch in a park.
Relative motion, is what makes it possible for you to interact within a frame of motion, and have everything inside that relative frame of motion behave as if you were stationary. It’s why motion is a tricky one...not so simple to pin down, as some would like to assume it is.
The hard reality is that we do not actively perceive motion very well, it’s Einsteins famous equivalence principle. Today it’s just basic physics of motion though, it’s very well researched and verified science and it all explains how the motions of Earth and reality are possible. It just seems like some people either never learned this science, or they don’t understand it.
It’s fine really if it’s either possibility, but then if you’re going to argue about the heliocentric models motion...then you should know this science inside and out, otherwise, any attempt to falsify it, just makes you appear ignorant. But, this is a discussion of Earths geometry, so I really don’t get why flat Earthers start with the physics...that’s not where science started, it started with the geometry, so why not start there? Becomes a little hard to understand or accept the science that helps explain a model...if you’re skipped ahead and don’t know the foundations of the model first.
Like with something very simple, like a sunset. Here’s my question for you, if the Sun occupies the same directional sky, everywhere on Earth, and it’s seen somewhere on Earth, 24/7, how exactly does it set? It’s a simple question of basic geometry, take a flat surface, now place an object on it to represent an observer, now put an object slightly off that surface to represent the Sun...is there always going to be a geometric line of sight to that object? If you were to draw a line from that observer to the Sun, does the surface ever block that line? The answer is no. So it’s a good question, how does a sunset occur on a flat Earth? It should be noted, the Globe answers for this effortlessly, the Earth turns away from the Sun, blocking it from view, explanation over.
But that’s just the basics of it, cause I know flat Earth will just say “it’s perspective”, then they just call their work done...no further explanation or scientific evidence. See, it’s a good enough answer to form a hypothesis from...but FAR from good enough to reach a conclusion from. You want to talk about scientism...ok, I’d say reaching such big conclusions before even testing them, qualifies as scientism, don’t you? And seeing as the Globe still answers for this occurrence as well, even at just the hypothesis stage...it means if you decide to conclude “perspective” as your conclusion, before testing it, you are doing so out of bias. Science is a process...we don’t just assert conclusions and call it done. I know it can feel that way, because from the general public’s perspective, all we typically hear are the conclusions...but no, nothing in science is concluded before the process of science. That process is just long...and the general public doesn’t have the time or even the interest in most cases, they just care about results...so that’s what they get, the conclusions, rarely the facts that led to them. But, this creates a disconnect...where people just assume they’re rushing things.
Anyway, so let’s look at a few tests for this “perspective” conclusion that Flat Earth has reached. Here’s a simple one challenging the scale https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I. Or this one looking into another fundamental law of perspective, that things tend to shrink in apparent size as they get further away https://youtu.be/MYVYa3BdI84. Then we can test the path of the Sun https://youtu.be/-e9d4bjImHM, it’s position relative to the ground https://youtu.be/LeEw0Fw1qio. Then we can go out and observe what it does in reality to see if it matches any tests for either hypothesis, here’s one testing the shadow angles from various locations around the world at the same time, using the shadow data to pinpoint its location https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=425, or this one testing its size change using a solar filter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtQiwbFD_Cc, or this one tracking its path with what’s known as an equatorial telescope mount https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD0ygI4ggnc.
You go down the list of everything you can test...you find out pretty quickly that the perspective argument, does not hold up very well when actually tested. However, none of these experiments contradict or falsify the globe model, they in fact match it perfectly.
So it’s just one of those simple things. How does a sunset geometrically work on a flat Earth? Not a hard question to understand I feel and a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Question is, have you asked it? If so, have you successfully answered for it? Not just with a hypothesis answer, but an actual tested and verified answer that fits with observations made in the real world? This is where flat Earth should focus first I feel...where science focused its efforts first, with the basic geometry.
It just kind of boggles me a bit is all, how people can ask so many great questions about the physics of the heliocentric model, indicating intelligence, but then when it comes to simple geometry like this, it’s like they’ve hit their head all of a sudden.
1
-
@godschild7486 I didn’t mention Einsteins relatively theory at all...I said relative motion, which is under the physics and laws of motion, they are two separate things entirely. See, this is the problem, you seem to have a really hard time staying focused and you jump to assumptions a lot...instead of staying on a single point and following the proper process of falsification to its end, you went on a rant of gish gallop that had nothing to do with the points we’re discussing. What does any of that have to do with my questions for a sunset? A very basic geometric concept...that you COMPLETELY deflected from and ignored. It’s a simple question...how does it work on a flat Earth? I answered your motion question, now answer the Sun question, or just say idk. Once you answer a question, THEN you can ask another question...can you see how that’s a lot easier to maintain a coherent conversation with?
I get that you have questions, but maybe stay on point long enough to learn the answer to even one of them, before you dump a hundred more questions. I can answer most if not all of them...but I can’t help you if you’re just going to deflect and dump gish gallop on me. We’re not talking about Big Bang, or relativity, or evolution or any of the thousands of other things you make assumptions for, we’re focusing on Flat Earth here...cause staying focused, is how you get your answers.
1
-
@godschild7486 If it’s so common sense, then why do you not understand how talking and having people hear you is possible, within a relative frame of motion? I’m referring to the classical form of relative motion, which was started with Galileo yes but it’s more properly refined by Newton. The physics here leads to special relativity yes, but they’re still quite separate in their core descriptions. You don’t need to understand Einsteins relativity, to understand the basics of relative motion, you need relative motion to understand relativity, but they are classified as separate, relative motion being a stepping stone to the higher understanding of Einsteins theory.
The point isn’t in who or what started the science, the point is in HOW it works. Deflect and make assumptions all you want, the point still remains that relative motion is very real, and it does explain how the motions of Earth are possible...and as you said, it’s also common sense, I’m glad you agree, because it is very simple stuff to understand. So why ask questions, if you already know the answer and you agree with it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@godschild7486 One more point to make though before you respond. So it’s an argument I hear a lot from flat Earthers and science deniers, the classic “you’re literally copy and pasting the same shit we all learned dude”. First of all, you’re just repeating the same arguments flat Earth endlessly repeats verbatim, so you’re a hypocrite, and second...if information is accurate, then how exactly does it being second hand information change that? It doesn’t...sure, we first learn this stiff in school from teachers, but then we can test it for accuracy at any time, we don’t just have to believe something blindly. If I learn about relative motion in a class, and then I get on a 500 mph plane and start throwing a ball around, then I see for myself that the science is accurate...does it matter if I first learned of it from someone else? No...accurate information is accurate, regardless of who told you about it. That’s the beauty of science, it’s repeatable...and physical reality doesn’t lie.
It’s just such a weak, desperate argument from science deniers...and I’ve heard it a thousand times, which is pretty ironic. For a group that claims they’re thinking for themselves, you sure repeat a LOT of the same arguments.
But that’s fine, I won’t fault you for it, because communication and the sharing of ideas is what’s so special about our species, it’s one of our biggest major advantages. But, you don’t like what science says, so you’re best argument against it in the end is just an ad hominem attack “INDOCTRINATION”...a word you don’t seem to fully understand, because that implies science can’t back up its conclusions with evidence, you know...like how the Bible and religion actually can’t, which is real indoctrination. Science meanwhile, anyone can go out and verify most of it for themselves, with just a little effort. Which is how you can be certain it’s accurate.
So save that poor argument for the suckers who actually don’t know how to think for themselves. It just tells me though, that you’re struggling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JudaismIslamUnited Where exactly on Earth is it ever winter in the South at the same time as the North? 🤷♂️ I’ve been to New Zealand (twice now) from November into February, and it’s summer there while it’s winter back home in Canada. So what are you talking about? You ever actually travelled? Heck ya ever left your home town?
Angle effects temperature, this is basic physics bud. Get a heat lamp and a thermometer, first place the lamp perpendicular to a surface, pointing straight down on a thermometer, now angle the lamp at 45 degrees to the surface pointing at the thermometer…you’ll notice it’ll read a lot cooler, why? Because the heat is now less focused, more scattered over a wider area. Same thing happens with the tilt of the Earth. Angle effects how much DIRECT solar energy is contacting the surface, and how much it’s being scattered. This effects temperature…it’s pretty simple stuff.
This doesn’t just answer for the seasons either bud, it fits perfectly with sun position data. You’re arguing against settled science, with more evidence and data supporting it than you seem to realize…and your best shot is arguments from personal incredulity. Not a hill I’d wanna die on.
You’ve been conned by a movement of numpty’s…verifying that you’re one of them. Good job. 👏
1
-
1
-
@demetriusroy Alright, thank you, I’m seeing the link now. Firstly, I’ll just mention that abundance of experimentation, does not by default constitute accuracy. Conmen often use a devious debate tactic known as “gish gallop” to rope in followers to an outlandish new idea. It’s basically just dumping so much information at once, impressing people with sheer quantity over substance and overloading an individual’s ability to process a single point or experiment to its fullest. Makes it harder to falsify because it takes much longer, it’s a dishonest tactic, one that I’ve noticed flat Earth uses a lot...which just makes them appear less trustworthy.
So just cause it’s 27 experiments, doesn’t mean they can’t be 27 flawed experiments, good to always keep that in mind. But, also doesn’t mean they’re wrong by default, so I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. Still, to falsify all of these would take hours of my time, which I don’t have, so I’ll just pick a couple to focus on and then get back to you if that’s alright.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The only time in school that they tell you how things are, is kindergarten...from there, they don't just say how things are, they also explain it and demonstrate it to you and then high school they have YOU demonstrate it for yourself. They take it even further in secondary education, where you do not graduate, until you write what's called a thesis paper. This a completed study, by YOU that ADDS to the collected knowledge, through your own data collection, experimentation, observation and reaching your OWN conclusions. You wouldn't know that though...because you very likely have not taken any secondary education. Not your fault really...some people can't help their status in life, but making ignorant assumptions about things you know nothing about, that is something you are responsible for. You don't have to be ignorant, it's a choice really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The stars are moving...any astronomer who actually spends their nights tracking the stars for a living will tell you that...it's common knowledge and it is well documented, look up a star known as Barnard's star if you'd like an example of a good one that moves a lot within just a few years. They just take a VERY long time to appear to shift in our lifetime and some stars will take longer then others. Because distance will effect apparent movement relative to us. If the stars are as far away as we've measured them to be, then it makes perfect sense why they never appear to move. It's why a plane at 6 miles distance, going 500 mph, appears to barely crawl across the sky...distance will effect apparent motion and movement, relative to the observer.
Understand that between each star is TRILLIONS of miles distance...and they're only moving half a billion miles per hour. That may seem like a lot to you and me, the tiny microbes living on the surface of a massive planetary body that thinks a mile is a unit of significance, but to the cosmos, stars might as well not even be moving. Our Sun is moving fast RELATIVE TO US, but to the Sun, it moves about half of its diameter every hour...to put that into perspective, move your body half a foot in front of you, in an hours time. Not moving very fast are you? Speed is relative...the Sun is huge, a mile means nothing to this object and by extension, miles per hour means nothing as well, in the exact same way a nano meter means nothing to you, but it sure means a lot to the bacteria on your skin...those bacteria travel millions of nano-meters per hour every single day...but they're doing just fine, cause speed is relative. If our closest star (Alpha Centauri) were to stop dead and allow us to catch up to it, it would take us roughly 6000 years to catch up to it, moving at the current speed we are...that's pretty damn far away. Feel free to crunch the numbers on that, Alpha Centauri is roughly 25 trillion miles away, and at 500k mph, we cover about 4.38 billion miles in 1 years time. Divide 25 trillion by that, gets you 5707 years. Pretty simple math. Now, if every star is going the same direction, at the same rate...then it's not much different then cars on a highway traveling in the same straight path...making it take even longer for many of them to appear to shift...which is why Polaris doesn't appear to move at all and Orions belt as well...it's well known that these stars take much longer to shift, but there are valid understandings as to why.
I know you probably wouldn't agree, because you think 500k mph is impossible, but that's what we measure and observe, so what would you like us to conclude? When all measurements taken, using many different methods, all bring us the same figures...what should we do, just ignore that? Why exactly? Because some people are too lazy or incredulous to bother learning about these things, or thinking deeper on how that's possible? It's fine to ask questions, it's fine to disagree once you've gone through the thought processes...but most people who ask these questions aren't even trying to figure it out. You hold the questions up as some sort of proof...rather then listen to any explanation given to you and understand HOW we reached our conclusions. I do hope you're different on that, that's why I share information, for those who have the intellectually honesty enough to actually listen and consider what I have to share.
If you really go through the thought process of those distances and think about all the variables, from the physics, to the recorded distances, to astrological records...it makes perfect sense that the stars never appear to move in our lifetime.
I can go through that thought process with you if you'd like, only takes a moment. But first I'd suggest you confirm for yourself how we figured out those distances, or you'll have a hard time following along...little hard to build on knowledge, if you don't agree on the foundation. So look into that science and recreate some of it for yourself if you'd like. There are many experiments you can do yourself with just a telescope and some free time. YouTube is full of videos that can help you out.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Feel free to let me know if there's anything else you feel I've missed or would like to know more about. I don't mind discussing.
1
-
1
-
Two things; 1) Level has many different definitions depending on the context, it doesn’t just mean flat or straight. And; 2) Words we created don’t hold any real sway over physical reality.
So your argument is quite fallacious. We call it “sea level” because it’s a surface held in a field of force, that’s all at equipotential distance from centre of force, every point on its surface is at the same LEVEL from centre. That’s how the word is being applied…it’s not implying the Earth is flat. Any spherical or circular surface can be defined as level in that context…it’s just geometry.
But again, words are pretty irrelevant to actual physical reality, they have no power over it. So the points a bit moot either way. But, feel free to look up the expanded definitions for the word level sometime. Under adjectives, you’ll find a few definitions that describe it much like I have.
Admiral Richard Byrd never once claimed Earth was flat, so I really don’t know why people in FE hold him up like some sort of hero for their cause. I’m sure he’d be rolling in his grave if he knew how future flat Earthers cherry pick and misquote him ad nauseam.
The 🔑 to understanding Earth is a globe lies in navigation…we have developed an entire system of navigation around the knowledge that Earth is spherical. It’s called the geographic coordinate system, consisting of geodesic lines of latitude equal distance for TWO hemispheres, and lines of longitude intersecting through TWO poles. Ever wondered why they’re both measured in degrees? What do we use degrees for? 🧐 Angles within a circle.
If that system were wrong, then it simply would not work when applied. Anyone can learn this system and the methods of navigation that use it…Admiral Byrd sure knew this system well, you don’t reach that level in the Navy if you don’t know how to navigate. This is the first thing you learn in navigation…and it’s probably the most crucial part. Nobody is navigating with a flat model of Earth, that’s a fact, not an opinion.
Sorry to jump on ya like this, but Flat Earth is just another online hoax to keep your head spinning. You wanna know for certain what shape the Earth is, take a navigating course. Plenty of free tutorials online.
1
-
1
-
Ok, but we shouldn’t reach conclusions from empty speculations, no matter how logical they may sound or appear. We see the logic, and we can infer and run with the possibilities just as easily as anyone, but at the end of the day evidence is what matters, and the evidence for a globe is far beyond conclusive at this point, it’s applied science now. Seriously, if you think millions of pilots and sailors around the world, can navigate the surface without knowing the true size and dimensions if that surface, then you might need a wake up call.
It’s really not hard to lie and speculate online, it’s no surprise to me that flat Earthers aren’t experts of any field relevant to the discussion. You know how you spot pseudoscience though? It’s easy…it doesn’t work and it’s not useful. So remind me again which model is used in every field of science today?
1
-
The original Bedford Level experiment, conducted by Samuel Robotham (Parallax), is deemed inconclusive, due to poor experimentation practices. He simply did not do enough to render his conclusion conclusive…but he reached a conclusion anyway. That’s not how science should operate, science must be thorough, and it must be objective. He was clearly just trying to confirm his bias…which is why we have peer review in science, to weed out that kind of human error.
Here’s a short list of some things he messed up on.
- Used the wrong math. Height of the observer is a very important variable in long distance observations at horizon (because we see further the higher we are), his math didn’t include that variable, so it was the wrong math.
-He only made one observation, using one marker, so not enough data was collected to make comparisons with. Experiments typically create a data set, by making multiple observations, over long periods of time, and then the average is taken from all the data. This helps eliminate any hidden variables that might also effect the result, like in this case for example, the refractive index would shift wildly over multiple different viewing times, so he’d learn that atmospheric refraction is a big variable he has to control for…if only he’d taken more data, by making more than one observation.
- He ignored atmospheric refraction. Every pilot, sailor, gunner, surveyor, and civil engineer in the world knows how important it is to factor atmospheric refraction into their math…it does absolutely effect what we see at distances. In this case, it does make it possible to see further than what would normally be possible. Here’s a quick demonstration of its effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRywj88MsjA. Pay attention to how the snow line and all the distant markers appear to rise up as the refractive index increases. This is a very real effect, and it can’t be ignored…he ignored it, which speaks to his intellectual honesty.
So that’s why his experiment is not legitimate, he conducted a sloppy version of the experiment to confirm his bias, nothing more. The experiment is a good experiment mind you, he just didn’t conduct it very well. But it’s been recreated many times over the years, the most recent I’m aware of being the Rainy Lake experiment. Look it up sometime if it interests you, you’ll notice right away just how extremely thorough it is.
Anyway, hope that information has been helpful or at least interesting. Take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 Alright, you want to see an example of an experiment that helps to verify curvature. Here's an in depth recreation of the Bedford level experiment, this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment The conclusion of this experiment is pretty conclusive, Earth is curving and it's curving at the rate it should given our planets shape and scale. Give it a look sometime, it's quite thorough and is also very repeatable science. Feel free to review it and if you find anything you feel is inaccurate, then by all means, share that insight, peer review is always welcome.
So there's one piece of tangible, repeatable evidence addressing one of your points like you asked. Would you like more? Truth is we don't have time to tackle all the gish gallop that gets shouted at us...if you want answers to your questions, maybe slow your roll a bit and actually THINK and do research on each point, one at a time, doing everything you can to falsify each claim, until you can't anymore, which will then leave you with the truest conclusion. That's how science is done, through extreme patience, rigorous falsification and remaining objective...then when you're done all that, open your findings up to review and consider that you may have still missed something, science is a long process. Like I said, science can and has answered all these questions you have...if it really interests you so much, maybe take the time to actually seek those answers, instead of shouting and assuming they have no answers. These are great questions you are asking, but I'm sorry, the answers won't be as simple as you'd like them to be...science is rarely ever simple, I hope that experiment above helps to illustrate that reality. We didn't reach the conclusion of a Globe overnight, it took hundreds of years...but I assure you, there is nothing in science they are more certain about, then the shape of our planet. Nothing in the modern world operates on Flat Earth science, that's for a good reason.
Question things all you want, it's perfectly logical and is even encouraged in science, just stop assuming you know everything already...especially when you don't have any real experience with the topics you argue against. It's easier then ever before to spread misinformation online, con men have it easier then ever to take advantage of peoples lack of knowledge and low patience for the actual work required to acquire that knowledge.
A lot of us would love to help, if we felt people were actually willing to listen...but in my experience, if you're already asking these questions with such aggression, then the scam has already taken root and it's a bit pointless after that, cause you're not actually interested in finding answers anymore, you're interested in winning a battle. But prove me wrong, take a look at that experiment I've shared, learn how it has reached its conclusion, and then engage with me in an actual discussion where ideas are considered and both participants are treated equal. At the very least, consider what I've shared, and if you want to chat about it further, I offer no further insult, just civil discussion.
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 Alright, thank you for the reply and for providing some rebuttals to those observations I shared. It's rare to find civil discussions in these debates, so first of all I'd like to thank you for that. We can't learn anything if we're just going to talk down and insult each other. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, in fact it's quite logical, so in that regard I actually respect what Flat Earth is currently doing, it's great that SOMEBODY is out there reviewing the science that the rest of us have moved on from, that should be encouraged more in science. That being said, this also does mean their work should be held by the same standards of review, so that's why I do these chats. So let's continue.
I've gone through many long distance observations with people and so far, two things have occurred on every break down I've done personally of these observations. Either they used the wrong math and reached a false conclusion due to faulty figures, or they fudged the details (gave inaccurate heights, distances, object being viewed, etc). I've gone through many examples with people over the years and I have yet to see one legit case where the curvature math did not check out once we went through it and got the correct details.
I'll give you an example. About 2 weeks ago I was chatting with a fellow who made a claim, that he could see all of a 150 foot tower, from the beach (6ft viewing height), that he claimed was 20 miles away. Here is the best easy to use curve calculator I have found so far https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ if you plug in those details here, he is correct, you should not be able to see that tower at all from the beach. Case closed right? Not quite...when I pressed him for the details of his exact location and the object he claimed he was seeing, he finally disclosed it to me, and it turned out the tower was not 20 miles from the beach, it was only 8 miles from the beach. Plugging those new figures into the calculator, gives you a geometric hidden of only 16.67 feet. Meaning roughly 130 feet of that tower would still have been visible from his position at 6 ft viewing height...which means pretty close to all of it could be seen...as he said. So his error was in the details, he only went so far as to confirm his bias and then he stopped looking. This is a real problem I run into with long distance observations claims. The error here is reaching a rushed conclusion, before considering the possibility that they may have just made some errors. This is exactly why peer review was included in the scientific method...because people make errors all the time, and more often then not, they do not take the time to double check their work. Flat Earth often feels they are above peer review...to which I can't disagree more, it is absolutely vital to the process of science, as I hope this point helps to illustrate.
Just one of many examples I've gone through...I did one just a few days ago as well, where another person claimed he was seeing an island that was 150 miles away, from a 60 cm viewing height. This one is fresher in my memory, the location was a place in Croatia known as Prevlaka, the Island he claimed he was seeing, was called Lastovo. Pressing him for the details again, he gave me a photo of both his location and what he was seeing through his telescope. Turned out he was seeing a different island from what he claimed. I was able to match the peaks on peak finder dot org and I learned that the island he was actually seeing was only 70 km away, known as Mljet, that is about 515 meters in elevation at it's peaks. Switching to metric and then punching those details into the calculator above, gives a geometric hidden of roughly 350 meters, meaning 150 meters of those peaks should still be visible...and they were, all you could see were a few peaks that were high enough....and I haven't even mentioned refraction once yet, even by purely geometric measurements, you would still be able to see those peaks from the beach just fine...even from 60 cm viewing height.
You see the problem yet? A lot of claims are made about the curvature of the Earth, but upon review, it always turns out the math for curvature checks out after all...when you get the details correct. Another problem I run into is when people use the incorrect math....thankfully, people have realized the error in the 8 inches per mile squared math and have since stopped using it (if you'd like to know why this math is incorrect for long distnace observations, I can explain it further), but they do still ignore refraction...which is bias. Refraction occurs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t=1s so it can not be ignored, it must be included as a variable in your math. That calculator above provides a calculation for a standard refraction index, which is still not perfect, but it's better then not including that variable at all.
I have more, so I'll put that in a second post.
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 Continued from my last post.
So in my experience, when people make claims about long distance observations that should be impossible on a Globe, it always turns out that they just rushed their observation, going only so far as to confirm their bias and then they stopped looking. This is how you conduct bias research...it is a perfect example of why peer review is so important in science.
JTolan is one of the worst for that...but thankfully, he's provided a lot of Globe Earth evidence in the process with his observations. If you're not aware, he's the one who snapped that Mt. San Jacinto image you shared with me.
Here's a video you might find interesting, since you did share the Mt. San Jacinto observation, photo by Jtolan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU Flat Earthers like to focus a lot on the Globe model, but how many actually consider what should be seen on a Flat Earth? It's funny to me how little they seem to focus on their own model, it's fine to put the Globe under the microscope and pick apart the math...but shouldn't the same standards also be put upon the Flat Earth? Yes, absolutely it should. Many people have crunched the math of Mt. San Jacinto (and other Jtolan photos), but what this person has done in his video above, is something different from crunching the math for the Globe. Instead what he's done is he's taken the topography data for that area of California where the Mt. Jacinto image was taken, and then he's laid that data out onto actual satellite imagery of the area, and then modeled it in a 3D program that he then used to recreate the observation through a simulation, placing an observer at the exact location of those photos, from the same viewing height.
Now, you might cry CGI, but I assure you this observation matters. What this allows him to do is observe what should have been seen, if the Earth were actually flat. The whole presentation is interesting, but if you're pressed for time just start watching at the 6 minute mark, where he shows you what that observation of those peaks would look like, if Earth were actually flat. It's thousands of feet that are missing from the base of those mountains, it's not just that they're being seen...they're dropping by several thousand feet. Perspective alone can not account for this, the demonstrations I have seen for perspective merely just cover and block, they do not cause the observed object to crunch and drop. Those peaks are dropping into the horizon by thousands of feet, which matches with curvature math.
Now, as the creator of that video said at the end of his presentation, is this by itself enough to make a solid conclusion? No, of course not, but it can't be ignored either. Topography data does demonstrate here that Mt. San Jacinto is doing exactly as it should on a Globe at our scale, so even if flat Earth could provide evidence for perspective causing the same effect...the Globe also accounts for this. And so far, Flat Earth has a hypothesis that perspective causes this, but no actual peer reviewed experiments for evidence, just a few quick demonstrations...that could be easily faked by con artists.
Is perspective causing a curved optical effect that science is yet unaware of? Perhaps, but then can Flat Earth provide a practical scientific experiment of this optical effect caused due to perspective? I've seen several demonstrations myself, but I've also seen these demonstrations debunked as well, as things don't just appear to be covered by horizon, but they also drop.
Flat Earth likes to say we're just making excuses when we bring up refraction, but isn't it pretty convenient that they can ignore refraction (which is verified by science) and at the same time use perspective to explain away all of their observations? The difference is, we have experiments that demonstrate refraction and we have math equations for refraction that are used in the real world to make predictions on refraction. We're not just saying refraction occurs, we have evidence for refraction and we have the math figured out, as my first post of the Rainy Lake Bedford level experiment provides in great detail. We also have photographic evidence showing the refraction occurring over multiple days of observation, the more humid the air for that day, the higher the image distorts. https://ibb.co/s6MRsDz
So from what I'm seeing, flat Earth appears to be ignoring things by choice, ignoring anything that refutes their bias...but then at the same time they support any flimsy explanation (Perspective) that they feel supports that bias, without providing any evidence that verifies their hypothesis. I'm sorry, but this is confirmation bias by definition...it's a perfect example of it. This is how you do science wrong, by following only the evidence and explanations that support a bias while ignoring all evidence that refutes it. This is my biggest issue with Flat Earth...I feel they're being very bias in their conclusions. In my experience, I have no reason as of yet not to conclude that this is the case...and it's not from lack of trying.
But let's take a closer look at perspective next, I'll cover that in another post later. Feel free to respond in the meantime. I don't want to clutter things with to much explanation, without giving you a chance to refute.
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 So you actually think this means the Sun is in the clouds? No other explanation for why it appears as such? What about this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=fwkq4-id5t0&feature=emb_logo Is that strip of film behind the light source here, or is the intense brightness of the light source just drowning it out, which makes it appear behind the light? Watching the video makes that pretty clear, It's the latter of course, what you're seeing here is an optical illusion, so why can't this also be the case for the clouds that appear to be behind the Sun? You don't think the intense light from the sun could drown out lesser dense clouds to make them appear to fall behind the sun?
What if we were to make these observations through some filters to lessen the suns luminosity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG6mJ8bHFxw When you do this, like they have in this video here, suddenly those clouds that appeared as if they were behind the Sun, suddenly then appear in front of the Sun, confirming our hypothesis that this is just an optical illusion created by the suns own luminosity. Optical illusions occur all the time, our eyes can not be trusted in every conclusion, sometimes we have to dig deeper. I feel this is just another example of a rushed and bias conclusion.
Let's just unpack this a bit further and think about things a little deeper for a moment. If the Sun were to be in those clouds, how close would the Sun then be? Well, clouds are generally about 3-5 miles off the surface, sometimes even closer, some even further, but that's a general ball park distance. So if the Sun is in those clouds, then the Sun is only 3-5 miles off the surface as well? Ok, so planes fly about this high as well, why have no planes ever hit the Sun? If the Sun were really that close, shouldn't it be super easy to reach it? Wouldn't it be pretty common knowledge among all pilots, that the Sun is super easy to reach? It was the first thing we likely tried doing, the moment we obtained flight for the first time...you don't think we'd have caught up to the Sun by now if it were really that close?
Also, the Sun is VERY hot, it has to be to heat an entire planet, so how exactly does something that hot sit within the water vapor of those clouds? Wouldn't those clouds immediately be evaporated? Does this really sound logical to you?
So if it's only that high off the ground, then perspective should be able to tell us how big it is. We have mathematical formulas that we can use to give us the size of an object given it's distance, and at that distance (3-5 miles), the sun would be what, maybe a few football fields in diameter? How exactly does someone in England, see that tiny Sun...at the same time as somebody in the US (which is only about 5 hours difference), if the Sun is that small and that close? How does it possibly heat up both at the same time?
So basically, if you're going to conclude the Sun is close and local like that, don't you think this would create some problems? Have you stopped to think about what a sun in the clouds would mean? I don't think it's very logical to conclude the Sun is in the clouds. What is logical is that intense light can drown out less dense material and make it appear to disappear or fall behind that light source, creating an optical illusion. The sun is very bright, nobody would argue against that fact, you can't stare directly at it for too long without damaging your eyes, so it is VERY bright. Clouds vary in density, thicker clouds will be seen, less dense clouds can and will be drowned out by the suns intensity. Does this not seem more logical too you? It sure does for me.
We can even take this a little further. There are good reasons why we have concluded the Sun is not close and local. Whenever we go out to measure the angles of the Suns rays and shadows, it paints a pretty clear picture for us that this light is arriving to us parallel.
Here's a couple great experiments done fairly recently that took sun angle measurements from locations all around the world, during the same time at Equinox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=396s - at 7 minutes they share the results, mapping the data on both a flat Earth and then again on a Globe, the data is pretty clear, the sun is shining on us in parallel rays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=465s - same experiment done in a different year, this time the data was plotted on several different flat Earth maps...again, the Globe was the only model that accounted for these sun light angles.
Here's a great channel that does the same thing, mapping data from time and date dot com, into quick and easy demonstrations of sun angle data. This guy makes lots of videos on this very topic, I believe he is a mathematician. His demonstrations are pretty clear, the Sun is not local.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM
If you'd like to use crepuscular rays as an argument as well, this is a good time to bring up perspective. Here's some great videos demonstrating what perspective can do to parallel rays of light, creating another optical illusion that can fool you into thinking a light source is much closer then it actually is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3x0saRH8Es
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTPLqbl-HGY
There is just to much evidence and logic you would have to ignore, if you were going to conclude that the Sun is close and local. I've shared a small sample of that evidence. We did not conclude the Sun was millions of miles from Earth from nothing at all, we verified it through a long process of observation, experimentation and analysis. I know these large numbers are harder to comprehend for us given how tiny we are and the tiny distances we experience in our lives, but incredulity is not an argument against the evidence.
1
-
@kentnoetico9867 That's fine, I can't force you to believe or accept any position that you do not agree with. All I ask is that people consider that they might have overlooked something and that they could possibly be the one in error. Bias is very real and I believe strongly that we all have our own bias that tends to lead our thinking...it's a great flaw of man, that science has worked to overcome, and I believe it works, it's our light in the darkness. Thank you for the civil discussion again though, it's good that two people of opposing views can treat each other fairly and not resort to ridicule, simply for thinking for themselves.
I will address this one quick though "Have you also seen those videos where the moon is zoomed in and the very surface is visible, I don't know if there's a civilian camera that can see the surface of the moon at 200k+ miles? How do we explain this?."
Don't forget though that the Moon is also 1/3 the size of Earth, that's thousands of miles in diameter. So each one of those crators that you're seeing, are also tens to hundreds of miles wide. They're not tiny by any means. There are perspective formulas you can use to calculate the apparent size of an object by distance, so rather then assume it's impossible, instead try learning how it is possible. Of course though, this alone does not prove that the Moon is as far as we believe it to be, but it also doesn't mean that it is impossible. Incredulity is not an argument, it's a fallacy that just keeps us in a box of thinking.
We're not over explaining anything, we're just making observations and recording those observations...it is physical reality that is vast and complicated, which requires a lot of work to unravel the mysteries of. We're doing pretty good so far, and I would hope our progress in technology would be proof of that fact. I do hope you have been watching the many experiments I have shared so far and absorbing the lessons, but perfectly fine if you still disagree after the fact.
Anyway, thanks again, and feel free to continue, if there's any other questions or observations you'd like addressed, I'm more then happy to provide some further insight. I hope you've found everything I've shared so far at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
@yanostropicalparadise755 For a narcissist, attention is as good as gold. What did cult leaders want exactly? To be praised, worshipped, idolized...for some people it’s not about money. A following also brings power, the larger a movement grows, the more people you have for things like voting. But you’re pretty naive if you don’t think they’re not selling books, con tickets, t-shirts, making money from donations and ad revenue.
It’s an easy con...lotta idiots out there with very little knowledge in science and mathematics. Twist some facts, cherry pick some quotes, tailor a bunch of bullshit together into hours long gish gallop dumps, throw a little dramatic music over the whole mess, and bam, you got yourself a propaganda piece. You won’t fool everyone, not even a majority, but you’re bound to snag a few suckers....and that’s all you need.
All they have to do is plant seeds of doubt, your anger will do the rest. Con men have been running these kinds of rackets for centuries...today, they have the internet, which is con mans playground.
1
-
1
-
@yanostropicalparadise755 Science is all about falsification, but they don’t just roll over, or fold to what other people want to be true. You make a claim, then expect it’s going to be challenged and reviewed...that’s just how it is. It’s incredible I even have to explain that to people. It makes perfect sense...you think every numpty with an opinion should just be allowed to publish research, without review? Where’s the sense in that? Can’t do anything with junk science...that’s a fact, not an opinion. You allow any person to have a say...you open the door to a flood of junk bullshit science, that NOBODY can use. Everyone thinks they’re a genius, but here’s the harsh reality...they’re not, that includes you and me as well. I don’t know about you, but I MUCH prefer there’s a filter in place that stops idiots and con men. :/
They’re not just gonna blindly listen or agree, certainly not from layman who have no real experience or credentials in science. It’s no different from any other profession. If you’re not a pilot...then they’re not gonna let you fly the plane, it’s just common sense. So why would you think you get a say on matters of science, if you’re not actively researching anything, with the credentials to back your experience?
It’s fine to question, fine to disagree, but really...how many discoveries have you made? What have you invented? What applied science are you currently contributing too? Why should anyone listen to you? What research or empirical evidence do you actually have, that you think should bring modern science to a screeching halt? Go ahead and enlighten me...otherwise, you’re just whining. :/
Just saying, I feel your argument is ignorant...and I’m tired of that bullshit. There is a REASON why people without the proper credentials don’t get a say...because most people just form conclusions from bias and misinformation and belief, so science took steps to weed these fucking people out. It’s not a perfect system, I will agree to that, but it’s necessary and it’s doing pretty good so far...that proof is all around you. You see it as a religion, I see it as method...the best method we’ve made so far, to deduce truths of reality.
But besides that, cause I feel like I’m talking down now and that’s not productive. So what would you prefer they do instead? How would you prefer they operate? Offer a productive solution how’s about...cause all I’m hearing currently is whining. How would you fix this “religion” of science you feel is occurring? How can you be so certain, you’re not just misunderstanding the current fringes of science, due to a lack of real knowledge and experience on the science?
1
-
1
-
Because of two things, gravity, which the plane is constantly fighting against and is always pulling the plane down to surface, and air pressure, which becomes less and less dense the higher you go, making it impossible for a plane to generate any further lift. It requires a LOT of forward momentum to reach what's called escape velocity, a plane comes nowhere near that velocity, so it physically can not escape into space. But the biggest factor is that planes fly thanks to air pressure, which helps them generate lift. Without air to fly through, they can't generate lift, so they eventually max out, reaching a point where the air is just too thin to generate enough lift to bring them any higher, so they drop. Since that air pressure keeps equipotential distance from center of gravity, it forms a sort of sphere around that center...almost like a bubble of max air pressure around the surface of the Earth, make sense yet?
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
1
-
Try viewing anything 400 km away, from sea level…I guarantee you won’t be able too. The picture you’re referring too, is most likely the one of Pic Gaspard, which is the only one in existence and a world record holder, but that photo was not taken at the beach…it was taken from the top of another peak, some 2300 feet in elevation. I’m sure you’re aware, that you’re able to see further when you go higher in elevation. And you still only see the very tip of Pic Gaspard, only about 100 meters…which actually works perfectly with the correct curvature math for that elevation. So maybe YOU should dig a little deeper before you spread bullshit…nobody is taking pictures from the shore, of objects 400 km away…the only photograph in existence seeing that far, was made from thousands of feet in elevation. If Earth were flat…then you wouldn’t need to climb higher to see further. Should be pretty common sense.
On top of that…you are aware the p900 isn’t the first camera with a zoom lens, right? It’s not magic, we’ve had telescopes way more powerful than the p900, for hundreds of years now. I’m starting to think Nikon started the Flat Earth movement so they could sell more cameras. 😄
The Bible is all made up fictions, so has no place in a discussion of science and holds no sway over conclusions. Best to rip that band aide off sooner rather than later.
There’s no real tangible evidence proving man didn’t land on the Moon, just a lot of empty claims, misunderstood physics, and endless speculations. So not a whole lot of reasons to conclude it didn’t happen. As a journalist, he just reports on the best available facts and evidence, if that information doesn’t jive with your personal opinions, then that’s a you problem…can’t do much about the numpty’s of the world who fell for bullshit they found online.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Except there is mountains of evidence of curvature, from the bedford level, to mountains missing thousands of feet at their base, to Soundly's observations of Lake Pontchartrain http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App, the list goes on, but Flat Earth keeps firm in their denial of these things...or doesn't even bother to look, only scratching the surface in their research. Flat Earth is fucking up on two fronts when it comes to curvature, 1) they're bias as all hell and not honest with themselves, and 2) they've been using the wrong math this whole time and they don't even realize it...nor will they admit it. 8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math to discern what your line of sight sees and it does not discern what is hidden from sight by curvature...it is a half truth, it measures curve drop from a tangent line from surface, which means those figures it generates are only accurate if your eye rests at sea level...which it never does, it ignores height of the observer, as well as many other variables required to make an accurate calculation for your line of sight. So Flat Earth successfully conned people into believing it was the correct math, because they knew most people are not well versed in math enough to check them on this. So they fed you a half truth...and you fell for it.
Here's the correct math in case you're wondering. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ Here's how you use this calculator, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPNUU3yw2Y&t=450s and here's a guy who's demonstrated pretty clearly how much difference there is for curvature on a Flat Earth vs a Globe Earth, using a photo taken by JTolan himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
There is mountains of evidence of curvature...but you won't find this evidence if you keep listening to the huxters here feeding you misinformation and bullshit.
1
-
1
-
Well, gyros naturally precess due to friction in the gimbles, which is unavoidable in all mechanical gyros, so it's likely flip flop many times before you ever reached the opposite end of the Earth either way, but it would be due to precession. That's why they include what are called pendulous veins in most navigation equipment that use gyros, these use gravity to recalibrate the gyro back to a level position...and since on a ball gravity vectors always level perpendicular to center of Earth no matter where you are, it means these pendulous veins are more then enough to account for both gyro precession and the curve of the Earth.
Learn a bit more about the mechanics of the things you wish to argue about, before you go making assumptions. Gyros are quite complex, there is a lot of physics going on there just by themselves and artificial horizon indicators that make use of them take it even further, creating a far more advanced mechanism with a lot of different working parts. It's dangerous to assume things, that's how you get swept up in speculation, lies and confirmation bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandyjohnson4636 It's the same process of buoyancy (also thermo dynamics), smoke is also less dense then the surrounding air (same as helium), so it travels up due to buoyancy. But have you ever observed smoke in a vacuum? It doesn't travel upwards, it actually falls to the bottom and pools at the bottom of the container. Once the initial energy of the thermal reaction is spent, the smoke will fall to the bottom due to gravity and remain there, it will not rise. https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=138 There is no air inside to displace it, so buoyancy can not occur. Buoyancy plays a large role in why smoke rises. You don't have to believe me, all I ask is that you consider it and maybe do some further research that helps to verify or falsify what I'm saying. Up to you really, can't force you...but ignorance is the very opposite of keeping an open mind.
A closed mind is someone who refuses to listen and consider other explanations that they themselves did not consider. A closed mind ignores people, especially people of opposing views...which is what you're doing the moment you tell me you'd rather not waste your time with my explanations. An open mind would listen and consider any explanation, and then offer counter arguments or agree...that's what an open mind does. You may think you have an open mind, just because you're considering knowledge that is counter to general consensus...but in reality, your mind has never been more shut. Flat Earth is interesting, but in reality, all they're teaching you is how to be more ignorant.
Do you wanna know the best way to brainwash somebody? Tell them they're being lied too and then offer them a way to overcome those lies by learning your teachings, offer them a way to rise above the lies and become "special" among the "sheep". So the best way to brainwash somebody...tell someone that they've been brainwashed for years but they can be freed if they listen blindly to you...it's brainwashing 101. Cults use this method to brainwash followers...and it's exactly the same method I'm currently seeing from Flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Southern Cross is not directly at the southern celestial pole, it lies around it. It is the stars closest to the celestial pole (Sigma Octantis) that should be impossible to see from that latitude (and they are), but the Southern Cross is not directly at the pole, so it's going to spend some time arcing outward, making it possible to see over the horizon from Northern latitudes far above the Equator. You're also ignoring refraction which also would raise those stars up slightly, especially as they reside closer to the horizon and especially in more humid climates (like near an ocean...an island perhaps). Yes, refraction is real and must be factored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs I get a lot of eye rolls when I mention refraction it seems, but it does occur in our atmosphere and can not be ignored.
So not impossible at all on the Globe model, as we know it today. Geometrically it is possible and refraction would bring it even higher, though I would urge people model it as well actually.
Here's a simple way anyone can do it right now if they want. When I went to this free to use solar system simulator http://www.solarsystemscope.com/sss2/ and used their feature where you can put an observer on the ground and place them anywhere on Earth (click the telescope icon to the left), I placed my observer in Gran Canaria or at least roughly the same latitude (scroll down to get the map and time features), then I tracked down the Southern Cross and sure enough, at that latitude it did pop up over the horizon at about 10-15 degrees. This is purely geometric, no refraction included and only puts an observer at about 6 ft elevation, but even without those variables, it was still there. As far as I know the software is pretty damn near close to accurate, I've noticed if you go to far into the future it starts to lose accuracy, so it is off by a small fraction in some areas, but it's pretty darn close to scale and still useful for quick modeling I'd say. There are better software's though, so doesn't hurt to try several just to compare.
So not impossible, certainly not enough to throw the baby out with the bath water, like Flat Earth seems so prone in doing. But I suppose I'd need more data to know exactly when and where you were, what time it was, what the refraction index was for that day, your elevation, etc. Maybe a photo to verify, cause a person can say it's at 20 degrees...but was it really? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, I'm not the one who saw it. So certainly can't discredit your claim entirely unless I know all the details, but for now I'll just say it's far from impossible. Interesting, but not impossible.
1
-
1
-
@marcosbetances7186 Ya…the proportions are wrong on all flat maps…because that’s what happens when you try to interpret a 3 dimensional spherical surface, on just 2 dimensions. That’s why every flat map is distorted…because they are ALL projection maps of the globe. If Earth was flat, we’d have ONE flat map and it would be perfect. But we don’t, we instead have many maps, all distorted in some way or another…because it’s impossible to interpret 3 dimensions with only 2 dimensions…you lose a dimension, so you lose distances….that’s why flat maps are all wrong. That’s also why making a map of Earth was so difficult for geographers back in the day, because they assumed Earth was flat…until Ptolemy some 2000 years ago started working with the concept of a spherical geometry in his map making, suddenly maps started becoming more accurate…and sailors got lost a lot less.
The map you use on your phone, for GPS, uses a globe model….that’s why it’s accurate. It’s also the model used in navigation…that is a fact, not an opinion. There’s some great video presentations by a mathematician named Jos Leys, who demonstrates this in a few videos of his, you should check them out sometime.
1
-
@marcosbetances7186 Maps are obviously easier to store and carry around, can’t exactly fold a globe and put it in my pocket…and locally (as in a few hundred square miles), a flat map is still quite accurate and still very useful. So if you create hundreds of tinier maps, that adjust for each local area, they’re still quite useful…that’s how paper flight charts work (and local area atlas maps too actually), they use smaller areas. And every full projection map of Earth is accurate in some way, for example the Azimuthal Equidistant map (the Gleason projection) is accurate in that the lines of longitude are all accurate distance from the Southern pole region. But it becomes more and more distorted in lines of latitude, the further South you go, the lines expand, instead of retracting past the equator…as they do in reality. So some of it is useful…the rest of it is not, that’s the reality of every flat map.
So does that help? There’s pros and cons to everything…that’s why we still use flat maps today, they’re just easier to carry around. But I mean your smart phone has changed that, because now we can carry a globe with us everywhere we go, in the form of a digital app. That’s what your phone uses…and it is accurate.
There’s an entire industry of transportation, that traverses the entire world…that really does depend on accurate information of Earth’s surface, in order for that system to function at all. So there is no debate here, Earth is spherical…you’re kidding yourself if this is really the hill you want to die on. You want to learn for certain what shape the Earth is? Then learn to navigate…you learn pretty quickly which model is used and why it’s accurate. Earth is measured, don’t let a bunch of non experts online fool you into thinking it isn’t.
1
-
@marcosbetances7186 Even a broken clock is still right twice a day…the government is shady, but it can’t lie about everything. What you’re doing currently is thinking in absolutes, which is robbing you of your ability to reason and examine every bit of evidence objectively and with due diligence. It’s called a black and white fallacy…you’re ignoring very good evidence, simply because you don’t trust something or someone. It’s a good survival tactic in some cases mind you, trusting your instincts can be good sometimes, but it’s not logical in most scenarios…it tends to skip the process of rational conscience thought processes.
I’m sure you’re aware of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” story? What happens at the end of the story? The villagers are attacked by the wolf, because they didn’t heed the warnings of an individual, who they were sure was lying to them. What most people take away from this story is that lying leads to distrust, so you shouldn’t lie. But what I take away from this story, is that people generally don’t seem to think or use their heads when making decisions, we tend to trust our instincts and appeal to our emotions far more often…most of us are not very logical or objective thinkers, we’re too emotional and paranoid. The boy told the truth in the end…the lesson I learn from this, is that it’s impossible for a person (or institution) to lie absolutely, so thinking in absolutes and following paranoia to every conclusion, will lead to disaster…just like the villagers who stopped listening and paying attention. What you’re basically telling me is that you form conclusions from trust and emotion…rather than analyzing the actual evidence and thinking critically.
What holes in the Globe model are you speaking of in particular? Perhaps I could help fill a few. General Physics, geometry, navigation, and astronomy are topics I feel I’m quite well versed in, so feel free to ask anything.
1
-
@Nehner Not entirely accurate, if you’re going from the Wiki, then I assume you’re referring to just one section of the Canal, Gatun lake and the Gatun lake locks. But there are several more sections with locks along the entire canal. There’s also the Miraflores locks, Pedro Miguel locks, Cocoli locks, and the Agua Clara locks. But I was wrong about the elevation. Pretty irrelevant to the point though, so main point still stands. Panama Canal is not a sea level canal, it goes over the land, that’s why it requires locks, while the Suez Canal does not.
1
-
1
-
@therealzilch Very difficult indeed…but odd that it’s still difficult even when you understand why. I’m not sure what’s harder at times, understanding higher levels of science…or communicating that knowledge to others in way they can also understand, or in a way that overrides their distrust. Cause many of these people are not stupid in the slightest…just scared, and I can understand that, but understanding doesn’t seem to be enough. It’s what I’m kind of striving for, refining what I know, distilling it all down to a brevity everyone can digest…even when their instincts are telling them to flee, or put up the walls. I find it more challenging than it was to initially acquire the knowledge…in that sense, I suppose I’ve answered my own question, but it’s still a real conundrum. Not to get emotional, but it’s only made harder when you care about the whole of humanity as much as I do. I’m sure you can relate. I do hope every word makes an impact though, even if they can’t admit it outright.
Cheers, from currently hot and sunny central Canada.
1
-
Well, let's focus in on what telemetry data is and look at it objectively. It's just a time measurement taken between a radio transmission and the receiver to pinpoint a location, or to record a distance between each send and receive. You can use it to map the flight path and gauge the distances. So if that's all it is, is this data useful for future endeavors? Well, we know where the Moon is, and we know its distance...so keeping that data around is just not really worth saving, from that stand point. Space is empty and it's a straight shot, so not like they need to remember directions. Knowing the exact distance is important...but again, it's well known, the distance changes depending on the point in orbit and they have many other methods for figuring out the exact distance at any given time...otherwise they couldn't have gone the first time, having that telemetry data is not really going to help them much planning future trips. I get that it's an achievement of history, but in the grand scheme of things, the telemetry data isn't as historically important as the lunar module, the space suits, the photographs, or the rock samples retrieved. Only a niche group of scientists would really care about that data.
So it's cost vs value and interest. Do they require this data? No, they do not, the Moon is well documented to be in a steady orbit and so its distance is also well documented. Would it cost money to transfer that data to a digital format? Yes, it would. Does it rank high on the radar of historical relics from those endeavors? Not really. So look at it from a company's perspective, that is trying to cut costs at any opportunity. A CEO is going to ask "do we need to keep it and does it cost money to preserve?", the answer he will receive is "no we do not and yes it would", so what do you think he's going to choose? I'm sure the scientists who worked at NASA were trying to make a case that they should save that data, because they care, but at the end of the day they don't get the last word, the pencil pushers and the suits do...and money is all they really care about.
When you really weigh the cost to worth of that data...it's not really that hard to understand why they'd decide to just scrap it...it's far from comparable to the original mix recordings of Led Zepplin records, that can be remastered and resold. And it's a pretty quick decision, once it's done it's done and so maybe it was rushed through the decision making process before anyone could really object. People seem to think that companies can't make mistakes...and they sure do, all the time in fact, they are far from perfect. So as much as we'd like to apply our bias and think they'd never make this mistake...objectively speaking, they can and they have many times before, so we really should avoid applying that bias here.
So I get that it may seem odd on the surface, especially when spun into the Flat Earth narrative, but it's certainly not outside the realm of plausibility. Objectively, it's a dumb argument to make, all they can do here is speculate, and we really can't do much with empty speculation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nicolas Corte
1) http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t
3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DurLVHPc1Iw
Now, do some research on the physics of motion, namely the laws of motion, conservation of momentum, and relative motion. Then we can talk about how the motions of the planet are completely possible under these very simple to understand laws of nature. Indoctrination assumes that knowledge can’t be demonstrated to conform with reality...I assure you, most everything in modern science can be demonstrated to you without much effort, the laws of motion is physics 101 type stuff, and once you understand this physics, you will understand how Earth’s motions are possible. Calling people indoctrinated is just an excuse people use, so they can remain ignorant, which keeps them in their bias. So save that rhetoric for the ignorant saps it actually works on. Up to you if you’re ready to learn some real physics, I’ve pointed you in some direction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. You’re not bringing them back from horizon, you’re bringing them back from vanishing point, your naked eyes physical limit to render an object visible. Once something has gone over the actual horizon, you’ll know, because no amount of zoom in the world will bring it back and it will begin to sink into horizon and drop below your eye level. On that note…you do realize the P1000 wasn’t the first telescopic lens camera, right? I’m starting to think Nikon started Flat Earth to sell more cameras. You must have a really low opinion of science, if you honestly think they never thought to use a telescopic lens in their observations.
2. True, but if Earth were flat, then there wouldn’t be a geometric horizon. Instead we’d just expect everything to slowly fade into the distance, there would be no horizon line. The fact that there is a clear horizon line, is evidence of curvature.
3. Oh boy. 🤦♂️ That’s not a falsification of anything. It’s an inferred logical premise to keep in mind, but it doesn’t refute any of the evidence. So it’s a moot argument as far as evidence is concerned.
4. No, because gravity would orientate you to the current location you’re in, so you’d experience the same up and down that they would. It’s gravity that orientates your feeling of up and down, down is always towards surface, no matter where you are, because gravity pulls to centre…that’s how it works. Your personal incredulity doesn’t change that.
5. Well our senses are shit really. Do you feel the motion of a 500 mph passenger jet while you’re on board? How exactly is it that you can leave a cup of scolding hot coffee on the tray in front of you, while travelling at such velocity? The fact about motion is that we do not actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. Since all of Earth’s motions are constant, with only slow gradual changes in velocity over long periods of time, we shouldn’t expect to feel anything. You’re reaching a false conclusion, from a false assumption about motion. Your personal misunderstandings of basic physics, are not arguments. Learn some physics.
6. Okay, but even you have to be able to understand, that if the surface is rotating, it’s going to make everything around that surface shift. Stand in the centre if your room, now spin around on the spot…are the walls moving, or are they stationary? You can’t honestly think this is a good argument…can you? 🤦♂️
These are terrible arguments….are you just having a laugh? There’s no way anyone could make these arguments seriously. I can only assume you’re trolling.
1
-
1
-
@pepperdeez No, what you said was, and I quote “The big bang theory has ZERO evidence and no science or logic to it. Simply a theory.” Don’t know about you...but seems pretty cut and dry to me, you clearly said Big Bang has no evidence...so now you’re just back peddling. I could only really assume you reached that conclusion from ignorance, what else was I to go on?
Thinks I agree with every detail of current cosmology, simply because I corrected you...now who’s assuming things.
I wasn’t stating I agree with everything about current Big Bang cosmology, I was merely pointing out that it’s the leading theory today, because it has the most evidence supporting it. It’s really that simple. And it’s true. Of course there is still plenty of debate here in this particular topic, I’m perfectly fine with that, because that is also true. It has the most evidence yes, but it’s in no way finalized science, still much we do not know. So debating here is perfectly fine, lots of room still for that.
No, Big Bang in no way falsifies God....that’s a common misunderstanding. God could still very much play a role in the Big Bang, so it’s actually a fallacious argument to claim it destroys the concept of a creator. What it does do though, is falsifies mankind’s religious interpretations of that God, most of them anyway, especially the Abrahamic religions. Which is what I do agree with, in my opinion every religion is just man made bullshit, each one no more true than the last, just fictions we wrote to help us cope with uncertainty and our fleeting mortality. It’s not just Big Bang that’s proving that though, science in general closes the gaps on religion more and more with every new discovery. What it won’t ever likely do though, is falsify God, so I wouldn’t worry about that if it concerns you.
In any case, I was just correcting something I felt you were getting wrong. Big Bang has evidence, you can disagree with that evidence, you can debate it, but it is the leading theory for a reason...because it does have the most evidence. That is a fact, not an opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady An independent variable for things falling? You mean a dependent? The independent is the variable the experimenter manipulates to test the dependent, which is the variable of nature we’re testing. In its purest form, picking something up and then releasing it would be considered an independent, then the act of falling would be a dependent. But this test does nothing to explain how or why objects fall, it merely demonstrates what is happening. To make it more conclusive, you drop things in vacuum, from this we learn the falling is the same, always in the same direction, always at the same rate. Falling is a motion, and since nothing is put into motion without a force, it means a force is present that attracts matter to Earth.
That test tells us what is happening, but doesn’t explain how, for that we go deeper and test further hypothesis, the main hypothesis here was mass attracts mass, the Cavendish tests this hypothesis, successfully I might add. Should we just ignore the oscillation observed in the pendulum, because one person thinks it’s not scientific? It ticks all the boxes of a valid experiment, observed phenomenon, hypothesis, independent, dependent, it’s all there. I’d say what you’re doing is unscientific, denial for the sake of bias.
The pendulum oscillates, but only after a second mass is introduced, this can not be ignored, and so science doesn’t.
I’ve considered what you’re saying quite a bit, I’m not seeing anything unscientific about it. What I am seeing though is somebody working really hard to make excuses, in an attempt to make something go away, that’s very inconvenient for their arguments. Just good ol’ fashion denial, for the sake of confirmation bias.
Are you saying we shouldn’t test the phenomenon of falling motion? What experiment would you conduct to determine what’s happening here? Are you trying to say falling is not a phenomenon of nature? The purpose of science is to study the mechanics of physical reality, the motion observed in dropped objects is a phenomenon of nature, so don’t you think science should test it? Doesn’t seem very scientific to me to ignore undeniable truths of reality, just because it’s inconvenient for something you want to believe. Intentionally ignoring something for the sake of bias, that’s what I would consider unscientific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady “How do you weigh gas?”
Several different ways actually, depending on the gas, you can search these methods pretty simply at any time. But in chemistry, the best way to find the weight of a volume of gas, is by first determining the mass https://youtu.be/cRev-6StZhs. Once you have the mass, you can determine the weight, through this equation F=mg, mass times acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s^2). There’s our old friend gravity again, playing it’s part. Though I’m not a chemist, I know it’s a but more complicated than that, but it can and has been done...hence how chemists are capable of manipulating elements to create materials in the firstborn place...gravity physics plays its part, as it always does, because gas has mass, and so it’s effected by gravity. This knowledge matters in chemistry.
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady I’ll share this again for you https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI?t=138, this is a simple observation of what smoke does in a vacuum chamber. Notice how it immediately falls to the bottom of the jar and pools at the bottom? We’re of course all familiar with smoke that rises, but remove the other heavier gases, and buoyancy can not occur, so the downward force of gravity on the smoke becomes much more apparent. This helps verify that gases are just as effected by gravity, as everything else with mass.
Now, you’ve claimed again and again that it’s just “relative density”, no downward acceleration of gravity required, according to you. Ok, so can you derive a new equation for buoyancy force, that doesn’t require the downward acceleration as a variable? Here’s the formula again Fb=Vpg. Can you derive a new equation, from your “relative density” hypothesis, that does not require any variable for a downward force?
You can actually use the equation I’ve provided, in a very simple experiment, where you can accurately predict how much weight a floating mass can hold, before it’s submerged. Can you derive a similar equation, using just your “relative density” conclusion, one that would have the same prediction power as the equation currently used? If you can, I’d very much like to see that, because so far all you’ve done is ignore gravity in buoyancy physics, you haven’t really falsified gravity, just denied it.
You’ve still yet to answer for me, how exactly does density put matter into motion by itself? I feel I’ve answered enough questions for you for now, so feel free to provide some further information and evidence for your conclusion.
1
-
@SuperMoshady “The smoke usually rises because the gas below is rising up, not gas go down go boom boom.”
There we go, so you admit the gas is going down in that example and that’s why the smoke particulates can’t rise, gas is no longer going up, so the smoke falls . So gas does go down in a vacuum chamber. Good, now we finally agree, gas is effected by gravity. Gravity is the downward motion. Gas travels down in vacuum, so it’s effected by gravity. 🙂
Now, we’ve determined that gas goes down, so the one constant motion for all mass, is attraction to surface in the downward vector. Now we need to figure out, what exactly is causing the downward motion in the first place. Your “More dense go down, less dense go up” is obvious under buoyancy physics, and we agree with it, but as it is, it does nothing to explain how or why any of it happens the way it does. If you claim to care about science, well, part of its main function is to figure out how things work, so science must continue then, and figure out why and how the motions of matter occur. Motion of matter does not occur on its own, it requires a force. That’s the first law of motion, so what force is causing those motions?
So now we’ve isolated which of the two motions, Gravity or buoyancy, is always occurring. It’s gravity, the downward motion, it’s always there, effecting all matter, gas included. So, like a domino effect, it’s gravity that starts all the motion and is what tells all matter, in which direction to begin ordering by density, it’s why the arrangement of mass is denser matter down, less dense matter up, always in that order, never different.
The hypothesis that was established to account for this downward force, was mass attracting mass, which was then successfully verified in the Cavendish experiment. The rod moves once a mass is introduced, it moves free of our influence, this confirms the hypothesis of mass attracting mass. Which answers for WHY the downward motion of matter occurs, because mass attracts mass.
Still many questions left to answer, but at least science doesn’t just ignore things, so it can cling to a bias.
Main point is, gas has mass, mass attracts to other mass, so our atmosphere is contained by that attraction, no physical barrier required. This is measured and observed, space is confirmed a vacuum, while no physical barrier has yet to be detected.
And now that we know that gravity is a variable in buoyancy physics, all we have to do is measure that acceleration here on Earth, so we have, it is 9.8m/s^2, so now we can derive an equation we can actually use, to make accurate predictions with concerning buoyancy. You can’t do that, because you’re in denial of gravity...little hard to measure a force, you stubbornly think doesn’t exist. Little hard to derive an accurate equation, if you don’t have all the variables. See how this works yet?
Science must also measure these phenomenon of nature, that’s a huge part of science as well...it’s how we get to applied science, which is the end goal of science, putting our knowledge to work for us. To do that we have to be honest and objective, denial will get us nowhere.
Thankfully, the majority agrees with this, and so we get a lot done...as I’m sure you’ve noticed, your computer didn’t just spontaneously occur. Tell a chemist who developed all the materials and an engineer who comprised all the materials together in a working order, and a software engineer who pit the binary codes together, you just tell them how useless math was in that process...see what they say. 😅 The variables they use in equations, are the measurements taken for phenomenon. First we isolate and confirm the existence of a phenomenon, then we measure it, it then becomes useful information, used in mathematics.
Math is extremely useful and measuring phenomenon so we can use it in mathematics, is a huge part of why we conduct science at all. This is why people like yourself never achieve anything though, you’re basically crippling yourselves, by denying yourself access to the full range of tools at your disposal. You just stay on the surface of things and stop once your bias is confirmed. Dense matter goes down, less dense goes up, great, that’s obvious and science has determined this as well...but why, how, and can we isolate a force causing the motions and can we measure it? Can’t really do much with the information you’re stuck at...which is why you’ll never derive an equation we can actually use in applied science. So your methods are effectively useless, in that they only serve to limit what you’re capable of.
Not a hill I’d want to die on.
1
-
@SuperMoshady One more time for you. Observed phenomenon to get the hypothesis, observed phenomenon is matter falling, hypothesis is the guess we make and then test, to figure out why matter falls. The hypothesis proposed is mass attracts mass. IV is the angle we place the rod at in relation to the mass being introduced, that’s the variable we manipulate, to then observe the dependent, the variable we don’t manipulate that is a phenomenon of nature. We set up the angle, manipulating it, then observe the angle shifting once mass is introduced, confirming the hypothesis. There’s not two independents here, the oscillation occurs on its own, it’s the phenomenon of nature we’re testing...mass attraction. Manipulating the independent, to observe a dependent. If oscillation detected, hypothesis confirmed, no oscillation, hypothesis falsified.
Slice it however you like, do you have a better explanation for why the rod oscillates after the mass is introduced? Always at a consistent rate?
“The object itself manifests as a force while it’s falling”
So you agree a force is required for motion, good...so there’s a force acting upon the matter. Why not just call that force gravity? Makes it easier to discuss something, when we put a name to it, wouldn’t you agree? Buoyancy has a name, you’re fine with giving the upward motion a title, why can’t we call the falling motion gravity? Heck, whatever you want, droppity if you prefer. But at least now we agree, a force is putting matter downward.
So we’re back to square one, your claim still hinges on one thing, that gas is not effected by the downward force...even though gas has mass, it would have to in order to lift a balloon or keep a boat afloat. It is a physical thing, just like all other physical matter, so why wouldn’t it also go down, when no other mass is around to cause displacement? Why does the visible smoke particulates not expand out in all vectors, with the gas, in every case? Why does it go in a distinct motion upward? Why does it go down in vacuum?
So your claim largely hinges on gas, never being effected by the downward motion, and yet we have a very clear pressure gradient of gas particles. In your own words and understanding, less dense go up, more dense go down. If gas is more dense than the surrounding space of an empty vacuum...then by your own logic, it should go down. Don’t ya think?
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady No, YOU’VE been saying the IV is mass attracts mass, I’ve been saying that’s the hypothesis, which is basically an educated guess, we derive from an observed phenomenon, that phenomenon being falling motion. The hypothesis science established to account for this motion, is mass attracts mass, but hypothesis has to be tested, before it can be established as plausible. The IV is the angle we set the apparatus at in relation to the masses, the change in angle that occurs is the dependent. Because we’re not doing anything after that, we’re just observing what happens, testing the phenomenon through the hypothesis. If the oscillation occurs and is consistent with the hypothesis of mass attraction, then hypothesis confirmed, because a phenomenon is bringing the masses together. If no oscillation occurs, or it occurs in an opposing vector, or at an inconsistent rate not consistent with predictions, then it’s inconclusive or even falsified.
Your trouble I think is in the steps, confusing them along the way, getting them muddled. I’ve noticed you always forget the step of hypothesis, the guess we make that we set out to test. It’s almost like you think the observed phenomenon is the hypothesis, or that IV is the hypothesis...it seems to me your method attempts to remove guessing. But I’m afraid, it’s a big part of things, simply because we don’t know everything, so we can only make guesses at the start, that’s basically all a hypothesis is. You keep missing hypothesis, the observed phenomenon is falling motion>hypothesis is mass attracts mass>the Cavendish experiment sets out to test that. It is conclusive, mass attracts mass, consistent with the phenomenon of falling motion, so hypothesis confirmed.
1
-
@SuperMoshady That’s how gas does it in smaller examples, because you are right about one thing, gas is not bonded, it’s free to move about. This creates constant collisions, which creates kinetic energy, causing them to expand out. Each kinetic transfer of energy, putting the gases in motion all over, in so many ways, it can be difficult to determine if it’s being effected by gravity. But we know it us, simply by the pressure gradient, more gas is pooling at the bottom than the top, even in small examples, so there’s a downward force effecting them. If there was no downward force, there would be no gradient, it would be an equilibrium.
Gas has mass, we know it does, it’s able to create pressure after all, so it’s clearly physical and so it has mass. And as you keep saying, more dense falls....gas is more dense than a vacuum right? So, gas falls in vacuum...it’s pretty simple deduction.
It’s tricky to observe this, yes, because most gases get really volatile within small vacuum chambers, they’re colliding with each other so much, this causes them to expand, so it’s difficult to observe gas falling directly, in the vacuum chambers we’re able to create, because they’re not big enough. There are very precise experiments in chemistry though, where we observe tiny amounts of gas falling in vacuum, detecting them with lasers, where the collisions are lessened enough, so we can just observe the falling motion, but they’re quite difficult to arrange for any layman, without the equipment. I’m even having trouble tracking them down in searches, because these experiments have specific titles and I don’t remember those titles...I’m not a chemist, or particle physicist, it’s not my job to remember these titles.
But, luckily we don’t need a super massive gas chamber or super precise measuring/detection equipment, Earth provides the clues already, the pressure gradient we measure in atmosphere, is one of those clues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady The IV isn’t the bar itself, it’s the angle set between the masses. With drop tests, you could manipulate a similar variable, a drop distance, raising an object up then allowing it to fall, but this doesn’t isolate mass attraction, because there could be other variables. So to isolate mass attraction and make it more conclusive, it had to be seen in a direction between masses on an equal plane. Which it does.
But ya, no, I’m not going to believe you to be honest here, on just your word alone. 😂 You’d have to provide your experiment, or at the very least an example of the experiment where the rod didn’t move. Because your bias is quite clear. It’s fair though to ask me to provide mine as well, I can not, because it was a long time ago, but what I can do is provide many modern examples, which is good enough for me. On the flip side I’ve not seen any yet, that do what you’re claiming, perhaps you could provide one?
1
-
@SuperMoshady Because it’s attracting more dense matter even more, that matter will occupy lower position first, so less dense matter is pushed up. It’s a domino effect, beginning with the downward motion. Helium rises in a specific vector, it’s not moving wildly in all directions, it goes straight up, like gas in water, goes straight up, opposite of the gravity vector. It’s not difficult, very easy to understand actually. Again, the variable is required for the buoyancy equation, remove it and it becomes useless. Gravity is required.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady Gas expands, because it’s colliding with itself. This would happen with gravity or without it, so the trouble with your argument is that it doesn’t falsify gravity. You think it’s good enough, but no, you’d have to verify that gas is not effected by gravity. You have not done that. Meanwhile, gravity explains buoyancy, it explains the pressure gradient, it explains why our atmosphere doesn’t leave into space.
Satellites, probes and astronauts have been into space, they’re even there right now as we chat, so there’s no real argument on your side.
You have not verified your claim that gas isn’t effected by gravity, you’ve just argued from ignorance that it doesn’t. So you haven’t falsified gravity. While I’ve shared much evidence that verifies gas is effected by gravity. You’ve ignored those lessons and experiments for the most part, because of cognitive dissonance.
That’s where we’re at currently. I can accurately calculate how much weight a mass can carry with buoyancy force and you can’t. That’s for a good reason, because the latter is in denial.
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady It’s not double speak, it’s a domino effect, one event directly causing the next. I’m sure you’re capable of understanding a domino effect. Gravity puts matter into motion>this motion is down for all matter with mass>more dense matter will be effected more by gravity>so it occupies lowest potential energy state first>which forces less dense matter out of the way>in the opposite direction but in the same vector as gravity>causing an upward motion. Domino effect, not double speak at all, you’re just intentionally not listening to whole sequence of events. Because of cognitive dissonance, gravity is not convenient for your main argument, so it needs to go away for your arguments to hold. It’s denial, for the sake of confirmation bias.
Gas will eventually stop rising, as gravity drains it of the kinetic energy from collisions, because less collisions with less pressure, leaving only gravity. So it converts the kinetic energy to potential energy, back to kinetic energy due to the downward acceleration of gravity, causing it to fall back down.
Domino effect, not double speak. I understand the confusion, but I hope that clears it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady I’ve explained them several times, but you just ignore the explanations and then pretend I never gave you them.
Gas expands because it’s colliding with itself, these bouncing interactions transfer kinetic energy, causing them to expand in all directions. But gravity is always there, cause mass goes down, gas has mass, so in vacuum where it’s the densest mass, it will go down, we both agree to this, you’ve stated quite clearly over and over, that dense mass goes down. Just because gas expands, does not mean gravity does not effect the individual particles, you’re not falsifying gravity by pointing out how gas interacts with itself, so you really can’t claim you have. Especially with so much evidence mounted against that claim.
If gas puts smoke particulates in upward motion within atmosphere, why doesn’t it do the same in vacuum? The gas is still interacting with the particles, so why when you remove atmosphere, does it suddenly not put particles upward? Why doesn’t the smoke immediately expand into the container, like the gas you’re claiming is expanding?
I’m going to be busy soon, so will have to answer again later. I’ll continue to search for more experiments that are far more conclusive to my point, just don’t have all the rime in the world to continue searching, but be patient. Just cause I haven’t presented one yet that’s not convinced you, does not mean I can’t. The experiments I’ve already shared already do prove my point enough, but it’s fine if you require more, I enjoy brushing up on these things myself, so I don’t mind.
1
-
@SuperMoshady Here’s another one, since you’ve made another claim many times now, that pressure gradient is because gas is produced at surface. So would you agree then that gases, that includes every gas, if they’re presented to a system from a higher elevation, they should expand from the source, but not pool at bottom? Are these perimeters we can agree on, if we apply your hypothesis that gases do not interact with gravity?
Ok, so if we were to introduce methane, or carbon monoxide, or sulphur hexafluoride, to a system, your hypothesis would be it should expand from source and not fall. Temperature is the same throughout, only air and then a heavier gas like sulfur hexafluoride, introduced from a higher elevation, not produced at surface.
Ok, so let’s see an experiment like that https://youtu.be/3MEqKvnD6ys. The gas here is denser than air, so it goes down. Do you see it simply just expanding? No, it’s clearly moving down. If this was helium, or the carbon dioxide produced in flames, it would travel up due to buoyancy. Here’s a more complete demonstration https://youtu.be/mLp_rSBzteI, showing the motion of various gases, pay attention to the end where they demonstrate sulfur hexafluoride, clearly falling down from a higher elevation.
So, this by itself falsifies your claim, that pressure gradient is only a product of gases being produced at surface. The gas is clearly falling down, from a higher elevation. Why is that? Simple, because gas has mass, and all things with mass are effected by gravity.
If you were correct in your claims, we’d expect this gas, to only expand, not fall at all. We’d expect helium to only expand, not also rise.
These experiments are easily reproducible. Explain if no gravity, why then does heavier gas fall? It’s a gas just like helium, why down for this gas?
1
-
@SuperMoshady No, it means I know you’re wrong, and I won’t ignore that, simply because you claim It’s the other way around. I’m not going to simply agree with someone, just cause they want me too. I know you have no real argument, and your science is useless, you’ve more than demonstrated that now. No credentials, no experience, no way to derive any useful equations, because you deny whatever doesn’t fit your bias. So guess what pal, it means I’m not going to agree with you blindly and without question. The evidence I’ve shared is overwhelming at this point, while all you’ve done so far is talk.
I like entertaining these concepts, to challenge myself, it’s great motivation to learn more and to sharpen what I already know and yes, if I’m wrong, to learn how I’m wrong. But you’ve done nothing so far to demonstrate that I am wrong, so I have no reason to agree with you.
1
-
@SuperMoshady It looks like water, because gas is classified as a fluid and behaves similar to it, so what you’re seeing is the flowing of gas fluids more clearly than you’ve probably ever seen before. It’s hard to visualize, because most gas is transparent to us, so we don’t see how it flows on a regular basis, so many people don’t think gas is a fluid...that tends to happen when you don’t have any real experience with science, you form conclusions around what you have experience with.
This is an optical method used to visualize gases. The sulfur hexafluoride is at the same temperature as the helium, one goes up, the other down. You won’t find heavier gases like sulfur hexafluoride in upper atmosphere, that’s not because of temperature, it’s simply because it’s being attracted more by gravity than lighter gases. All gas is attracted to Earth due to gravity, some are just lighter than others, and expand up to point we don’t have day to day experience with. Experiments and observations such as this provide evidence to the conclusion, that gases are in fact just as effected by gravity, as everything else.
1
-
@SuperMoshady It expands because it’s not molecularly bonded, so the molecules are constantly colliding, more interactions due to more pressure, causes it to appear like it’s resisting gravity. But, get high enough, and even lighter gases go no higher...no physical container required, gravity is the container.
Gas pressure is just collisions with other matter, we create more pressure with a container, yes, but pressure within the gas can also be created by forces, we call that atmospheric pressure. You’re trouble is thinking in absolutes, instead of all the nuances.
Buoyancy, steam rises due to buoyancy, this is probably the 5th time I’ve answered that question.
So seeing sulfur hexafluoride falling isn’t good enough? Why not? It’s a gas too...why ignore that? Could it be because of cognitive dissonance and bias? I’d say so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMoshady Tomato tahmahto, but yes, thanks for correcting my english a little.
They can’t all occupy the same space though, correct? More dense material is affected greater by gravity, so it occupies lowest point first, which forces less dense gas up, explained to you several times now. And yes, more dense goes down, this is true with all matter, even gas, that’s why sulfur hexafluoride goes down. So this means gas has mass, which means if no other mass is present (vacuum), guess what happens? It goes down...as we both agree, by your own logic. More dense than surrounding area, matter will travel down. Gas is the densest mass in vacuum, so by your logic, it’ll travel down.
Pour sulfur hexafluoride into vacuum, it’ll go down, just like it does in any other system.
They do all go down, that’s why our atmosphere doesn’t expand into space. Gravity starts the domino effect that creates buoyancy force...you are aware how a domino effect works, right? It’s been explained ad nauseam.
So pressure gradient in liquid and solid is observed, it’s clear as day that downward force creates that inertial pressure. Gas is observed to fall as well, and a similar pressure gradient is observed in atmosphere...so are you saying we shouldn’t pay attention to this clear correlation?
Again, you’re not providing any reason for me to disagree with scientific consensus. You can’t derive a useful equation from your theory, and you haven’t falsified gravity, so why would I ignore the fact that pressure gradient is measured in all 3 states of matter and why would I ignore that downward force explains all 3 very well? Why would I ignore the evidence that verifies gravity, verifies how buoyancy works and that verifies gas falls? You’re not doing much to convince anyone, denial is not an argument, so I’ll go with the evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
inquizative44 It’s logo design man, they hired a bunch of people to create a flag and that was the best one, so they use it. As an artist myself who has done a lot of logo design, the AE projection is a good choice, it has every nation of the world on it, and it has a nice triad composition (3 balanced corners). So you’re speculating and chasing patterns that aren’t there...which is typical of people to do, we are natural pattern seekers, even when patterns aren’t there, we tend to create them. Trust me, I used to think a lot like you do now...then I learned how to identify bias and keep it in check. I learned the scientific method.
Stick to the science I say...it’s not hard to deduce the Earth’s geometry, when you follow actual tangible evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, everything we know is not just “told” to us. Maybe you didn’t pay attention in physics class (or you didn’t have access to a proper education, in which case I’m sorry), but they don’t just tell us what’s what...they also demonstrate it, with clear experimentation that anyone can repeat. You can go out and test the science and geometry of Earth at any time, it’s not difficult. You can learn all this knowledge first hand, on your own, you don’t require others to just tell you.
Start with a simple sunset, don’t you think if the Sun were flying above us, over a flat plain...we would always be able to see it? If Earth were flat, then It occupies the same sky everywhere on Earth, at the same time...so how exactly would it set? Common sense tells you it wouldn’t and so does the math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t
Just one of many simple observations you can make and put to the test. To say we acquired all our information from just listening blindly to others tell us things, is absolutely ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, the Moon is also 1/3 the size of Earth...so it's not small in the slightest. So if you do the perspective math for its size and its distance too us, it's actually exactly as big as it would appear. So basically, your argument is just one of personal incredulity...which means it's not an argument, it's just a logical fallacy.
You don't need scientists to tell you the Earth is a sphere, you can verify it for yourself with just a few simple observations. Like a sunset for example, observing the Sun and paying attention to its angles and path can actually tell you a LOT about our planets true shape. So let's assume the Earth is flat and consider some common sense variables. If the Sun is spinning above, then where does it go between sunset and sunrise? It's not going beneath the Earth, or away from it, because somebody somewhere always sees the Sun...it is day time somewhere on Earth at any given time. So it must occupy the same sky, so ok, If it occupy's the same sky everywhere on Earth at the same time, then how does a sunset occur? Some people will just say it's due to perspective and call their work done...but what does the math say about this? Let's have a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t Nope, perspective doesn't make sense of this at all...the Sun doesn't behave the way it should if it were perspective causing a sunset. Let's look at some more common sense observations.
Here are some simple experiments anyone can conduct, that can help anyone learn a bit about the fundamentals of perspective and how it applies to the Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I
So if people are going to say perspective causes a sunset...then they really have to do more work then just stating that's what is happening. Upon all experimentation and observation of the Sun, that answer does not add up I'm afraid. Above are some simple common sense observations anyone can make, that put a huge hole in the concept of perspective, causing a sunset.
So what can explain a sunset? Well, a Globe Earth accounts for this perfectly. The Earth rotates away from the Sun each day, shrouding one side in darkness as the Earth itself blocks the light from the Sun. Explanation over...so if we were to employ Occams Razor here, simplest answer is most often the correct answer, the Globe accounts for a sunset with absolute ease. That can't be denied really, you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make something as simple as a sunset work on a Flat Earth...meanwhile the Globe makes sense of it with ease.
But, an explanation is not evidence, so can we verify this to be true with actual evidence? Absolutely, here are a few simple experiments that help to verify the Globe accounting for a sunset.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJGczcwJ6TA&t=102s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1al9aGartM
Everything from shadow angles, to rise and set times, to the celestial path of the Sun, to its apparent size and rate of travel...it all matches with a Globe.
So I'm sorry, but you're not really doing much thinking in your conclusion. You even state your bias clearly, that being that you WANT Earth to be the center of the universe. You want to feel special, so that's your bias...you're not thinking with any objective rational, you're deeply bias in all of your incredulous and ignorant conclusions.
The evidence does not point to a Flat Earth...that is just ONE of many simple ways that YOU and ANYONE can verify the shape of the planet for themselves...just takes a little effort and critical thinking. You do not require scientists to tell you what is what...YOU can do it yourself, but you have to put your bias aside first and use your head.
1
-
1
-
No, we agree with him because he's undeniably right and anyone can verify that science for themselves whenever they're willing to try. You really think all they do in university, is sit around and memorize jargon? Wow...I wonder how engineers are able to build stuff with such precision, if everything they know is just made up bullshit. Pretty incredible that your computer runs at all, given that it runs on hocus pocus, am I right? :/
Might be news to you, but we don't really benefit much from lying about how physical reality works...and it's not exactly easy to lie about our discoveries either, given how competitive the scientific community is. Their careers are made from challenging consensus and their peers...and it works, the proof is in pretty much every technology you use and take for granted. You just let us know when Flat Earth science is used to invent, innovate, engineer, discover, or navigate anything.
1
-
@MultiJaybaker No, that's not what I was saying, but sure, we do put satellites into orbit, and that wouldn't be possible unless Earth were a Globe with gravity. So ya, modern technology does prove that Earth is spherical...we even use those satellites to take pictures of it, so again, modern technology proving the Earth is a sphere. You can go out on any night with a telescope and spot these satellites, even photograph them, the ISS being the easiest to observe, it's not hard. Here's a group of hobbyists who take it a step further, by building their own radio telescopes, that they use to track and pull data from satellites in orbit, give it a look sometime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=309s
Now, all I was trying to say before you respun my argument into a strawman, was that it's a little arrogant of people to claim they're superior to actual experts...when they really have no idea what they're talking about. Layman tend to always be so ignorant and over confident...spitting in the face of the people who create...everything, while meanwhile having ZERO understanding into how those things were made. I just find that a bit arrogant. My point is, I'm going to trust the people who built my computer, over some dumb ass keyboard warriors on the internet who have likely contributed nothing to society...listening blindly to conspiracy videos on YouTube, never once questioning them for some reason.
Just saying, you'd have to be a bit of an idiot, if you think scientists can create EVERY modern comfort and technology that's around you, but they can't figure out something as trivial as the shape of our planet? Could they be lying? Not likely...too many minds and too many eyes working directly in positions that require our understanding of the Earth be accurate, in order to do their jobs at all. Pilots for example...little hard to find your destination, if you're using maps that are not accurate...wouldn't you say? Yet these people arrive on time, at their destinations, like clock work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4&t=13s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUklHodcho
I have done my own research on this topic, been digging into this mess for over 3 years now...and I'm now more of a Globe Earther then I ever was, because now I know how we reached that conclusion, from the science to the history. I wasn't trying to prove to you in my last comment the Earth is a sphere, I know where you stand, would probably take nothing short of a lobotomy to get you to come back to reality. Which is fine, believe whatever you'd like, I can't force you to do anything and I respect your opinion. But If you'd like me to share more of what I've learned in 3 years of my own research, feel free to ask, I don't mind sharing. I know Flat Earth is wrong and I've concluded that Flat Earth is nothing but a scam, perpetuated online by layman who have no real world experience in the sciences, driven by confirmation bias, incredulity, ignorance and over confidence.
1
-
@MultiJaybaker Eric Dubay eh...the nazi sympathizer who lies like breathing? Ya...I think you should start questioning what that narcissist says, he's the biggest con artist of them all. Here's a great video to get you started...just listen close to how many lies this guy points out in just a short time frame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4&t=8s Far from the only example of Eric being dismantled.
Honestly...do you really think I'd not know who he is, after 3 YEARS of researching Flat Earth? I don't just research one side of an argument (like Flat Earthers do), I look at both sides...and Eric is the first nut job you learn about in this mess. With his "200 ways to completely lie about and misunderstand reality", that's what the video is called right? It should be...it's far more accurate.
I suggest you watch that again, and pay attention next time, cause he's got hypnotic suggestion tactics down pat and he sure knows how to dump a lot of gish gallop in rapid fire. It works on the weak minded who don't stop to question each bullshit claim he makes one at a time...but slow your roll and actually stop and challenge each claim made, and you find out pretty quickly he's just making it all up as he goes. Ever heard of lying? It's not hard to do, especially online, just have to be confident when you do it. I'll give him that much, there is nobody more confident in his lies than he is. With Eric It's just Empty claim after empty claim from that guy, no scientifically verifiable evidence of any kind, just well crafted lies and mountains of speculation and conjectures, that he spits out without guilt or shame, because he's likely a psychopath and has zero empathy and zero problem lying to people. Honestly, just watch him breaking down publicly after he found out that other big names in Flat Earth were getting more attention then he was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9li-xf3ycs Shouldn't he be happy that Flat Earth is spreading? But he's not, all he cares about himself, all he cares about is that he gets all the attention and nobody else. He displays all the characteristics of a psychopathic narcissist with extreme delusions of grandeur...not somebody I'd admire, but hey you do you.
John Carpenter on the other hand is one of my favorite horror directors, is that the same John Carpenter? Didn't realize he was a Flat Earther, but I find that a little hard to believe coming from the guy who directed some of the best COSMIC horror movies ever made. But maybe, I'll have to look into it, just first I heard it, unless it's a different guy.
David Wardlaw Scott...a small fry author, who used scripture to verify his hypothesis of a Flat Earth. Ya...you lose all credibility the moment you start using made up superstition to start explaining a made up fantasy reality. Stacking bullshit on top of more bullshit...real strong argument. Scripture has no place in a discussion of science.
I think you need to find some better idols, but that's just me...I just can't believe people actually admire these nut jobs. Question the mainstream all you want, it's perfectly logical, but these guys should be setting off red flags in anyone who can spot when they're being conned...it's incredible to me that more people don't.
1
-
1
-
@MultiJaybaker Well, apologies but I won't be giving my email out to strangers online, I don't mind chatting here though.
That's a fair point, but what evidence does he have to point these people out as "agents"? What confirms they are "agents"? Are they actually "agents", or is he just making more shit up as he tends to do? That to me is an example of a speculative claim with no backing, and it just looks like a guy throwing a tantrum. Which is not very mature. True scientists and researchers welcome peer review and discussion...and he should be more grateful that others are following his lead and spreading his message...Orphan Red is a Flat Earther...they're basically on the same side, you don't see Globe Earthers calling each other agents and shills...we're listening to each other and absorbing lessons from each other. They're quite supportive of each other.
I hear that a lot from Flat Earthers...whenever somebody challenges them long enough, they just hand wave them aside as shills or "agents"...then there's no need to consider what they're saying anymore, they're just paid to lie, so they shut their minds off to any further dialogue. That's a typical tactic from people who generally don't like be challenged and would rather ignore their opposition than face them. It's also quite typical of people who are tad afraid of being proven wrong, so best to just come up with excuses rather than admit defeat.
In my opinion, if your evidence and arguments are so strong...then they should stand firm on their own, and even if somebody is a paid agent, you should be able to defeat them pretty easily by sharing that evidence. I think calling people shills, agents, sheep, idoctrinated...all just buzz words and deflection tactics used to keep you from listening to what opposition has to say. The thing is...Orphan Red is on his side...she's a Flat Earther.
That being said, of course I see the logic in "agents" being planted, controlled opposition does occur, but all I'm saying is, it's a little hard to lie about physical reality...nature doesn't lie, so if your position is truly aligned with objective reality, then you shouldn't be afraid of any discourse, real or unreal, your positions should defeat them easily and you should welcome the attempts. I hope you'd agree.
Idk, I just find buzz words like agents, shills, idoctrinated, all deflection tactics...not much more. Without substantial evidence to support that claim, then all you can really do is speculate, and I don't like joining speculation, I try to avoid that as best I can. Stick to the science, people can and will lie, nature does not.
Anyway, enough of that rhetoric, if you'd like to focus more on the science feel free...I don't particularly like babbling on about my opinions, I'd rather focus on the actual evidence. I do feel Flat Earth is wrong, but I actually do try to respect their opinions. I don't mind shifting gears into a more civil discussion where we just focus on the facts and the evidence. Don't get me wrong, there is one thing I actually do admire about Flat Earth and that's their stubborn tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds and despite the ridicule they face. It's perfectly logical to question what you're told and to challenge mainstream consensus, in that respect, I do admire Flat Earth, so I'm not here to discourage you or laugh at you. I take my jabs sometimes, cause I do have an ego of my own, but easier to keep that in check when we just focus on the evidence.
So feel free, what in particular would you like to discuss? Pick a topic, I'll share what I have and I'll listen to you're position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amayaaztec4218 The Sun is very high in the sky, and you do realize perspective has rules to it, correct? You're work isn't done here, you can't just slot in perspective as your answer and then think your work is done here....it doesn't work that way. That only gives you enough to form a hypothesis from, but you then have to test it further to see if this holds up to experimentation. You can't reach a conclusion with what you've provided here, all you have is a guess, now you have to put that guess to the test. Here's a few simple experiments anyone can try that poke holes in your perspective conclusion, give them a look sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njO5NPfur7I
That's barely scratching the surface, there are many other observations we can make that just do not support a local Sun circling above. If this were true, then we should be able to pinpoint that Sun using its shadow angles. Here's a couple great experiments that give this a try, by collecting data on sun shadow angles from locations all around the world during the same time of the day, during the Equinox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
This observation of yours also does not match with the Suns projected path through the sky. Common sense would tell you, if the Sun is that high circling above, then you would expect to see it all day from everywhere on Earth. The math verifies this as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t=39s
So no, upon experimentation and closer observation, your hypothesis of perspective answering for why a sunset occurs is just not accurate. It fails upon closer inspection, so you can not conclude that it is perspective alone that is causing a sunset and sunrise. A globe however, fits all of these observations...so on the other hand, we can now conclude that a sunset is caused by the fact that our planet blocks the Sun as it rotates away from it each day.
You don't seem to realize how much more work YOU are required to do, to verify your conclusions. All you're doing is jumping on whatever explanation fits your bias...and then patting yourself on the back for a job well done. If scientists worked like this...we'd have achieved very little today.
1
-
@amayaaztec4218 Nobody has ever been hiding anything, there is nothing to hide...but there is a lot of information to digest and most people just do not have the time to learn it all, unless they are directly studying it. You're basically blaming your lack of knowledge on others...and that's bullshit. They tried teaching you this stuff in high school, it's all covered in basic physics 101 classes...but you likely didn't pay attention. That is not their fault, that is YOUR fault...teachers can only do so much, if you're not going to listen, that's on YOU. Your anger is misplaced...you have nobody to blame but yourself really.
I understand that some people don't have access to a basic education and if that's what happened with you, then my apologies...but NOTHING is being hidden from you, science is VERY transparent, YOU can learn this knowledge at ANY TIME you wish...and you're right, in the current information age, it's now easier then ever to acquire that knowledge. But it's also easier then ever for misinformation to spread. Con men, scammers, village idiots, they have it easier then ever before to spread bullshit around...so you have to be VERY careful where you're receiving your information from. Bias is real and people will lie to you to keep a bias alive and kicking...it's a great flaw of man, we tend to follow bias more then we realize.
The nice thing is, nature does not lie...people will lie to you, but physical reality is very rigid and it abides by rules and laws that hold it all together. So that's what science tries to do, it has created a method that probes deep into nature and tries to find OBJECTIVE truths to how that reality functions. If done correctly, with care, patience and attention to detail, the method works...and the proof is in the pudding, in all the technology that is around you today. It didn't get there by magic, science made it possible. The nice thing about science, is it's just a tool, it has no agenda and ANYONE can learn it.
1
-
1
-
In just the last few thousand years we’ve taken the wolf, and evolved it into the chihuahua…something that is more like a tiny rat, than having any resemblance to their noble cousins. No evidence for evolution you say? We’re practically playing it out in real time with plenty of examples like that…you think any of that would be possible without the ability to evolve?
What’s troubling to me is that every person claiming evolution has no evidence, is never a biologist of any field relevant to the topic, but they always think they’re the experts anyway. I mean I’m sure you’ve done some reading on the topic…but are a biology major working in the field of evolution? Are you currently actively studying the fossil record we’ve uncovered so far? Are you making advancements in medical science from the study of cellular evolutions? Are you looking at DNA strands all day and finding common links between species? If no…then why should anyone listen to anything you have to say on the topic? 🧐
It’s not hard to see your bias on the matter. Religion has always been a powerful bias in many people, that I feel has slowed human progress for far too long.
But listen, nobody is saying God isn’t a possibility, but evolution is very much a part of that creation, the evidence is actually pretty staggering, whether you acknowledge it or not. We have a fossil record linking us back millions of years, as well as many other species. The verdict is still out on how life started, but that doesn’t mean evolution and God can’t both be a possibility. And you know most scientists now and throughout history are and were theists. They have/had no trouble marrying the theory of evolution with their spiritual beliefs, why is it such a problem for you?
Just saying…how much do you ACTUALLY know on the topic? Pretty hard to take religious people seriously on this subject, when their bias is clear as day. In any case, this field of study will continue, and it absolutely should. Even if it’s found to be a dead end someday (however unlikely), we do ourselves a disservice to go against our natural curiosity and our drive to unravel the mysteries of reality. If God has a problem with it, then why’d he give us that drive? Personally, if I was a creator of a life form such as us, I’d be proud of my creation for exploring every possibility and reaching for their full potential…as any parent should.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Here’s an example of confirmation bias. You said, quote “The military controls GPS first off. They get the data and can manipulate it.” Pure speculation as far as I’m concerned, why should I blindly agree to your paranoid speculations? You really don’t see the bias in even mentioning that? It’s a logical inference, sure (if we ignore all the actual data and don’t actually look into it), but it’s just a conjecture, you can’t form a solid conclusion from that…and yet you’re presenting it as if it’s an argument I should actually take seriously. It’s your bias that allows you to ignore that you’ve formed a conclusion from speculation here. You may not notice, but it’s clear as day for us. So don’t tell me you’re not bias, because you very clearly are.
Point is, you’re not really falsifying the geodetic navigation system, you’re just flinging gish gallop at me there and hoping one sticks. For example, your argument with the NASA flight dynamics models. NASA creates mathematical simulation models for flight dynamics, with assumed variables…they’re not literally stating the Earth is flat, they’re simplifying math fir simulation purposes, that’s all. In that very same document flat Earthers pull that from, it also assumes “a rigid vehicle of constant mass”, two variables that are also not reality, as they are impossible, with a vehicle with moving parts, crew members, and fuel that depletes over time. Why doesn’t flat Earth zero in on that? Because they can’t sell it…doesn’t fit their bias, so it’s ignored.
Next up, the AE projection map is used by these agencies, for the same reason flat Earthers thought to use it…out of all the globe Earth projection maps, it’s the most symmetrical, has the best balanced composition, it’s the most pleasing to the eye. Humans are creatures of habit, we’re all drawn to the same pleasing compositions. It’s also from a neutral point (The North pole), so it’s a perfect symbol to represent the nations of the world. Now, I’m happy to admit that’s purely my speculation…but so is your conclusion…and you know that too, that’s why you lumped all those weaker points together in a gish gallop, instead of ACTUALLY providing evidence that falsifies geodetic navigation.
All perfect examples of confirmation bias. Weak arguments, shotty evidence and empty conjectures. We all have bias, it’s fine really, as long as people are aware of that, and then accept it and do their best to identify theirs and keep it in check as best they can…but I can’t help but notice some religious people do seem to think they’re the one exception to confirmation bias…and it is annoying, if I’m being honest. You have bias, it’s very clear, so just own it please. I’m not saying every conclusion you’ve reached has been from confirmation bias, some of these are good and fair rebuttals…but others are quite weak and speculative, and it’s incredible you’d even bother with some.
Does the military also manipulate the consistent 1 degree drop in stars to horizon, every 69 miles traveled North or South? That’s how the lines of latitude were determined, and that’s how celestial navigation works…and that’s how those angles would work on the surface of a globe. We would expect the stars to drop to horizon at a consistent rate, on the surface of a sphere, because the surface would be curving at a consistent rate. Upon a flat Earth however, the drop would not be consistent, the stars would drop less and less the further from the North celestial pole you got…that’s just basic trig and geometry. And you’ve not answered for the Southern celestial rotation, you’ve ignored it…as all Flat Earthers do. Care to explain exactly how the stars in the South rise up at the same consistent rate, 1 degree every 69 miles? How is there a second rotation that’s in the opposite rotation from the North? How can every Southern continent see the same southern sky, and rotation? You can’t just ignore this…it’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a globe.
If Jos Leys stopped talking to you, it’s probably because he noticed, as I have, that you come off as quite intentionally ignorant, and clearly biased in many of your conclusions. You’re ramming a square peg into a round hole here, forcing conclusions, ignoring anything that’s not convenient, and filling many blanks with conjectures, that you also expect me to agree with, without question. I think there’s only so much of that nonsense one can put up with.
His moon video clearly shows a Moon that would arc South, rising from East, tracking South, and then setting West…which is exactly what we observe, I see it every night, I live in Canada currently. Because he placed the observation from a person on a latitude line in the North, and presented it without Earth’s tilt, thus making the vectors point up…you think that means the observer sees it in the North? 🧐 You’re not quite visualizing his model very accurately I feel. Do me a favour, and take that video, pause it at the point where it shows the vectors upon a globe, then tilt your phone or IPad or whatever you got, until those vectors are parallel to your floor…that should be roughly 23.4 degrees (though the Moon is off the ecliptic plane by about 5 degrees as well). Now, it should be a little clearer to help you see the angles an observer would see…it’s not in the North.
There is a slight centrifugal force produced by Earth’s rotation (it’s why everything weighs slightly less at the equator), this will eventually over time cause a deviation in Earth’s shape. Most of the other planets in our solar system have the very same oblateness, Saturn being a great example, it’s so oblate you can see its deviation with the naked eye. So it’s pretty common. Yes, it’s conserved angular momentum that causes it, but it’s an outward force…not a downward crushing force, so where did you get that assumption? 🤷♂️ You’re sure making a lot of very poor assumptions.
1000 mph is a linear velocity, our Earth’s rotational velocity however is 0.000694 RPM’s…not very fast at all. Why do you think a plane couldn’t adjust for this over time? I think you should perhaps learn the difference between a linear velocity and a rotational velocity.
I feel you are very much ignoring perspective fundamentals, and you’re doing it by slotting in ad hoc explanations. You barely have enough for a hypothesis in most of these conclusions, yet you’ve reached conclusions anyway. So the Sun becomes magnified as it reaches horizon? Why should I agree with that hypothesis? So it magnifies perfectly to maintain a consistent size throughout a full day? Can you demonstrate this perfect consistent magnification? And how exactly does that account for the steady 15 degree per hour travel time? Feel free to share these experiments if you got them, I’m certainly not going to just take you at your word here. Even if you could demonstrate this, It’s still not a falsification of the Globe mind you. The Globe model still accounts for a sunset, without any need for ad hoc explanations. Earth rotates, surface blocks Sun…explanation over. I mean, if we employ Occam’s Razor here…are you really shocked that anyone would find your conclusions here to be pretty forced?
You’ll have to explain a little better how Coriolis contradicts Relativity, it’s not entirely clear what your point is.
So far you’re not really falsifying the globe…you’re still just trying to prove your model. The only attempts at falsification, that I’ve noticed so far, just amounts to misunderstood physics. Feel free to share some actual experimentation, observations, measurements, data…you know, evidence. Flat Earth loves to butcher difficult physics, and then pretend it’s an argument, but I’d really prefer to see experiments and actual real world data if you don’t mind. That’s how you truly falsify something.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 I will mention this though, Einstein said in a speech in 1922 that he came to believe no “optical experiment” could detect Earth’s motion, meaning using light. Followed directly after that line in the speech though, he then said “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun”. That part is conveniently left out of presentations by Flat Earthers and geocentrists. So just more quote mining and confirmation bias.
There’s nuance here though I feel is important to mention. Einstein wasn’t saying Earth’s motion couldn’t be observed or detected (obviously the Foucault pendulum experiment, and North aligning gyro experiments, had already done that), he just wasn’t aware of any optical experiments that had done it successfully…at that time. And the “optical experiment” he was referring too was the interferometer experiments, using light bounced off mirrors…that was of course until 1926, where the Sagnac effect was used to detect Earth’s rotational motion, with a large area ring interferometer. Look up the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.
So he was wrong…yes, even Einstein can be wrong. In 1922 he believed that, but I’m sure he changed his mind on that after that experiment. Today, ring laser interferometers are used to detect rotational motions in aircraft, with extreme accuracy…as well as Earth’s rotational motion. If they can be used on aircraft to detect rotations…why can’t they do the same for Earth? They can and they do. Another device you should research sometime, is the gyrocompass. It’s a device used on most modern sea vessels…and it actually works by using Earth’s rotation as part of its function. If Earth wasn’t rotating, then this device would not work as designed. Lots of information online for the gyrocompass, you can even find a pdf for its engineering specs pretty easily if you try, it explains in pretty great detail how it uses Earth’s rotation as a function in its design. So Earths rotation isn’t just verified by experimentation, it’s also an applied science.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Still isn’t a valid argument. Your paranoid speculations, don’t equal truth…evidence is all that matters here, not empty conjectures. I don’t care how afraid you are of your government…can you prove your claims, with evidence? That’s all I care about.
Nope, you wouldn’t have a consistent 1 degree drop of stars every 69 miles, on a flat surface. Please understand how basic geometry works, instead of just assuming your model fits here. I’m so very tired of Flat Earthers just assuming these things work on their model, without doing any actual work to verify that conclusion…and even more tired of you guys thinking I should just agree to your conclusion without evidence. It doesn’t work…so please stop pretending it does. It’s no coincidence that the stars drop at a rate consistent with a globe geometry….you are only fooling yourself if you think this geometry works for your model.
“Which document authors should we approach?”
The authors of any flight dynamics model you think supports flat Earth. You’re not stupid, so don’t play dumb. You’re cherry picking from these mathematical models, and twisting them into something they are not……….so, if you think you’re not, then the next logical step is to contact the authors of these papers, to make sure you’re not doing that. It’s not difficult to understand…so again, don’t play dumb.
“I want the truth to stand, regardless of what that means for the shape of the earth.”
Bullshit……you don’t really care about truth, you just want to be right. It’s no secret why………you’re trying to confirm your religious bias. That’s the real reason why you ignore so much evidence, like navigation, sunsets, lunar eclipses, the entire Southern Hemisphere, etc…you don’t care about truth, what you really care about is your religious beliefs. Everything else doesn’t matter. I know it, and so do you. So please…stop trying to bullshit me. Your true motivation is very clear…I just wish it didn’t blind you so absolutely.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 We do detect Coriolis drift….again, ANY long range marksmen, or artillery gunner, will tell you there is a Coriolis drift they need to account for, or they will be off target. We also do observe it in cyclones and hurricanes, and there are experiments that anyone can recreate, that do verify Coriolis. So spare me your misunderstandings of how the physics works…your misunderstandings are not an argument against the evidence.
The gyrocompass is designed to point towards true North…it has to align its rate of precession with Earth’s rotation in order to do that, so it uses Earth rotation to function. This isn’t difficult. If Earth was not rotating, then it would not require that function, they’d be a lot easier to make…any ol’ gyro would be useable for this purpose.
All mechanical gyros precess over time, there’s no overcoming this flaw in the mechanical gyro (not without additional mechanisms like pendulous vanes), because you can never completely remove friction in the gimbles. This friction applies a small torque, which causes precession over time. So all mechanical gyros precess over time. Foucault was aware of this precession, that’s why he started to experiment with it to see if he could set the rate of precession, to match Earth’s rate of rotation. He was successful, this was yet another of his experiments that helped prove Earth was indeed rotating. He then set out to develop the first gyro compass, but he was unsuccessful, mainly because he didn’t have the time and resources to dedicate to the project, so it ended up taking several more decades before engineers worked out all the kinks and got one working. These devices use Earth rotation…that’s how they work, so it’s more proof of rotation.
I’m just saying, you’re trying very hard to deny a lot of physics and engineering that’s pretty simple and undeniable. Flat Earth asks for proof of rotation, and then we give it to them…but then the excuses start coming. Why bother asking for evidence of rotation, if you’re just going to ignore it? I understand the effort put towards falsifying the evidence provided…but you’re not really providing valid falsifications, you’re just misunderstanding Coriolis physics and denying the plethora of evidence for rotation. Denial isn’t an argument…it’s just ignorance.
1
-
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 A drone floating in one spot isn’t moving forward within the inertial reference frame of Earth, to cause Coriolis drift. You don’t seem to understand how Coriolis occurs, it’s caused by conservation of momentum, conserving the motion of your starting position, then moving to a different location where the surface is moving slightly slower or faster, because of rotations being faster the further from centre of rotation you are. So it requires motion within a system of motion, that’s a key variable to Coriolis drift. Your hovering drone is not in motion within the inertial reference frame it’s moving relative too…so no Coriolis drift. It’s not difficult. Please get yourself a firmer grasp on how Coriolis works.
If you cannot prove that Wolfie forged his HUD, with evidence to support the claim, then it’s just an empty claim, so I’m not interested. Share your evidence that led to your accusation, or don’t bother. I’ll take a look at this water level claim you’re now making, don’t suppose you have a video title I could find it at?
A gyrocompass has to be manually set by latitude…so it’s not just gonna automatically flip once crossing the pole, that’s not how it works. It has no magnetic influence…that’s the whole point, it’s aligned to true North and syncs its precession rate with Earth’s rotation. This is why I can’t rely on much of your conclusions, because there’s just so much physics and engineering you don’t really know much about…so no wonder you reach so many erroneous conclusions.
Aether does not exist, it has never been verified or detected in experimentation, and it’s not from lack of trying. So your argument is null, on the fact you’re using long falsified science, as if I should agree it’s relevant. You’re just using it as an excuse as a means to ignore the results. Simply put, I’m not going to just blindly agree to any arguments where Aether is used, until it’s verified science….and good luck with that. Here’s the reality, RLG’s are used in aircraft to detect rotational motions…so they are more than proven to detect and measure PHYSICAL rotations, from the surface they’re attached too. So if it accurately detects the physical rotations of a plane in flight…why couldn’t it do the same for the Earth? It can and they have…slotting in falsified science as an ad hoc response so you can ignore the results, is pretty poor form…it isn’t an argument, it’s just biased.
Share these videos then, I’m not interested in your empty claims. Provide me with a search query for these gyrocompasses. The electric motors only function is to keep the gyro spinning, so again you’re just slotting in ad hoc responses to explain away things you don’t like…so more confirmation bias and ignorance.
You’re most certainly lying to yourself (and me), so you can continue to deny reality. It’s all a vane attempt to confirm your bias religious beliefs. That’s painfully obvious for everyone else here reading and engaging with you, even if you refuse to see it.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Why would it rid the world of all religion if Earth were a globe? You don’t think God could have created galaxies and spherical stars and planets that orbit each other, as we understand the cosmos today? I’m personally far more impressed by a God that could create a seemingly endless cosmos we’ll never fully understand, or fully experience…over a tiny terrarium that keeps us trapped. Fact is, most scientists throughout history and even still today, were and are theists, believing in some form of higher power and religious teachings. They don’t have too much trouble marrying their beliefs with the conclusions of modern science, most don’t I feel. Religion doesn’t just go away when Earth is proven spherical…I mean, history has already shown that to be true. We’ve known the Earth is spherical for roughly 2000 years, since the time of the ancient Greeks, sailors and explorers have been using their maps and systems of navigation designed for geodesic geometry, since at least Ptolemy. And that model has been accepted by the very large majority of academia and also society, for at least the last 500 years. Religion is still thriving just fine despite that…so the globe Earth model doesn’t rid the world of religion, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
It’s never been the goal of science to falsify God, nor could it. Science deals with the physical realm, it can’t do anything to explain or falsify the metaphysical, or the unfalsifiable. We will never know everything, that’s the reality of our situation. So superstitions/spiritual metaphysical beliefs will likely always exist between the cracks. It’s not a bad thing, I’m an artist for a living, I love pondering the possibilities and wondering about what could be. I’d be more than happy to learn about, and be humbled to accept a spiritual realm, if it’s ever proven to me to exist. I just prefer to remain objective, when it comes to the physical reality I occupy, that’s all.
Trouble is so far your quandaries are just questions…not evidence. They’re great physics questions, some of them anyway, but I think you seem to think if you can eventually ask a question someone can’t answer, it means you’re correct…but no, because questions do not equal evidence at the end of the day. And it’s very hard to take you seriously, when your bias is quite clear.
Anyway…back to the science.
You think a few feet off the surface is gonna be a very substantial difference in air speed? Takes 1000 yards for a bullet to drift a few inches…what do you think a few feet is really going to do? 🤷♂️ Aside from that, not sure if you’ve actually seen a drone hover before…but it does shift around a bit, they don’t stay perfectly in place. So I feel you’re just reaching.
You’re assuming a jet immediately drops from 1000 mph to 500 mph right when it lands. How do you know it wasn’t gradually dropping that velocity as it travelled?They do account for Coriolis drift, as much as you disagree, you can find pilots explaining this, Wolfie being one of them them. I have no reason to conclude they’re lying about that. There’s also a few great explanations of this tackling the opposite question, how they fly from the poles to the Equator and gradually increase velocity, give them a search sometime. It’s a great question of physics and aviation, but you’re not pointing out anything that can’t be answered.
Neil said the horizon will appear flat to the naked eye, at hundreds of thousands of feet elevation. And he’s not wrong, if you do the math on this, horizon curvature doesn’t become blatantly obvious to an observer until you’re at least 100 miles or so off surface. Because we see curvature in terms of degrees…and it takes 70 miles for Earth to arc even 1 degree. Most people can’t see and determine 1 degree of difference, or even 2 or 3 degrees…around 10 degrees though, becomes a bit more apparent, you have to get pretty high before it reaches that point.
Doesn’t mean you can’t see it at lower elevations, it’s just very difficult to the naked eye, especially while seeing through so much atmosphere. But you can certainly measure it with better equipment. I haven’t watched the video you’re describing yet, but I assume he was just demonstrating the horizon drop from eye level at higher elevations, because you can measure and observe that with a levelling rig…which uses water. I assume that’s what he’s doing with the water bottle, making a crude levelling rig. He typically uses a surveyors theodolite in his presentations though, which is far more accurate, have you seen those demonstrations? They also reveal a drop in horizon…and he’s not the only person to ever try this. Have you bothered to repeat the observations? You can say he’s lying all you want, but nothing he does is ever really outside an individual’s ability to recreate. So have you? If this topic truly interests you, I assume you’re not just spending all your time watching YouTube.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 No, you set the gyrocompass by latitude manually, the gyroscopic precession then happens on its own, because that’s a natural thing that occurs in mechanical gyros, because of gravity, which applies a constant torque. When you apply a torque to a gyro, it begins to precess. Engineers just found a way to set the level of torque, so the gyro precesses in sync with Earth’s rotation. That’s how they work. If Earth was not rotating, then these devices would eventually drift out of alignment with true North. You set the gyro by latitude, because your angle relative to North changes, 1 degree every 69 miles, so you have to reset that angle when you enter a different latitude.
Frankly I’m done explaining it to you…you can find tons of resources on the gyrocompass, including the engineering specs in pdf form. They all explain pretty clearly how it functions, by using Earth’s rotation.
Aether was hypothesized, sure, it was even the leading hypothesis for a time…but it was never successfully detected or verified. So you can’t really use it in an argument until you can verify it exists…otherwise your just arguing from hypotheticals, and pretending it’s reality. And worse you’re expecting me to agree, to science that’s unverified…I’m not about to do that, sorry.
Funny that the RLG used to detect Earth’s rotation, is a steady 15 degrees per hour, just as our Earth rotates. We can detect magnetic fields…so if Earth’s magnetic field was rotating above us, we would detect that. But it doesn’t, it moves with Earth’s rotation. So your attempts at falsification are largely ad hoc. These devices detect physical rotations, they’ve been used for decades now to detect Earth’s physical rotation, the sane way they do in planes.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 You don’t put the latitude in on the motor…the motor is just to keep the gyro spinning, that’s all, that’s its only function. You adjust for latitude to correct latitude error (also known as damping error), caused by a change in gravitational torque…that occurs because the apparatus stays rigid, but centre of gravity does not. The trouble is that gravity doesn’t care, the gyro stays rigid, but the angle of the gyro relative to the surface changes, and gravity vectors change, so the gyros centre of gravity changes…which then applies a different torque on the gyro. This is a problem for this device, because it only works if the torque is set just right, to cause it to precess in sync with Earth’s rotation, any faster or slower, and it falls out of alignment. A change in torque, changes its rate of precession, so you have to counter the gravitational torque applied at different latitudes. That can be done in many ways, one way is with counter weights. This is set manually once you know your latitude.
For the last time…if Earth wasn’t rotating, then this device would not work as designed. And if Earth wasn’t curved, it wouldn’t really work either. Just think of it this way, the gyro is aligned to true North, pointing towards it. But if you’re on a flat surface (using the AE projection map here), if you were to travel from say Argentina, to Australia, staying on the same latitude, and the gyro remains rigid, when you arrive on the other side, it’s now pointing in a completely different direction from North. Just think about it…if it’s at 45 degrees pointing North in Argentina, in Australia it’s still 45 degrees, but it stayed rigid and you’re now on the opposite side, so it’s not pointing North anymore, it’s now pointing South. On a globe, this device works, cause it remains rigid, so traveling on the z axis (depth) doesn’t effect it, it’s still pointing North. And since gyros precess over time naturally, it makes it possible to sync with Earth rotation, keeping it pointed North. It would still precess on your model, sure, but now you’d have to set precession rate to match your rate of travel…which would be impossible, because a ship can’t maintain a perfectly constant velocity. Earth rotates a steady 15 degrees per hour, much easier to set a rate of precession to a constant motion that never changes.
So I was wrong about one thing, I said before it would be easier to make a gyrocompass on a flat Earth…but I hadn’t thought that through well enough, it actually wouldn’t work at all on a flat Earth, the device actually only works on a spherical geometry. There would be absolutely no point to create one of these on a flat Earth, it would never work…so a magnetic compass would be all you could use. These are not magnetic compasses, gyros ignore magnetic influence, so they’d be pretty useless as a magnetic compasses. On top of that, these are designed to point to true North…magnetic North is not located at true North. So if you’re gonna argue with me that magnets influence these compasses…if that were true, then these compasses wouldn’t point to true North, they’d just find magnetic North. And at that point, why bother going to all the hassle? 🤷♂️ A regular compass already does that…with far less engineering involved. So again…just the fact this device exists, proves both rotation AND Earth’s spherical geometry.
Thanks for keeping at it I suppose, I learned a lot more about these devices than I had prior. Learn something new everyday.
So, have you actually tried spinning up a gyro for hours at a time? Give it a try sometime, I assure you…it will drift, it will not stay in the same position. I’m sure you could find a time lapse if you searched for it, so go ahead if you don’t believe me. You know Foucault didn’t just prove Earths rotation with pendulums, he also did it with mechanical gyroscopes. They can be used to detect Earth rotation as well…so do some research on that. There are mechanical gyroscope experiments you could recreate, that also verify Earth rotation. Look them up sometime.
Mechanical gyros precess over time…go ahead and fire one up for a few hours.
Aether has never been detected…if you think it has, then show me the experiment. The author of such an experiment would be world famous, cause the physics community has been trying to find it for centuries, and have failed on every attempt.
So until you or someone can verify the Aether exists, you can’t use it in argument. To do so is being intentionally ignorant and biased. It’s as simple as that.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 And I’ve seen them spin for hours and eventually drift…you can look up countless videos of gyro precession online, as well as the many experiments that show rotational drift, from mechanical to ring laser gyros, they both can be used to detect Earth rotation. I’d be willing to bet, your video is demonstrating a precession in sync with Earth rotation, making a crude North aligning gyrocompass…similar to the experiments that led Foucault to begin designing the gyrocompass. But I certainly won’t assume that without confirmation, but claims made without evidence can be discarded without evidence, so that’s where we’re at on your points. You claim to have video, yet you’ve not shared any sources…so not much I can verify. Look up the original gyroscope experiments by Foucault…they’re repeated pretty often, tons of demonstrations online.
Earth is proven to be in a rotation, the evidence is staggering for that conclusion…while Flat Earth just has denial. You’ve not demonstrated your claims, so I’m not about to agree with any of them.
It’s beyond experimentation at this point, it’s applied science, the gyrocompass is proof of that. I tried my best to help you understand how this device single handedly verifies Earth rotation, but I can only do so much…can’t help the willfully ignorant. Believe you’re on a flat Earth if you like…but you’re only fooling yourself. The rest of us will stick with the model that actually works and that is actually applied in the real world, the globe.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Thanks, I’ll check it out sometime. Are you going to search the many recreations of the Foucault gyroscope experiment? Type it into YouTube sometime, you’ll find lots of recreations. So why is it that so many can repeat an experiment and get the same results? That is the crux of experimentation after all, it has to repeatable…both the Foucault pendulum experiment and the gyroscope experiment are repeated constantly. Are the (possibly) millions of repeated experiments all wrong…or are you? I trust the experiment and what it reveals…that’s evidence. I’ve seen enough to conclude it’s you who is wrong here.
“If the earth is a globe and it’s the real world, there wouldn’t be flat earth documents, which is odd in and of itself”
I assume you’re referring too the linear flight dynamics models. They are just math simulation models…so they’re not stating the Earth is flat, they’re just laying out the base variables for the simulation…it’s a math simplification. These papers are not to be taken literally. Mathematical models range from accurate physical representations of reality (ex. orbital mechanics), to pure abstract hypotheticals (ex. warp drives)…these flight dynamics documents lie somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, as they’re simulating aspects of reality while simplifying the rest by omitting variables that don’t effect what they’re used for. When you simplify variables, you have to state very clearly what variables are being omitted. All Mathematical models though, are never a complete representation of reality, so they should never be taken as such. There’s always missing variables somewhere.
So what we have here is an example of extreme cherry picking. Layman with very little mathematical knowledge/literacy, misinterpreting something they don’t fully understand.
Here’s a thought, if you think I’m lying, each one of those mathematical models has an author. It wouldn’t be all too difficult to track them down and ask them directly. So why hasn’t any Flat Earther ever thought to do that? Or even just track down an actual mathematician and ask them about these documents…but I’ve never seen Flat Earthers do even that much. You prefer to just jump to conclusions.
“You wouldn’t get someone like Einstein saying we can’t detect earth motion cause it’s relative”
That’s grossly over simplifying and misinterpreting what he actually said. He said (at the time) he felt no optical experiment could detect Earth’s motion, he was referring to the interferometers they were using in experiments. He was of course proven wrong on that later, after the Sagnac effect was used to accurately measure and detect Earth rotation in the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, just a few years after that speech. Even Einstein can be wrong, he was not infallible, nobody is.
“And we wouldn’t measure water to be planar”
Why wouldn’t we? Earth is massive, so locally, you’re only ever experiencing fractions of a degree of its curvature. So that’s going to appear almost perfectly flat from your perspective. So ya…we would. But you know there is a whole field of work in surveying known as geodetic surveying. The whole purpose of this type of surveying is to measure Earth curvature, for geographic purposes and long construction jobs. For example, look up the LIGO research facilities sometime, check out their Caltec website. In the about section, under facts, here’s the direct quote at the bottom of the page; “Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature.” A geodetic surveyor would have been necessary in this construction.
If Earth was not spherical, there wouldn’t be geodetic surveying, it wouldn’t be required at all.
I’ve loosely been paying attention to your conversation with FlookD, he’s already going into great detail on your refraction arguments, so I won’t bother.
“The high ups that know the earth is flat out their data into transform equations, and derive things from reverse engineering of the Biblical model.”
Whatever you gotta tell yourself, but it’s just empty paranoid speculations to me…meanwhile, anyone can get outside and test the Earth themselves, no shadowy elite can keep you from observing a sunset, or measure its shadow angles around the world. You can travel South, and observe the second celestial rotation of stars, a geometry that fits the globe perfectly, while flat Earth still has no explanation. You can test navigation at any time as well, at any time you can go out and measure the 1 degree drop of Polaris to horizon, every 69 miles travelled South…also a geometry we’d expect on a globe, that does not fit a flat Earth.
So you can waffle on about your shadowy elites hiding biblical cosmology all you like…doesn’t change the evidence. Evidence that anyone can acquire, with just a little effort.
Sorry, but you’re not doing anything against the actual evidence. So you’re quite frankly living a lie.
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Show me those underground tests then, from my research, the effect is actually difficult to recreate, most don’t detect it at all. So you’re claims are a bit of a contradiction to what I’ve researched on the anomaly. Point is, we don’t just toss out hundreds of years of science, because of one anomaly, especially one that’s rare. You’re doing it, because it supports your bias. Aether has never been proven to exist, and neither has the anomaly been proven to be caused by Aether. So your conclusion is extremely biased…you don’t seem to understand how science works, if you form conclusions from unverified science, then YOU are not an honest researcher, you are forming conclusions from bias alone.
The Foucault gyroscope experiment is the same every time it’s conducted…the gyro moves. You need to look it up, there’s plenty of examples you can find right here on YouTube. So I don’t really care about your claims that gyros show no precession…I’ve seen the experiments, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s just more denial and ignorance.
You’re not getting it…every mathematical model ever written, has simplified variables. Because there’s always something we don’t know about, and we don’t recreate all of reality in single models, so variables are always omitted. These are simulation models though, so they are not accurate representations of reality, so they state very clearly what variables are not included in these simulations. Yes…there is a need to simplify math, mathematicians would very much prefer easier equations…the easier the formulas are to use, the more people can use them, the faster they can be applied, this increases productivity greatly. You’re very confused here, that’s the bottom line. Why would mathematicians continue to use difficult equations, if they didn’t have too? 🤷♂️ If there’s a simpler way to derive an equation, that can then be used by more people, thus increasing productivity, then why wouldn’t they continue to look for ways of simplifying math? 🧐
Did you pay attention at all to the other variables that were simplified? A perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass is not possible in our reality….so that’s your first clue telling you these are not to be taken literally, they are assumed variables. You really need to stop ignoring things simply to stick to your bias.
We see curvature everywhere, from the Lake Pontchartrain observations, to the plethora of mountains seen with thousands of feet missing at their base, to ships dipping into horizon base first, to the Rainy Lake recreations of Bedford Level experiments, curvature is observed everywhere.
“Geodesics use GPS and WGS84 and these things that are owned by gov and military, which have access to flat data, and can manipulate it.”
Empty claims, and paranoid speculations, that’s all these are. Doesn’t mean anything to me, and they do not count as argument. The government can’t change the surface geometry, you can test the 1 degree of stars to horizon every 69 miles for yourself, at anytime. That geometry is not possible on a flat Earth, it’s as simple as that.
Rainy Lake is a clear demonstration of refraction causing distant objects to rise up as refraction index increases. So all it’s intended to do is prove that refraction is real and can not be ignored in calculating long distance observations. You’re having a hard time separating the purpose of each observation, the time lapse of refraction wasn’t to demonstrate curvature, it’s just focusing on refraction…proving that it does cause the horizon and things behind it to rise up. Which means it’s a variable that matters in long distance observations, so it has to be included in each observation. Flat Earthers often claim we see to far, often they’re just using the wrong math, or they’ve used the wrong distances and observation heights, but often times refraction index is ignored as well. It all points to a group of extremely biased observers, who are not being entirely honest.
“All those poles are straight and level on the water…”
No…if you actually looked up the set up for the Rainy Lake observation, you’d know they set those poles up with several controls. The bottom markers were placed level, but the top ones were actually raised up more and more down the line, to match rate of curvature…to demonstrate that if Earth is curving, then the top markers would be more aligned, while the bottom would not. As observed, that’s exactly what we see. Until refraction index increases causing a rise in all markers. You can find the in-depth report on Rainy Lake if you search it, it is a VERY thorough observation of Earth curvature. So look it up sometime.
No, NASA does not use the Saros cycle. That cycle can only give us a day of occurrence…but it can not tell us the path of shadows totality or the exact moment it occurs, down to the second and square mile. NASA uses the globe and heliocentric mathematical models, to accurately predict eclipses, decades in advance, with extreme accuracy. There’s several great lectures on YouTube describing how anyone can mathematically predict the next eclipse using just a few measurements they obtain from the Sun, and strictly using the heliocentric model. Figuring out path of totality and exact second of occurrence, is a bit harder, and it requires you do more, using the globe geometry, you can find lectures on that more advanced mathematics as well. There’s a great website called ‘EclipseWise’ that goes over tons of information on predicting eclipses. They state clearly that all predictions on their site are calculated, here’s a quote from their site; “The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE406 solar system ephemeris”. Which uses Earth’s latitude and longitudes designed for geodesy, an Earth with two hemispheres of equal distances, and the heliocentric models elliptical orbits and distances, to calculate and predict eclipses.
They also explain the Saros cycle, explaining how it’s not as accurate as actually doing the math. The eclipses drift after every cycle, so the eclipses occur at slightly different times and drastically different locations.
Further more, it’s just a deflection really…flat Earth has no working model that can even explain an eclipse…let alone predict it mathematically. It’s not a coincidence that the heliocentric model can be used to mathematically predict these occurrences, and both lunar and solar eclipses make perfect sense with the model. Flat Earth has no explanation for how a lunar eclipse can even occur…but you’re happy to ignore that. So I’ll go with the model that works and has predictive powers. Your arguments are quite flimsy and intentionally ignorant.
1
-
@andrewthomas4636 The scientist also realizes that it would take a lot more than a simple conversation to prove to him the Earth is a sphere. The Flat Earther didn't provide evidence, he made a lot of conjectures that pose as evidence...empty claims that when spit out in rapid fire will impress an audience and make him appear smarter and more researched, but if they actually took the time to tackle each claim one at a time, slowly, providing actual evidence for each point made, you'd find out pretty quickly who is bullshitting. Real evidence is hefty and requires a lot of work to compile, analyse and present. You can't prove the Earth is a sphere in a single quick sit down, especially with no data, recorded observations, or experiments to share...and this guy wouldn't listen anyway. The scientist is trying to avoid speculating, taking his time and pondering what's being said...while the Flat Earther has no problem with speculating endlessly.
"Just following general consensus is not a good idea"
I feel this is a big misunderstanding of most people today...scientists do not just follow general consensus blindly and without question, they are trained and encouraged to challenge everything they come across. Do you really think Einstein got famous for going with the general consensus of his time? Hell no! He's famous because he challenged the work of Newton, who was (and still is) one of the top dogs of science...the difference between him and a Flat Earther, was that he was successful in proving his hypothesis correct, starting with the Eddington experiment of 1919 that shot him to fame, which successfully falsified and improved upon a lot of Newtons work. He didn't stop there either, pretty much all of his body of work was challenging the consensus of the time...and he was found to be correct in most cases. All attempts to falsify his work today, have only helped verify it further.
Point is, people seem to think all scientists are just mindless drones following the herd...and it's sad that people think this, because that's not accurate at all. Scientists make their entire careers on challenging consensus, they are very much encouraged to do their own research and reach their own conclusions. Heck they can't even graduate without first doing a thesis paper, which requires they add to the current body of science, by conducting their own extensive research on something original, or by challenging prior knowledge and improving upon them, filling the cracks. History favors the bold, sure a lot of scientists will conform to consensus, but these scientists rarely find as much success.
1
-
@andrewthomas4636 Doesn't take much courage, when you truly believe you're never wrong. Trust me, these people LOVE the attention, this is not hard for them, they crave it. I've been chatting with Flat Earthers for a little over 3 years now...they honestly believe they're the smartest people on the planet, while meanwhile having never invented, innovated, engineered, discovered or navigated anything. It's incredible.
I do agree with you a little, that genius is not defined by a piece of paper and nobody should feel discouraged for questioning what they're told. Absolutely agree with you there, but in my experience Flat Earthers are not in this to find objective truths...they're in it cause it helps them feel superior, and because following bias over reason is just way easier. Why learn all that hard to understand science and math (that is proven to be accurate by the fact we use it all in the applied sciences that build the modern world), when they can just make up their own science and live in a fantasy world where they are the authority on what is true.
All they're doing is currently demonstrating why it was so important to include a system of consensus and peer review to the scientific method...because most people are not rational when you really get down to it, and some are just beyond reasoning with...and sadly, those people tend to also be the loudest.
1
-
@andrewthomas4636 Oh, I don't think you're stupid for giving an opinion, far from it actually. Also, I don't really think Flat Earthers are stupid either (many of them anyway). That's what is so frustrating, a lot of them are actually quite intelligent...they're just so damn stubborn, self absorbed and paranoid, they won't open up to the possibility that they could be wrong. They are so over confident it blinds them from ever considering their own errors. What's worse is they always claim they're more open minded than everyone else...yet their minds shut off pretty quickly the moment you try to question their positions. Which is actually pretty normal, wouldn't you agree, we're kind of wired that way. Nobody enjoys being wrong, so people tend to ignore opposition and double down on there ideas when they're being challenged, rather than open up. I think it's a natural response from the brain, to avoid potential trauma, pretty sure that's even proven in psychology.
But anyway, I try to respect their opinions, my patience has worn down a bit, but I always try and let them know that it's perfectly fine to question things, so same to you, don't let me or anyone discourage you from having an opinion. I don't claim to know everything and you're right, the current systems of science and peer review are not perfect, so there is room for improvement. Best not to stay silent on it, that's how things never change. I will give Flat Earthers this much, I actually do admire that SOMEBODY is out there questioning the science that the rest of us have moved on from, that's great...cause they might actually find something if they keep digging. We have kind of hit a wall in our current understanding, and it's been that way for roughly the last 100 years. It's very possible, that we could have overlooked something, so it's great that some people are out there looking. In that regard, I respect what they're doing...I just wish they'd stop being so paranoid and stubborn.
Anyway, thanks for the chat. Lots of great points to ponder.
1
-
It’s a common persuasion tactic, to start an argument with plausible deniability, a cop out just in case your argument backfires, or falls short. It’s a trick to open you up to their argument, confuse your better reasoning into thinking your first impression wasn’t accurate. Most people can detect the true intent, and it’s just annoying. Eddie is clearly making shit up as he goes, under the safety blanket of plausible deniability, while at the same time pretending he’s an expert. It’s a flex, he’s doing it to assert dominance…and Joe realizes that, it’s obvious. It’s just annoying, Eddie is just seeding doubt, he’s pretending like questions are equal to evidence…and Joe knows the difference, as do most people, so he’s not having it. It’s annoying to listen to people pretend they’re smarter than you, just cause they’re more knowledgeable in made up bullshit. Good for you…it’s still bullshit no matter how you slice it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maladvojka8376 I believe there’s some historical truths in the Bible, some names and events I’m sure are accurate (at least to some degree). I believe some of the moral teachings are useful, I believe religion gives people community which is very important for any individual, to have that pillar of strength beneath them. But everything having to do with heaven, hell, god, all the magical stuff…completely fabricated, just like every other religion before and after. Superstitious BS humans have been making up time and again, to help us cope with our fleeting mortality. So you’d be right, it’s mostly just nonsense to me. We do not know where we came from or what comes after…we’re only fooling ourselves into thinking we do.
Difference between the Bible, and most of what I’ve mentioned here; what I’ve mentioned is repeatable science, that works when applied, and that anyone can verify themselves, whenever they’d like. Much of it is applied science today, navigation is simply not possible until you have accurate information on the surface you’re navigating…and that knowledge had to start somewhere.
I can only speculate on the timeframe and the people involved, little harder to verify the legitimacy of names and dates…but I’m inclined to agree it’s accurate, because we don’t just start with the knowledge, it has too be acquired first, by someone, somewhere, at some time. We build upon knowledge, it’s a long process. I have no reason to believe these names and timeframes aren’t accurate…because historical evidence does exist for each. Either way though, the knowledge itself is sound, so it hardly matters.
Here are the facts; NASA had basically nothing to do with discovering or developing the heliocentric model…and the very large majority of scholars and academics agree that the Earth is spherical. Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or a Bible), this is pretty common knowledge.
1
-
1
-
You have the right idea, the simpler way to put it is that a level balances to centre of gravity, shifting with its vectors.
The slightly more complicated way to break it down, is that gravity creates a field of force around a centre which is at equipotential all around it, so it’s direction of influence shifts, depending on where you are relative to that centre, we call these gravity vectors. You’re always in a gravity vector, and it always shifts with your movement, always pointing towards centre. A level is affected by gravity in the form of buoyancy, which is the opposing force created by gravity, so always in the same vectors as gravity for that reason, just in the opposite direction of travel. So the level balances to centre of gravity, shifting with its vectors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
We measure and observe Earth to be spherical, and every successful navigation verifies those measurements as accurate every single day. Navigation simply would not work, if we were wrong about the Earth’s scale and shape…that’s a fact, not an opinion. We also observe a falling motion towards surface, that attracts all matter with mass, proven in many various drop test experiments…and you experience it every single day too, so don’t be dumb. This falling motion occurs everywhere, no matter where we are, we’re attracted to the surface. So it’s pretty simple deduction at that point, Earth is measured spherical, and everything is observed to be attracted to surface, so there’s a force present attracting us to the surface of the globe.
We’re not flung off by the rotation, because it’s really not a very fast rotation. Centrifugal force output is increased by rate of rotation…that’s how it works. Linear velocities, like miles per hour, have almost nothing to do with rotations…you should instead use rotational velocities in relation to forces created by rotations, a rotational measure like revolutions per minute (RPM’s). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation every 24 hours, that’s roughly 0.000694 RPM’s. For comparison, a gravitron ride at your local fair that generates enough centrifugal force to cling you to a wall, rotates at about 24 RPM’s. That’s a huge difference.
Gravity on Earth easily trumps the centrifugal force generated by a rotating surface of 0.000694 RPM’s. You’re focusing on the wrong numbers…and you’re doing that because you clearly don’t understand much about any of the actual physics.
Evidence for Earths rotation is found in many different experiments and observations. There’s the Foucault pendulum experiment, the North aligning gyro experiments, ring laser interferometers we use to measure Earth’s rotational drift (15 degrees per hour), etc. Then there’s observations of Coriolis effect and the lesser known Eotvos effect we experience everywhere. Then there’s the scores of astronomy data that all fits with the model of a rotating globe Earth…and I’m talking every single measurement fits that geometry. Then there’s applied sciences like the gyro compass, which actually uses the Earth’s rotation to function…if the Earth was not rotating, then this device would not work as it’s designed.
So take your pick really…the evidence for rotation is staggering. You only think there’s no evidence, because you haven’t actually tried to look…so your arguing from ignorance. That’s what Flat Earth expects from you though, never actually look at the evidence, just remain ignorant and pretend your not knowing something is an argument.
You need to wake up, and stop allowing these Flat Earth huxters to con you. Do better research, I hope the information provided is helpful to get you started.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also, no, they never said ALL images are composites. ONE GUY who works in the composite department at NASA, was telling an interviewer what HE DOES at HIS JOB. He took thousands of images of Earth from low Earth orbit and stitched them together, to form composites. The only way you can do this, is with a photo editing program of some kind...hence why he said "it is photoshopped, but it has to be". This is probably the worst offender of cherry picking and taking words out of context to support a bias.
Do you really think that is honest research? Like really? Stuff like this was my first red flag that Flat Earth was conning people and lying to them, to support their bias.
No, they don't just take photos of Earth from low Earth orbit. Here are several photos taken during the various Apollo moon missions, done back in 60's and 70's. There are tons of archives like this, documenting thousands of photos. They're not hard to find.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657289512883
Then there are the hundreds of satellites that have been put in GEO orbit, that have and are currently taking photos. The Himawari satellites, the GOES 15-17 satellites, DISCOVR as I already mentioned. Then back in the 90's there was even a live feed of Earth on satellite tv. It's down now, but it had its own channel back in the 90's and I'm sure you could find that footage if you looked for it. Here's a neat trick you can actually do with these weather satellites, that can help you confirm for yourself that they're up there, that doesn't require you build your own radio telescope, just requires you look outside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYssZQ3D2Q
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Been researching it for 3 years, and I'm more of a Globe Earther now then I ever was before, because now I know the science and the history of how we reached that conclusion, far better then I ever did before. I now also know exactly where Flat Earth goes wrong...you are under educated people, falling into the pitfalls of confirmation bias, by scammers who are exploiting your lack of knowledge, experience and understanding, using your growing lack of trust in authority against you, to sell you bullshit. Most of us come to this conclusion upon researching it, so no, we're not likely to be "flat smacked" ever...because it is not reality, it is a scam, nothing more.
Though with a name like "woke flat earth man", my guess is you are not really a Flat Earther either, you're one of the poes...because no serious Flat Earther would ever use a user name like that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You sure don't seem to have any problem with making empty claims with no backing, so why should anyone bother with answering your questions, if you're not going to follow your own standards of science in your own conclusions? You claim in a comment above that clouds disappear at horizon due to perspective alone. Ok, so prove it. What measurements and observations have you taken/done to verify this hypothesis of yours? They would do the same on a sphere, so what evidence do you have that verifies your conclusion and at the same time falsify's the Globe conclusion? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, of course science should be able to demonstrate how it reached its conclusions...but you seem to think they haven't. They have, Flat Earth just isn't listening...that's been my experience so far anyway.
It's pretty easy to make empty claims isn't it, it's easy to say the clouds are doing this and doing that and then saying "it's all due to perspective"...but then shouldn't you also prove that as well? Why do you think you're somehow free from the same standards you place on science? You made a bold claim above...so shouldn't you then have to prove that claim as well?
It's easy to make claims like this about the clouds, they're much closer, and they're all different shapes and sizes, easy peasy to just conclude it's due to perspective that they sink into horizon (even though the Globe at our size would do the exact same thing)...but it's a little harder once you start observing something a bit more rigid, like the Sun for example. I mean, the Sun sets and rises each day as well, so obviously if you're going to go with Flat Earth as your model, then you'd have to conclude it's perspective causing this as well, correct? But it is much higher (even by Flat Earth standards) and when we observe it closer, it does not shrink or grow in size throughout a day...but wait, shouldn't the Sun be conforming to a few of the rules of perspective as well? Such as shrinking in angular size the further away it gets? It's a pretty basic rule of thumb in perspective, things shrink in angular size the further they get from you...it's what causes the vanishing point in the first place. The Sun sets...yet it is never observed to shrink in angular size (when viewed on a clear day with filters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtQiwbFD_Cc), nor does is speed up or slow down the closer or further it gets, another thing it should be doing...if you're going to use perspective as your argument for why it rises and sets. Just a small sample of the many things we'd expect to happen, on a Flat Earth with a Sun that sets due to perspective...things that do not happen in the real world, when we go out and actually measure and observe them.
So please, do tell us why and how you've reached this conclusion of yours. Seems only fair that if you're going to demand so much from the mainstream science, that we turn that lens around and ask the same from you people. I mean...you have all the answers right? So go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dawnmaze7129 It’s all peer reviewed…you’re ignorant if you think it’s not. :/ You’ve been reading too many bullshit memes feeding you false information…and for some reason you believed that information without question…so how exactly are you different? At least those getting vaxxed chose information that has a system of peer review in place…while you chose to trust random joe down the road, who has ZERO scientific or medical experience, with NO system of checks and balances to keep them from making shit up.
Here’s what I know, I’m vaxxed, most of my friends and family are as well, nobody has been seriously sick yet, nobody has died, nobody has complications. Can’t say the same for the crazy people I know, who watched a few bullshit documentaries, and now felt they are qualified doctors and virologists…a lot of them got sick, some still are. A big name of Flat Earth, Rob Skiba, even died from Covid last year…because he refused to get vaxxed. I don’t like laughing at stuff like that, it’s horrible…but the irony isn’t lost on me. I’m just saying, did you reach your conclusions from peer reviewed sources, or did you see a few random memes, or watch a documentary, and never questioned any of it? 🧐 If it’s the latter…are you seriously gonna argue it’s the rest of us believing whatever we hear? You really don’t think those antivax memes, articles, and docs don’t have an agenda? 🧐 Make no mistake, YOU got your information on vaccines from someone else too…so don’t pretend like you didn’t, it was just different information.
I’ll agree with one thing, it’s wrong to force people to take a vaccine, if they don’t want it and don’t trust it, I completely agree, it should be an individual’s choice…just like it was my choice to get vaxxed, but the information you’ve been getting I feel is mostly cooked up by the quacks of the world, exploiting your lack of medical knowledge and experience, to wedge bullshit right into your fears, that were more than likely created by watching too many movies. :/ It’s fine to ask questions and keep science honest and in check…but do you really have the facts, or are you just another victim of meme education? 🧐
“Your argument falls short of you producing proof without relying on others work”
Go ahead and show me your first hand research…without citing it from someone else. 😳 Good luck with that…so kettle, meet pot. It’s still just another argument from ignorance…which means essentially nothing. At least I can repeat the experiments that verify Earth is spherical, and I have in many instances, as an amateur astronomer most my life and an avid traveller, I’ve made many observations now, from locations around the world, that have helped me too conclude Earth is in fact spherical. And YOU can do the same, whenever you’re up too it…ignorance is no excuse. :/
At some point, you have to put your trust in another person’s expertise…there is no getting around that. You didn’t collect any data on vaccines I’m sure, but you were happy to agree with the sources you think did. Don’t pretend like you didn’t, because I see you guys posting shit on my social media all the time, believing every word without question…then when I dig a little deeper, I find it’s always just cherry picked information, that completely twisted and misunderstood the actual facts. :/
1
-
@dawnmaze7129 You started your comments here, by mocking the opinions of others and made many assumptions of your own, with a fabrication of those opinions…and now you’re surprised when people take the piss out of you for it? You’re no saint miss, your comments have all been intended to assert some sort of dominant opinion…we’re just pointing out how ignorant some of it really is. Don’t get mad at us for responding in kind to bullshit….welcome to the internet.
If your point was just to say that doctors and scientists make mistakes and aren’t perfect, then great, you’re right, but at least they have a system in place that keeps them in check…can’t say the same for every memer on Facebook spewing out bullshit every second of every day. You currently think vaccines are not peer reviewed…..did you bother to share a source for that claim? Nope, it’s just true according to you and I’m expected to believe it on your word alone. Do you see the problem here? It’s fine to question things…but oh boy is confirmation bias and misinformation running rampant today and I’m so very tired of it.
You say you’re not a flat Earther, but you sure do make a lot of their arguments. They argue against gravity as well…in the same way you just did, so what am I supposed to think? It’s the same ignorance, thinking that because it’s a theory, it therefore means it’s not true. It’s also a law of science, were you aware of that? Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, look it up if you’re not familiar with it currently. Flat Earthers also don’t know the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory…as you just demonstrated, you also don’t appear to know the difference. A scientific theory is very different from a theory in layman vernacular. So if you’re not a flat Earther currently, you do appear to be on the way there. It’s the bottom of the current conspiracy rabbit hole.
Anyway, I will apologize if you’re feeling attacked for simply stating your opinion, but I’m really not all that sorry for pointing out some ignorance on your part. We’re all ignorant in our own ways, so it doesn’t have to be a bad thing, I hope despite our disagreements there’s some nuggets of learning we can both take away from the exchange. I get that the last few years have been difficult, and we’re all just trying to do our best, but there’s a growing paranoia spreading, that’s targeting the scientific community, that’s largely perpetuated by extremely biased layman, with zero scientific or medical backgrounds…and it’s getting a bit ridiculous I feel. I just think we all could do a bit better, in our research…something needs to be done about misinformation, I do feel it’s getting out of hand. Things like Flat Earth are a warning sign, of the current mental health of society as a whole.
1
-
Guess you haven’t been speaking English long, but words have many different definitions depending on the context. In the context of geometry, topography, and gravity, level can be defined as “a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force: EQUIPOTENTIAL”. You can find that definition here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level Entry 3 Adjectives, definition 5. Definition 1a under adjectives should interest you as well.
Your trouble is that you’re misunderstanding something and then being to stubborn to re-evaluate what you think you know. Earth is an equipotential surface, level in this context is maintaining equal distance from a center...a bubble is an equipotential surface, so is a bowling ball, or a water drop, all of these things have a level surface in terms of equipotential distance from centre. Getting it yet? Level does not always mean flat...learn the proper context.
Tons of curvature, you’re just being ignorant and bias.
https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
Do you speak Hewbrew? My guess is no, so how would you know for certain? Following this Quora link https://www.quora.com/Does-NASA-in-Hebrew-actually-mean-deceive you get a lot of differing answers, but scrolling down and reading from the people who actually read and speak Hebrew, they all say there is no word matching Nasa. And the word that’s kinda spelt that way, is pronounced way differently according to one fellow there, But even if Nasa did mean to deceive in hebrew, so what? Ever heard of a coincidence? Do you think all the tangible evidence for a globe just disappears because of a group’s shared paranoia? Of course not. Evidence is what matters, not paranoid pattern seeking.
Red Hot Chili Peppers are rock stars....not scientists. I’ll get my information and facts from actual experts thank you very much.
1
-
1
-
@willjhon7986 Lol, you really think money would change anything? When I was just out of high school, I lived with 2 older friends, they’d fuck with anything they could get mild amusement out of. We mailed orange peels to the city along with our bill cheques, we’d hassle the neighbours by just staring at them out the window and laughing as they tried to do yard work, we’d prank call our own employers night after night, just for some mild amusement. You handed me and those guys a statistic form at that time, along with some money...I can guarantee you, we’d have gone to town on that sucker, lying about every stupid question asked. The money wouldn’t change anything...heck it would have made it funnier to us.
So yes...fondly remembering what it was like to be young, finding small amusements wherever I could, especially fucking with anything that older people took seriously, I would say a good portion of those stats are lies, just from knowing the demographic. Today, I’m more mature, I don’t find as much amusement in the little things like I used too, I take things a bit more seriously. Maturity comes with age...I’m sure that’s pretty common knowledge.
Young adults don’t care about stats...but you’d be surprised how many people in general find amusement in stuff like that. So don’t be naive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silverbackgrizzly2402 Oh believe me, we are, and you're right, it should stop them dead in their tracks...but it doesn't, doesn't even make a dent. It's incredible how much evidence they will ignore to save face. This isn't the only piece of irrefutable evidence they ignore, they are masters of dodging what they don't wanna hear. It's not about what is true with them, it's about being right, just so they can finally claim they're superior to everybody else. It has more to do with psychology and their own insecurities, then it does about facts, their subconscious has decided that it's just easier to invent reality then it is to study it objectively. Easier to lie to yourself and save yourself the trauma of being wrong...we all kind of do that to some degree, Flat Earthers just do it with a lot less restraint.
So there really is no argument for a person who isn't listening. It's actually kind of scary really, how so many people can actually filter information like that without even realizing it...really shines a light on the true dangers of confirmation bias, and why scientists were wise to add peer review to the scientific method.
It's not all bad though, they are very much a minority still and thankfully not everybody is that prone to chase bias down rabbit holes of misinformation. You're proof of that, you figured it out pretty quickly and without much effort I imagine, I'm sure if you kept going you'd continue to spot their errors. I think most people are quick like that, it just seems like they aren't, because crazy unfortunately gets blasted through the megaphone online...the sane people get lost in the noise, even though they're the majority.
Anyway, if there's anything else you'd like help with here, I've been looking at this mess a very long time now and probably know this argument better then any Flat Earther at this point. So feel free to ask, I might be able to share more info, that Flat Earth likes to avoid, that you might find helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
False, there is lots of observed and measured curvature. Here is a short sample.
First a simple recreation of the Eratosthenes experiment, except this is expanded to include many more data sets, from several different locations all around the world, during the Equinox. It is well understood that the original experiment performed by Eratosthenes does not proove curvature, merely measures it, but if you take more then 2 data sets, THEN it actually can be used to prove and measure curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=317s
Now here's a version of this same experiment done by a different user, this time using time and date dot com data, and plotting the data over a 3D version of the AE Flat Earth projection, to help you see with a little more clarity, that the shadow angles do not intersect and point to any local Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
These are all repeatable experiments, taking real world PHYSICAL measurements of Sun shadow angles. Each time this experiment is repeated, it verifies curvature AND a distant Sun, with parallel sunlight. I have yet to see Flat Earth recreate this experiment, which seems odd to me, it is a very simple experiment.
Here's another great experiment that helps to measure and observe curvature. A recreation of the simple Bedford Level experiment, recreated over a frozen lake surface. This time done MUCH more in depth, taking physical measurements, photos and video, as well as calculating many more predictions before hand.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
The Bedford Level experiment has been repeated many times and upon every recreation of the experiment, the conclusion is the same, the Earth is curving. The original experiment conducted by Rowbotham is now confirmed to have been an example of a sloppy experiment to confirm a bias. The Flat Earth conclusion he reached fails upon all peer review of his experiment, falsifying his conclusion and confirming that he reached his conclusion due to an experiment that was poorly done and designed to confirm his bias.
Now for an easy one that even YOU could recreate. A common claim of Flat Earth is that horizon always rises to eye level. They say this because if the Earth were Flat, then it would rise to eye level. If the Earth were a Globe, then it would actually drop from eye level as you go higher in elevation. But in all the years I've been researching this topic (3 years at this point) I have NEVER seen them actually bother to TEST or MEASURE their conclusion. Which makes their claim here...an empty claim with no backing.
So can you measure horizon drop? Of course you can, here are two ways you can do it. Two VERY simple experiments that confirm horizon drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI - a simple leveling rig you can build with basic supplies anyone can find around they're home. The video isn't long and it's pretty simple to understand, so give it a look. As you'll see in this video, as he climbs higher, the horizon begins to drop below the rigging level...which means, as he goes higher, horizon is actually dropping from eye level, which does further support Earth curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc - The other method used to measure horizon drop is with a surveyors tool known as a theodolite. It's pretty simple equipment to use, calibrate the theodolite at sea level by lining the cross hairs up with the visible horizon line. Then it can be used to help measure horizon drop as you climb higher, because it is now calibrated for eye level at sea level. As you see in this video above, he has used his theodolite while flying at several thousand feet elevation. The theodolite reading indicates that horizon has dropped, therefore further verifying Earth curvature and horizon drop.
There are more ways to confirm horizon drop...what you should learn from this though, is that Flat Earth makes empty claims like this all the time. Never once have they provided evidence for the claim that horizon always rises to eye level...yet people believe that statement blindly and without question. WHY exactly? For a group who claims to be more skeptical, claiming to never take information at face value...you sure eat up a lot of bullshit empty claims made from Flat Earth gurus online who feed you this garbage information.
So by how much should we expect to see horizon drop on an Earth at the scales we know it to be? Here's a great simulator that can help you out. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click the first yellow tab labelled "Curve" and watch the demo from there. What this simulator does is calculates the drop from eye level for you, using a to scale representation of the Globe. It's pretty handy and you can actually use this simulator to help further confirm the two videos I shared pertaining to horizon drop due to curvature.
Alright, so that's a big dump of information, I have more I can share of course...but I think you'll be ok with just these...I think you get the point...if you even bother to take a look that is. That last link also provides several more observations of curvature, so just go through the yellow tabs and watch the demos sometime, they provide EVEN MORE physical experiments and observations done to verify curvature, so feel free to check em out sometime. My favorite observation in that simulator is the Soundly observations of the Lake Pontchartrain causway bridge in New Orleans. It's a great visual demonstration of curvature, if you want to see it with VISUAL evidence, so I highly recommend you click and watch the Soundly tab in that last link above.
1
-
1
-
Funny that most of the prominent Flat Earthers here on YouTube, are actually baby boomers and Gen X'ers. I actually don't see a whole lot of millennial's making these conspiracy vids...it's mostly the older generations actually. Let's see Nathan Oakley, Del, Sleeping Warrior, Ranty and I believe Quantum eraser as well...all Gen X'ers. Bob Knodel is a baby boomer, Allegedly Dave is a baby boomer, Mark Sargent is in his 50's from what I understand or at least late 40's...in fact the only one I can think of who's maybe a Millennial would be Jeranism...but I'd clock him at mid 30's, so actually no, not really. So your comment is a bit ignorant...why do people always just assume it's millennial's? Just take some time and look at the attendance crowd of some of the Flat Earth conferences, if you don't believe me...not a whole lot of Millennial's in those crowds. That goes for a lot of these conspiracy crowds as well.
Ya know...every single older generation does this to the younger generation...this isn't new, in fact it's psychologically proven that older people tend to shoulder a lot of blame on younger people, because they think they're inferior to their generation. I think there is even a name for it in psychology...it's not new. I'm sure you were picked on too when you were younger, maybe even called the lazy generation by older people...stop repeating the cycle. These kids are fine, they're just growing up in a different time that you'll never understand. But if this generation is actually lazier, then it's the parents generation that should take some responsibility for that...they helped raise them that way.
1
-
1
-
@fareenhassan9 1. Heat from Sun doesn't travel in the same was it does here in our pressurized environment. In a pressurized environment, heat it transferred by convection. In space, it travels in the form of Solar Radiation, which basically just light energy. That solar radiation interacts with our atmosphere and heats it, creating the convection heat transfer you and I experience. Most of the solar radiation from the Sun is filtered out before it reaches you and me, but we still feel it and UV rays are still very dangerous to our skin cells.
2. It's really not that high of a pressure difference, it's 14.7 psi on the surface of Earth...for comparison, a car tire is at about 30 psi....so the pressure here isn't that great really. Space is just 0 psi, there is no negative psi, it's just 0. So it decreases gradually from 14.7 psi, to 0...and that is measured. We have sent weather balloons to space that have measured this pressure difference, and these balloons do reach near vacuum conditions...which is why they eventually pop and then come back down to surface.
Why can't we tell you it is due to gravity? Because it is...gravity attracts all the gas of our atmosphere to the surface...why is this so hard to comprehend for people? The vacuum of space is not a suction...so it's not actively trying to suck our atmosphere off. So I think that's where a lot of the confusion arises. Space is just the absence of matter...that's it, empty space, a vacuum. The definition of vacuum is "a place void of physical matter", that's all space is...which is 0 pressure. So since space has no means to suck all the air off of the surface, it will conform to the only attracting force that will attract that matter...the gravity of Earth.
3. Why can't it? When you toss a ball around inside a moving vehicle, it now has a new velocity, within that other relative velocity of the moving vehicle. So why can't the same be true for the Earth orbiting both the Sun and the galactic center? Our Moon does the same, orbiting both the Earth and the Sun and galactic center...there is really no end to how many different relative velocities an object can be moving within. I urge you try throwing a paper airplane or a ball around inside a bus, train, or plane sometime...you'll find that throwing that object back and forth is just as easy as throwing it while in a park. But now pay attention, cause in a plane you're in motion...so when you throw a ball, you've now created a NEW velocity of motion, within that relative system of motion of the plane. Food for thought.
4. Every other star is moving with us in the same direction...but aside from that as well, they're really not moving very fast in the grand scheme of things. 500,000 mph is fast...to you and me, the microscopic life forms living on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who believes a mile is a measure of significance...but to the galaxy...they might as well not even be moving. Observe every star in the sky and take note of the distance between each star....now keep in mind that in the heliocentric model, the distance between each star is TRILLIONS of miles. Moving at a mere 500,000 mph, even IF one of those stars stopped moving, it would take the other star thousands of years to close that gap...and that's only IF they were moving completely perpendicular from our direction. Like cars on a highway in front of you though...do you see them moving very fast? If they're all going in the same direction, at the same rate of travel, do they appear to shift very much at all? Not really no.
On that point though, they do actually shift...and any astronomer would tell you that. Every six months we observe a stellar parallax in stars, that is consistent with what we understand about our planets orbit. This is well documented and it's also one of the ways we use to measure the distance of many of those stars. So do some research on stellar parallax sometime, the stars are indeed changing gradually. Also look up a star known as Bernard's star, this star is a famous one that astronomers love to track, because in just a few short years of observing it, you can notice quite a lot of motion from this star. http://astronomer.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Barnard_199_-to_2007.jpg Far from the only example, the stars are moving quite a bit actually, but people who do not actually watch the stars night after night, will likely ever know this. I think it's ignorant though to assume they don't ever move...if you don't actually know that to be true for certain.
5. Here's a simple diagram that can help illustrate how this is possible. https://ibb.co/12pNG6t Just because the Sun is in the same direction of these planets, doesn't mean our spherical geometry can't make seeing these planets possible. It should also be noted that these planets are only visible around sunset and sunrise...but never at midnight (except for places very far North or South during their 24 hours of night periods). Which is consistent with the Globe model. Maybe actually take a look at the Globe model sometime, rather then assume things are impossible.
6. Distance is not the only way that heat is increased or decreased though, direct light can also focus itself to becoming hotter then light that arrives on a surface at an angle, which spreads out that energy. This is what happens at the poles of the Earth, the light at these locations never hits the surface directly, it is always at angles, spreading that energy out in a wider span, rather then focusing it, like it does at the equator. You can do the same thing by shining a strong heat lamp directly down on an area then take a temperature reading, and then do this again with the same heat lamp firing that light at an angle...your temperature reading in the second example will be less, because that energy is spreading out rather than being focused, it's the same principle.
This effect also accounts for the seasons on Earth. Summer arrives for each hemisphere in opposite times of the year, when each hemisphere is titled more towards the Sun, making the light of the Sun arrive in more focused amounts upon that surface.
7. How do you know they don't? Also, which gyroscopes are you referring too? The massive ring laser gyros buried underground that measure Earths rotations? Or just simple mechanical gyro compasses? From what I understand, our rotation never changes it's rotation velocity, so we would never detect an acceleration or deceleration in that motion. It's our orbit around the Sun that speeds up and slows down gradually at aphelion and perihelion, but not many gyros around the world are designed to register this motion. The large ring laser gyros I believe can pick up these motions, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
My question to you is, what makes you think they haven't picked up these motions? Why give such a speculation with such certainty, if you really have no idea?
1
-
1
-
@efgtest The short simple answer, it's the name we gave to the observation of things dropping. Things drop, that's a fact, scientists isolated that it was a force that was causing it, they named it gravity. In more layman's scientific terms gravity is an accelerating force caused by the bending of space time, due to an objects mass, that creates a gravity well that pulls matter to center of that well, or center of mass if you prefer. But how do we know that? That's a lot of physics that would take a long time to explain. Though I'm sure you've heard a lot of physics thrown at you by now, and probably heard those definitions of gravity before, so why do you ask?
I can go a bit deeper if you'd like, but more curious to know what you know about gravity. I do feel people in Flat Earth misunderstand gravity, how water works, forces in general and what the term level means when said in the context of geometry or gravity. So I have information I can share if you'd like some things answered, I don't mind at all. Or, if you feel I've overlooked anything, feel free to let me know, I'm all for learning new things as well.
1
-
1
-
@efgtest Mmk, I found some time to reply back. Thanks again for giving some more insight into your ideas of Gravity, it's quite informative and adds some details to the Flat Earth theory, or at least their methodology. I won't bore you with the physics, I'm sure you've heard it all before, what I'd like to address is where I think you're going wrong in your thinking. Apologies in advance, this does get long, but I hope you find the argument at least interesting.
Quote from you "Gravity= "things fall" (fact) + Story (theory)to give you a comfort answer for the "why things fall" question." Yes and no. Yes theories are not facts...but then no real scientist would disagree with you on that, they are well aware they are not facts. But no, they are not just "comfort answers", they are based around mountains of experimentation, data collection and research. Nothing graduates to the level of a Theory in science, until it has gone through every single step of the scientific method. But true, even in the end, theories are not facts, not even in a scientific theory, which is very different from the common use of the word theory, but it's still not a fact. The thing I don't get about Flat Earth however is they seem to believe scientists are not aware of that...scientists are well aware of that fact. That's exactly why they didn't call their conclusions "scientific facts", they chose their titles and wordings carefully, calling the end conclusions of all their study and research "scientific theories". Not to be confused with a Scientific Law, a Law describes WHAT is happening, it does not describe WHY and HOW the WHAT is doing what it's doing. That is what scientific theories are for...and I would just like to say, that they're far from useless.
That's the problem with Flat Earth methods of thinking as I see it. Do you like all the technology you have today? Do you know how it all got here? Here is a fact for you...dam near every single piece of technology you enjoy today, is only made possible in large part thanks to scientific theories. That is a fact...go look into almost any technology. Peel back the layers of history and discover that almost every single new innovation is only possible thanks to these theories you seem to think have no use...theories such as gravity. So what do you want us to do instead? Stop searching for answers...because you would prefer we only search for facts? Seems very limiting to me. Gravity is theory, but it's a VERY good theory and has helped us discover a lot more about our universe, which has made invention and innovation and engineering...well, let's just say that when we discovered gravity, it was like the flood gates of information opened. Then when Einstein cracked the code of General Relativity...the flood gates opened again! Because keep in mind that we have split the atom...that is a FACT...guess how we did it? That's right...scientific theories. Gravity is actually a huge one for us right now yet again, because right this very second scientists are trying to create "Nuclear Fusion" reactors...which is basically simulating the Sun, which basically boils down to us attempting to reproduce a small Sun here on the surface of the Earth, or at least the reactions that occur inside the Sun to produce Energy. This will become the cleanest and most renewable and most efficient form of energy the world has ever known...and it could single handedly solve ALL of our energy problems today.
The most interesting thing to note, we have succeeded in doing so! We have successfully created fusion and proven to the world that it exists and we've done it several times over now. Here's why that is relevant again...Nuclear Fusion was only made possible, from scientific theories...the main one being gravity. If Einsteins theories of General Relativity were incorrect, we would not have been able to discover fusion...let alone reproduce it. So we've created fusion...that's a HUGE proof that we are on the right track with gravity. Say what you want about it, that we don't know shit or that nobody does...or peel yourself away from YouTube for second and go talk to a nuclear physicist, or go visit a research lab, or take some physics classes...and prove some stuff for yourself. Anyway, so we've successfully made Fusion in a lab, but the problem is we now have to figure out how to stablize the reaction...and do it in a way that produces more energy then put in to the system MAKING the reaction happen in the first place. So it's not commercially viable right now...and who knows, it may never be...but the point here was that we have done it and we did it using what we know about gravity, atomic bonding, electromagnetic spectrum and from studying our Sun.
So that's a fact...for something that is "just a theory" or "just a comfort answer for why things fall", every bit of knowledge we've crammed into that theory sure has been useful. Fusion is just one of many things that are only possible thanks to our understanding of gravity....the point is, if we were wrong about gravity, it would not have been possible in the first place.
So technology alone is my biggest red flag...that the methods of Flat Earth are VERY limiting for human society. You guys seem to think that "facts" are the only thing that matter and that are useful for our benefit. But I feel the proof is in the pudding...science works and it brings results. Scientists know for a fact that scientific theories are not facts...that's why they didn't call them facts to begin with. Because our universe is VERY complex...determining WHAT is happening, that's easy, just requires simple observation in most cases...figuring out or isolating WHY and HOW it's happening? Damn near impossible...just because how complex our universe is and how little we actually understand. So we created the scientific method to help us out, it's not magic, it's not bullshit, it's a tool...a method of thinking anybody can use to unravel the mysteries of the universe...AND IT WORKS!! But it's a slow process, and the truth about information is this...as new information comes to light, it has the potential to change old information. That's true no matter what sort of information it is, whether it be the information we currently have about gravity...or the juicy bit of gossip you got from you Ex-girlfriends best friend. Things change as new information comes to light, so scientists left room in their theories for expansion and change, by never assuming they know everything and not calling their conclusions facts.
The thing is...you are absolutely not going to change anything about scientific inquiry...by making videos on YouTube and bitching about science in comments sections. You want to change the dominant theory or model for anything? Then you have to earn it. You have to produce the experiments, run the calculations, collect the data, compile the research and publish it all for peer review....and that debate and argue your position for years sometimes decades! That's the reality of science...and if you don't go through the proper channels...then nothing is going to change.
Science doesn't care what you believe and it's not going to just roll over because somebody disagrees with the current models and theories. Prove that they are wrong...if you can. Science doesn't even care if you do, if you can find evidence that actually proves the Earth is Flat then GREAT! It's annoying and a tad frustrating in science...having to start over, but in the end they don't really care, they get over it. Here's another fact, Einstein wasn't praised in his day...he was actually hated by many in the scientific community...because he was spitting in the face of Newtonian physics! Which was the standard model in his day! He had to fight long and hard to get his theories heard...and it took YEARS before the experiments could be done that proved him correct or at the very least plausible! So if you wanna know WHY he is so famous today...is because he CHANGED science as we knew it! So you guys shouldn't be scoffing at Einstein...he's a lot like you guys in some ways, he went against the established norm, he challenged the dominant model of reality...and he won! That is why he is the single most famous name in science today...so, why doesn't Flat Earth give it try as well? If you guys know so much more then the rest of us.
Anyway, sorry for the long rant, I hope you make it though but I understand it does get a bit redundant. The short of it is just that you're half right...but then science already knows that, so what's your point? But you're also WAY off, if you believe scientific theory is not useful. Disagree with Gravity all you like, that's fine, everyone is free to challenge the current theories and models of science, heck they WELCOME it...but just know that Flat Earth has a very long way to go if they ever hope to even come close to abolishing it as the dominant theory for why things fall. That's another fact. I know you don't really conform to any idea, choosing to just remain ignorant...that's fine too, but stop telling people our methods are useless then, if you have no horse in this race.
1
-
@efgtest So if you want, I can still go into the physics of Gravity. That last comment didn't go into much of any of it. Up to you though, I just kinda felt you were sick of people giving you science lessons...I know I would be in your position. Plus I don't really enjoy talking down to people if I can help it...that last post might have been a little condescending, but it's not my intention, I just figured it was an argument you maybe hadn't heard yet. I'm not really here to force anybody to listen to me, I just like sharing information and providing counter arguments, I'm sure you do as well, that's why we're both here isn't it...it's a bit of a hobby at this point?
I'd also like to just add from that last post. I'm not saying I don't see your position as logical, because I do. You are frustrated as well, you're tired of people telling you that these things are facts of reality, when from where your standing that's not true at all and never has been. So I do understand your position and I see how you've reached that frustration. It is a little annoying being told over and over again what is what...and unfortunately that is something people tend to do a lot of, especially scientists. From where I'm standing, I feel this is one of the main reasons people have turned to Flat Earth. Of course there are many reasons...but this frustration of yours seems to be a common one I run into.
Anyway, I do like talking physics though and I'm no slouch on the topic of gravity, so feel free to ask anytime. Maybe I could provide some information you haven't heard yet...however unlikely, but you never know and I don't mind the discussion so long as it's civil and interesting.
1
-
@efgtest Hi again, thanks for the reply, was another good response. Apologies if I tend to speak in generalized terms. Yes, I do tend to refer in "they" when talking to a Flat Earthers, I do that because I get the feeling that many FE believers share much of the same research and ideas, following the words and advice from the same sources...but that's not much different on our end I realize. The big problem I've come across in this debate...is a communication break down...I want to talk to you guys, I wanna know if there is something you have to point out to us, but these conversations tend to get heated or nasty so quickly...it makes learning anything about your positions, very hard. I'm sure you'd agree, so I hope I haven't been making all the same errors we tend to do in attempting to make our points and learn yours, but I am aware that talking in sweeping generalizations is one of those ways that communication breaks down...so I apologize for that, it's just so hard not too and hopefully I can explain why.
First thing is this, personally I don't think people of FE are stupid...in fact far from it. I've chatted with some real block heads sure, so you do have idiots (but so do we), but I've actually been quite surprised...and I mean no disrespect there, I'm sure you're more than aware how ridiculous your side of things must sound to the rest of the world, our first reaction is just to paint you all as...stupid. But in my experience, I've been surprised, cause many I've chatted with are very far from stupid, and your positions do have logic to them, it just takes effort to see things from your angle, cause what is clear is that Globers and Flat Earthers do think differently...and that's what I'm most interested in.
Anyway, yes, I think the break down occurs in a lot of ways, the "mixing" you refer too above as well. We have a hard time removing ourselves from fact and theory, that is true...but that's mostly a problem with people who are not trained scientists I would argue. Scientists actually DO train themselves to separate the two and it is worked into the scientific method to be very careful with those two distinctions, in fact it's taught in university courses...how to be more objective, to remove bias, and they train scientists how to remove variables from an experiment to distill them down so you know your experiments are not being altered by unseen variables. As best you can, even then it's nearly impossible to account for what's called unknown unknowns, the things we're not aware we don't know...an example of that about 300 years ago we weren't aware of the electromagnetic spectrum, it was an unknown unknown at the time that probably messed with a TON of our early experiments and gave us faulty results...but I digress. They also teach scientists to remove themselves from the wordings and recognize that theories can change, they are not facts, so these things are taught to scientists and they try to always remember that...it's just very difficult to overcome natural human errors, such as bias, ego, emotions, etc, even trained experts can make mistakes...and some of them never properly learn these things. Point is, scientists actively practice trying to be as objective as they can...where as the general public do not practice this, which causes them to fall into the very traps of reasoning the scientific method was developed to overcome.
My argument is for scientists and the technology they produce for us...if I have a horse in this race, it's to defend their achievements, because I feel it's a little arrogant and ungrateful to slander the work of these people...who are basically responsible for every comfort we enjoy today. I just like to remind FE of that, to not take it for granted and just to remember that scientists are not "evil beings" out to get them...they are regular people, who worked very hard to get to where they are, and they do a lot for us. I don't take that for granted, I just like to make it clear, that neither should FE. Perhaps you don't...but then you don't talk to as many Flat Earthers as I do I would bet. How many I come across that say all science is bullshit, scientists are quacks and the many that tell me higher forms of math are fake and not useful...is disturbing. I see the logic in not leaning on math for everything, but then theoretical science is just the blueprint phase of science...you wouldn't build a house without a blueprint correct? The same is true in science, we don't just build nuclear fusion reactors...without working out the science on paper first. That's the function of theoretical science...the problem I feel, is that maybe scientists shouldn't even be discussing theoretical science with the general public...but, the public is an impatient beast, they demand results and so science has to give them something. It makes a bit of a mess...especially when media puts their spin on things, when trying to dumb down the science. Media sells headlines...they don't care if the science is done yet, so sometimes (a lot of the time actually) they grossly over emphasis or over estimate the science. This is when people start calling bullshit...and if it happens enough times, they stop trusting science. It's a slippery slope and a tricky situation...so I just try my best to mend some of that lost trust....simply because, our species NEEDS scientists and I worry that people are losing faith in them...which is slowing things down even more...because these people NEED funding, it's the fuel that keeps the wheels of research turning. They're not going to get that funding, the more trust is lost in them by the general public.
So this is why I argue, not just cause it interests me...but also cause I have a horse in this race, I worry that Flat Earth is working against the whole of society in a lot of ways...convincing people that science is bogus and we should just abandon it. Maybe that's a misplaced worry, but I hope you can understand...it's a fear many share and I hope you can see our reasoning there. The question is, is Flat Earth causing a deeper rift between the general public and scientists? Or is it a symptom of a rift that was already there? How much effect is Flat Earth currently having on that rift? These are things I think about...and worry about. Flat Earth thinks they're "waking" people up...to me, they're putting people to sleep like never before, making them even MORE ignorant and afraid of science then they already were...do you see my problem? I personally feel, Flat Earth is doing more harm then good. But Flat Earth of course doesn't feel that way...they feel they're the heroes here for a lot our problems. The question is...are they actually, or are they just fucking everything up even more? This is why I speak in terms of a group...rather then speaking directly too you, at least I assume. I'm not worried about the individual, I'm worried about the group, I'm worried that the Flat Earth "movement" could potentially be setting us back. I think that's a real concern...that even people who believe in Flat Earth should consider and I hope they do.
Apologies, these rants are getting more into the philosophy then the science...maybe I'll shift gears for a bit here, cause I'm really rambling a lot now. xD Technology and scientists are my reason for arguing mostly...but it's not my reason for believing the Earth is a Globe, the science is what convinced me of that, so next comment I'll talk some science with you, cause I do have some points to make there on that as well. Thanks for the discussion so far, really good to find reasonable and civil people to chat with, I learn a lot about the Flat Earth position from these kinds of talks and I hope you learn a lot from anything I have to share as well.
1
-
@efgtest Alright, I'll try to ramble less here and focus on science now. I see you asked some questions in-between my typing my last reply. xD
Well let's see, yes, I have seen a real gyro, but I believe you're referring to the more mechanical gyros used in things like an artificial horizon indicator on an airplane. I don't pretend to know all the science that goes into a gyro, or these devices, but I do have some knowledge on the topic you might find useful or helpful.
So a common argument I run across from Flat Earth, is that because gyros maintain rigidity in open space, we should notice a tilting of the gyro as an aircraft or submarine travels along the curve of a surface...if the surface is curved. This is true, though in a mechanical gyro...they do have friction that causes them to precess or tilt slightly over time. That's why we use laser gyros now...cause they don't have this problem. Anyway, I'm not too knowledgeable on the gyros that submarines use, I understand them to be mechanical still and far beyond any other mechanical gyros technology, that's about as much as I know about submarine gyros. But I'm quite familiar with the gyros used in aircraft, more specifically the ones used in an artificial horizon.
The interesting thing about these gyro systems, is they're quite complex, they're not just built of spinning gyros. I'm curios if you've ever heard what a pendulous vane is before? If not, basically it's a hinged system on the gyro that detects when the gyro has tilted. It does this, by making use of gravity. What happens is, the gyro does maintain rigidity as the aircraft travels, but gravity vectors change. So a weighted hinge is kept on the gyro that drops when the gyro tilts too much due to it maintaining rigidity. When it drops, it allows air to rush into a compartment, which clicks on a sensor that turns on an electric motor, which slowly tilts the gyro back until the pendulous hinge clicks back into position due to gravity. Once the hinge drops back into position, it turns the motor off, which stops the tilting of the gyro.
It's a very clever system, what's interesting about it is that if the Earth were Flat...why would these gyros require this system at all? If the Earth were flat, a gyro would be all that you need...it would make the perfect indicator of level in any transportation that travels in open systems like air. However, yes, mechanical gyros precess over time, so they would still require something to adjust the gyro...but the process of precession in gyros is actually quite slow and can take several hours to make a noticeable precession, in the case of really well manufactured gyros...but these gyros in aircraft are constantly in need of these pendulous vanes and constantly adjusting. It leads me to conclude that the reason being is because the surface does in fact curve.
Now, it's a fact that artificial horizon has pendulous vanes...but it is still possible that pendulous vanes could be a clever ruse put forth by whoever or whatever is trying to deceive all of us...but is that very likely or is that true in anyway? Especially since we can actually take these gyros and do our own tests with them? Which is something a YouTuber here has done and currently is still doing. I'm not sure if you've heard of a content creator named Wolfie6020, (if you've been reseraching this topic long enough then you may have). He's a licensed commercial air pilot from Australia, who has a ton of great information on gyros and artificial horizons over on his channel. He's done several experiments with these gyros, putting the pendulous vanes to the test to see if they're actually needed, or if they're just misunderstood...or if they're just a clever ruse.
He's been pretty thorough about it actually, with many different experiments he's done with these gyros, some of his experiments being actually inspired by questions people of Flat Earth had sent him. I'll link his video where he explains the pendulous vanes a little more in depth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QGRPVBZvw
Anyway, so that's what I know about gyros as they pertain to this particular argument. If there is anything else you'd like to point out or ask, feel free to let me know. If there is anything you feel I've overlooked, feel free to point it out, I'd be interested to know.
1
-
@efgtest I figured you had heard of Wolfie, spend enough time researching this debate and you come to know all the players on both sides. I hope you don't consider me his "pack", you asked a question on mechanical gyros, he's been the most informative source I've found on those gyros thus far, just because he's doing experiments with them that directly correlate to this argument. I take in information if I feel it's good info and he's been good info so far, but I'd be interested to see the sources that dispute his work on gyros, I'm sure there are many. So if you have some links that could shed some more light on gyros, I'd be interested to see them.
Gyros are not where I personally focus my attention, I learned enough to get a grasp on the arguments, but I'm not aware of every argument in that domain and I don't know how every gyro system operates, least of all the ones used in submarines. I know the most about artificial horizons, thanks in large part to Wolfie, but I did check other sources to question if what he was telling me was true, I think it's important to cross reference rather than listen blindly.
Physics is where I hold the most ground, because physics is something I've always been interested in, long before this whole Flat Earth thing, and had I not become an artist/illustrator for a living, I would most likely have become a physicist of some kind, most likely experimental because I find I had a skill at developing experiments...being creative kind of gives you an edge in experimental science. It kills me a little...cause I wish I had more time, I've actually thought of TONS of experiments I could do pertaining to Flat Earth, most of which I haven't seen anybody try yet.
Anyway, I'm rambling again...lets focus on some more science.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, this is the reality and people have access to information now like never before, they're going to form their own opinions much quicker then they used too. I think this is a good thing personally, but I feel we have some growing pains here today...because it currently feels like it's causing more divides than ever before and that part of things makes me uneasy...because I had expected it would unify us more, not turn us against each other. One reason could be misinformation, as information is much easier to spread these days...the same is true for misinformation. There is no checks and balances on what is said on channels like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, etc...I mean, there are of course ToS and rules that can get you banned, but for the most part...anybody can make a claim and if they're sharp enough and clever enough, they can sell you on that claim without having to do much...because people generally are impatient or they simply just don't have the time to question everything.
But yes, I do agree with you on many points actually. It's fine to admit when you don't know something, that's absolutely fine...just not easy to do in most cases, cause it's something we humans hate admitting...so both sides suffer from this. I believe I actually stumbled upon a psychology paper once that explained how the brain actually goes through physical pain in the process of changing its mind...and it could be part of why we resist change so staunchly, it's a survival instinct. Though I can't remember the details exactly...so now I'm spreading misinformation I'm sure...see how easy it is?
Anyway, I want to focus on some science, cause you bring up a few points and I keep forgetting to address them.
First of all...yes, we really do not agree on the science. That is a huge problem...and it does make a lot of debates pointless it seems. Some arguments I feel are even what I call "moot arguments", which is any argument that fits or supports both models or if both have an answer for the observation...an example would be boats going over the horizon. We say curvature, Flat Earth says perspective and atmospheric conditions...who's right? Both have strong cases...I've seen some very interesting photos from both sides, but the debate here never seems to end. So I don't focus on small boats anymore, I focus on mountain ranges or long bridges, because explaining how atmospheric conditions can make a boat disappear...OK, I'll bite, but explaining how thousands of feet of a mountain can disappear...not so easily explained by atmospheric conditions.
My main argument for the curvature calculations is pretty simple, Flat Earth uses the wrong Math. They have been since the beginning and so when they use this math, they reach the wrong figures, which causes them to reach false conclusions when they use these figures to make their comparisons. Though that's a generalized argument, I do stumble onto some FE believers who are aware of the better curve calculators out there today and some actually do understand the math as well and make use of them...it still doesn't seem to sway them. Anytime I use these calculations for myself on distance images, I get results that match with a Globe. I even check the Math for myself in many cases...it's good math, it's mostly just simple trigonometry that goes WELL beyond the 8 inches per mile squared nonsense...which I hope I don't have to tell you is wrong for so many reasons...first being that it only calculates curve drop from tangent to the surface...which don't get me wrong, it does accurately (to a point, then it turns into a parabola and shoots down)...but it's only good Math if you're eye is sitting at sea level, which of course...it doesn't. 8 inches per mile squared doesn't account for line of sight, which does matter. So my argument there is that the Math is often incorrect...but like you said, we don't even agree on Math at times.
When it comes to curvature though, these two links are the best I've found for curvature. Feel free to check them out if you like, the first one is a blog that goes through several observations and explains the math of the curve calculators a lot more in depth. It also includes probably the best curve calculator I've seen yet and it's quite useful. The most interesting part of the Blog to me though, is the animation breaking down the Soundly observations. Somebody actually modeled the Lake Pontchartrain bridge to scale and then placed it on a curved Earth to scale...and then matched the 3D rendering to actual photos taken in reality. I find it interesting at the very least and I think more Flat Earthers should be aware of this blog...and perhaps you are.
ter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App
This second one is a simulation of topography data for an area and then placed on a curved and flat Earth respectively. He's focusing on some photos here taken by JTolan, the San Jacinto mountain range to be specific. The whole video is interesting, but if you're pressed for time, just start the video at the 6 minute mark where he does his comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
I've also done the math for many photos and many different mountain ranges, so far I haven't found any that do not match with a curved Earth, to the size and scale we think it to be. So that's where I stand currently on the curvature calculations.
Fact is, there is a lot of atmospheric distortion at the surface...so it's really not easy to distinguish if it's curve or atmosphere causing these objects to disappear at distances...like I said, I've seen good arguments and photos put forth by both sides.
I've concluded this, sometimes our senses can and do lie to us. I trust my senses still...but I always keep in mind that optical illusions are a real thing and they do occur in nature. Our brains do their best to interpret the world around us...but it takes shortcuts sometimes, this is where we can and do fall into traps. So I just do my best to make sure I've eliminated that variable when making observations like these.
1
-
@efgtest Ok, so none of that previous stuff was physics and that's where I said my strength lies. So I just wanna go into one principle of physics I feel Flat Earth misses...and see if it resonates with you or not, because you seem quite good at filtering what's important and what isn't and so maybe you'll understand the physics here and maybe even shed some light on why Flat Earth doesn't accept this science...that's what I'm most interested in is why, so I'd really like to know your answer on this one in particular.
I've tried many times to get this particular point across to people, so far with little success...but I feel it's a very important piece of physics that I think Flat Earth in general overlooks...and I say that because it's never something I see them talk about in videos, at least not in depth, and I mean Flat Earth content creators. They just never seem to explore it much and I'm a bit puzzled as to why. Hopefully you can help me out.
So I wanna go into the science of motion a little bit, the most important being Relative Motion. So my next comment I'll go into that a little bit. The physics of Relative Motion and Conservation of Momentum are very important to understand if you want certain questions answered about the motions of the Heliocentric model. I'm sure you've heard a lot of different science now on motion, but maybe you weren't aware that it was all pertaining to a branch of physics called Relative Motion. Anyway, even if you've heard much of this science before, my main interest here is to find out why Flat Earth doesn't accept this science? So I'll go into in more detail, then you can let me know, or fill me in on what you feel is missed or overlooked in the science of Relative Motion.
1
-
@efgtest So another argument I hear a lot is the motions of the planet. It's actually a great question that Flat Earth asks, "how is it possible for us to travel at such immense speeds and how does water remain still like glass on the surface of these moving objects?"
It's a great question really, because we all have experience with speed in our lives. We generally all assume this, we assume to know that as things get faster, it creates G forces that make it hard to keep ourselves from being sucked to the back of our seats...and that's just at a few miles per hour, let alone thousands. So I see the logic in why they ask that question, it is a really good question that needs to be asked about the Globe model, because in the Heliocentric model, that's what would have to be happening...we would need to be flying through the galaxy at some pretty intense speeds, given the distances we travel in the amount of time we do it in.
I won't go into how we calculated the AU (Astronomical Unit, or distance to the Sun, or as science likes to refer to it as...the measuring stick for the Solar System), that's a whole different ball of physics and mathematics. It is relevant to understanding where we got those speeds from...but I want to focus on the motions themselves with you, not how we learned of those motions, just the physics of the motion in general.
So what if we're all wrong with our assumptions of motion? What if very few of us have ever really pondered G forces and motion before? Could it be possible you and Flat Earth have overlooked something about motion and what our bodies experience when we notice motion? The Laws of Motion say yes...very few people really understand how motion works...and that's their problem in this observation.
So the Laws of Motion and most importantly Relative Motion explains that motion is relative. Basically, we move relative to whatever surface or moving environment we are on or in. Once we are relative to a frame of reference or motion, we are then moving relative to it, we are moving with it...and then the physics of motion most notably conservation of momentum, makes it almost like we're stationary or not moving at all. Once we are moving relative to something, we can now do anything in that environment we would normally do while stationary on the ground. We can walk up and down the train, jump, throw a ball around, move side to side, conservation of momentum makes it so we're able to do the same stuff, as if we were stationary.
A great way to understand relative motion, is by picturing a man on a train going at 100 mph. He is now moving relative to that train, he is traveling at 100 mph, but to him it rarely feels that fast once he's in full motion with the train. He can walk around, jump, throw things...everything inside that environment is moving relative to the environment, moving relative to the train. But to an observer from the outside, he is clearly moving, that person is relative to his environment, which is moving slower then he is (or stationary if you prefer). If that person were to try and jump onto the train, he would be killed instantly, because his body relative to that train is not in motion...or it is in 100 mph less motion, which is a huge difference and so he will be killed in this example.
But, if that second person is also on a train going 100 mph, and if that train is running perfectly parallel to the other train and if they are close enough to each other. Then the 2nd person could easily jump from one train to the other...ignoring wind resistance that is. He is now moving at the same relative speed, his forward momentum is the exact same as the opposing train, so he can now jump on it from that frame of reference, because he is relative to it, make sense? Relative motion in a nutshell and very easy to understand.
What we learn from this physics is this...we do not feel speed or motion, what we feel is acceleration, deceleration or any change in forward velocity. That is what our bodies are fine tuned to notice. That can be easily demonstrated both in a laboratory or with simple thought experiments.
Another great example is the observations made on airplanes. They travel at great speeds...but I'm sure if you've ever been on an airplane, at what points do you notice you are going at 500 mph through the air? Generally only when taking off, when landing and when hitting turbulence? The plane moves at 500 mph, which if you were to view that speed from a position on the ground relative to the ground, if you were to watch a plane or car or anything shoot by at 500 mph...it would be impressively fast. Yet passengers on that airplane are not sucked to their seats...the question is, why?
The answer is relative motion and conservation of momentum yet again. This is science I don't feel can be denied. From these simple thought experiments you can reach some conclusions. The observation on these fast moving frames of references are this, when we reach a constant rate of speed, we don't feel any movement. We only seem to notice acceleration, deceleration and change in forward or angular velocity.
So how is this relevant to the Earth and it's motions? Well...is it possible then, that even at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, we wouldn't feel this motion either, so long as we were always moving at these velocities at a constant rate? Which in the heliocentric model, is exactly what's happening according to the model.
Now a counter argument I always tend to hear is this, "ya, but put yourself outside the plane, and there you go, you'd feel that." Yes, that's a great counter observation...the trouble is this, that's a different beast to Relative Motion. What you're experiencing in that case, is the drag force, the wind resistance...basically, your body is smashing into all the air in front of you that is NOT traveling relative to the plane, or train, or car, or whatever the example may be. In the case of the Earth, you have to remember that it is traveling through space...which is empty, there would be ZERO wind resistance in this environment. So you can zoom through this environment at great velocities, and never feel a thing while you're doing it. And with nothing in space to slow you down, no drag, no apposing forces to slow you down...then Newtons 1st Law of Motion stands clear, "anything in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an apposing force."
Very simple science, easy to understand, easy to demonstrate...my question is why does Flat Earth not accept any of this science? It answers all the problems they have with the motions of the planet. Most importantly the physics I've described above is a reality, relative motion is a real thing, conservation of momentum is a real thing, the Laws of motion are basically fact. So it begs the question...why does Flat Earth ignore this science? If they understand this science, then why do they still bring up the motions of the planet in conversations? What about this science do you and many others disagree with? That's what I'd like to know a bit more about.
I've heard many counter arguments now, some good...some just awful. But lets discuss some if you'd like, I'm very curious on this one and maybe you can shed some light on why Flat Earth doesn't pay much heed to Relative Motion.
In the meantime as well, here are some great videos that demonstrate a bit of relative motion in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Dyl2msozc Helium balloon on a train, moving with the train in the open air. Notice how it only begins to notice the movements when the train begins to slow down. What's interesting is the Balloon is flying past all the stuff from outside the train...and it never flings back against the seat. The answer for why, relative motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0gg1F0sz0E Second one is just a simple demonstration of Relative motion, demonstrating how conservation of momentum works. Please don't make the argument of Coriolis here, Coriolis won't effect nothing in this demo, there is not enough time for Coriolis to take any effect...as that is a key component of Coriolis effect...distance and time...and this a short distance, over a short amount of time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/b6jluf/trampoline_with_constant_velocity/?platform=hootsuite Finally one last demo of Relative motion, same as the gun above, but a bit different and with many more launches.
1
-
@efgtest Now you brought up the "closed system" argument. That seems to be a popular one as of late in this debate and it has been interesting stuff for sure. But the crux to that argument is that matter can't exist next to a vacuum and the fact of that is...that it absolutely can and that's not hard to prove either. Are you aware of what smoke or gas does in a vacuum chamber? With no other matter in the chamber to cause the effects of buoyancy, smoke will fall to the bottom of the tank, every single time. What's more interesting, is that instead of dispersing evenly throughout the tank due to entropy, the smoke will form an almost perfect layer of smoke at the bottom (because smoke has mass). Which has demonstrated for me on several occasions now that matter can exist next to a vacuum, as the top of that smoke would be sitting directly next to a vacuum. If gravity didn't exist...then we would expect entropy to disperse that gas/smoke throughout the system, but that's not what we observe when we do that experiment, gas/smoke always falls to the bottom of a vacuum chamber and forms a layer. That's just one good piece of evidence, I've seen several more, but that one is an easy one to understand I feel.
In the case of our planet, it technically is a closed system...and gravity is the reason for that. The vacuum of space is not a suction...it's not sucking on anything, I'm sure you've heard that before. The vacuum of empty space is just that...it's empty, void of matter, that's all. It doesn't apply any force to anything, it physically can't. Entropy is real, that is something, but that has no relation to empty space really (aside from matter wanting to move into empty space, if it doesn't have anything stopping it from doing so, in this case gravity) and entropy isn't really a force either...and it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it, just like our atmosphere, just like water, just like us. We are all being contained by gravity...gravity is the container. That is hard to wrap your head around sure, but gravity is like a perfect vice pushing down from all directions...like a hand balling up some snow, but a million times more efficient then that, never letting anything escape...so the theory goes, but again, if we were wrong...much of our technology wouldn't work, because it uses this understanding in its framework...do I have to mention Nuclear Fusion again?
But that's fair to say, Flat Earth requires solid "proof", as I have outlined mostly just abstract theory that explains how. The proof though is in every small piece that makes up the model as a whole...and that's what I'm trying to get across. When you focus on single pieces of evidence rather then the model as a whole, you start asking for proof of a beautiful painting, while your face is squished into the canvas trying to figure out if a color is magenta or not. "IT'S PINK!!" says one guy "IT'S PURPLE!" says another "No, It's Red!!" but pull your face back a bit, and find out that the colors blend together to form magenta...the point then becomes this, the heliocentric model is not ONE proof, but MILLIONS of tiny little bits of evidence working together to form a working model, that explains EVERYTHING, with the most accuracy. Like I said, I can't be 100% sure the Globe is real, you're correct...but I can be 98% sure, just by confirming a few things for myself using experiments and observation, and that's not nothing. An astronaut, he is 100% sure and if I can confirm 98% for myself without ever having to go to space...then this guy comes along that is 100% sure...and he has PICTURES, well, now I can be 99.9% sure...which is about where I sit, having done the science, done the math, made the observations...for myself.
Flat Earth however, can't even answer for basic questions...like why there are two hemispheres? Why air travel in the south doesn't take longer then it should? Why the Sun and Moon don't shrink in angular size as they travel away from our apparent positions? Why there is 24 hour Sun in the South and North? If there is a physical Dome above us, where is it? Why haven't we interacted with it yet with lasers or radar or the electromagnetic spectrum of any kind?
But the Globe can...it answers these very basic holes of the Flat model, with absolute ease...simply because everyone of those observations (and many more) are exactly what you'd expect to see occur on a spherical Earth.
Basic questions that started it all off in the first place...the Flat Earth has more holes then any other model...so we discarded it, because it couldn't make predictions and answer for these simple questions. A globe could...perfectly in fact and THEN we set out to figure out the deeper problems. From how I see it, the only reason people become Flat Earthers, is because they don't fully understand the science...or if you'd prefer, they disagree with the science (which is more your case). That's fine, it's really tricky to discern which is which, but you appear to have a pretty good grasp, so I'll put you in the latter category. It's fine to disagree and you're correct, the Flat Earth is not going away anytime soon.
But I just want to make it clear...there is GOOD reason we came to the conclusion of a sphere Earth. People can call us "indoctrinated" all day long, the science still makes sense and it works. The Flat model on the other hand does not work...it breaks down on the most basic levels when you really analyze it, unable to explain or account for...much of anything really. We have evidence that all compiles together and works, the theories, the facts, the laws...everything. We have some unanswered questions at best...that's about it, but the things that Flat Earth argues like the motions, gravity, entropy, etc...these higher physics they feel we have overlooked, I don't really think we have...the only exception being gravity, because we are very clearly missing something in gravity. But again...scientists are VERY aware of that fact and they have no trouble admitting it. Doesn't mean they're wrong...just because they're currently missing something, does not mean whatever they're missing doesn't fit in the model or theory...it just means they haven't discovered it yet. But, like I said in the previous comment, they could be wrong...absolutely they could! There is chance they missed something big...so, only way to know for sure, is for some people to work backwards...it's just harder to do that, when you've got all this previous knowledge getting in the way of that. So, that's why it's fine to disagree, nobody is stupid for disagreeing I feel...intelligence just isn't as black and white as we'd like to think it is...and some people just think differently.
1
-
@efgtest Sorry for the late reply back, busy week.
So this is the difference with Flat Earth I feel and it's what I've been trying to get through to you over our exchanges. No, I can't be 100% sure of anything, but that's the reality we live in. We rarely operate on absolutes, in science, dominant theories only operate at high percentages. That's how science works...and so if you don't like that, well, tough titty really. That's how we do things. So I think Flat Earth just has a problem with thinking in percentages and accepting truth based from that. Our world is VERY complex. The reality is, we will likely NEVER know everything about it, because we are just a tiny little microbe compared to this massively complex reality we inhabit. So, because some things are so very complex, we can not reach absolute clarity on many things...so we do the next best thing. We create models and collect data and information and evidence. If they all point to the same thing, then we conclude that to be true. I'm fine with that, I will conform to whatever model can be proven to me with the highest percentage. That will be my reality until something can come along that has a higher percentage. Right now, I'm 99.9% sure the Earth is a Globe, which is good enough for me. That's how science operates...and it works.
Is it true? Well, if our science works and is useful for invention, innovation, engineering and navigation...then yes, we know we have something correct. Truth is, the Globe model is the dominant theory for a reason, it works!
But, we're going in circles now...and probably have been for awhile. I believe with 99.9% certainty that you are wrong about the shape of the planet, and I didn't just get there by remaining ignorant on the subject. I researched Flat Earth for myself just like FE told me too do...and all I found were a great many misunderstandings about the Globe, usually always coming right down to the physics. Flat Earth has a VERY basic understanding of physics and the scientific method...it has led you guys down this rabbit hole. You're also a bit hypocritical...I used to think you guys were all about thinking in absolutes, and maybe that was your problem...but then that's not really it either, because many FE believers believe there is a firmament above us, an ice wall surrounding us, a military force keeping us from exploring the South. Do they have any evidence to support these claims? No...actually what little evidence they do have is as flimsy and unverifiable as the science they misunderstand about the Globe...and yet, they believe these things to exist anyway. So it's left me to wonder...you ask us for "solid proofs" and "facts" but then when it comes to things with your model, you feel you don't require the same quality of absolutes? I'm not saying you personally believe in the firmament, you're at least a little more reasonable, but I'm sure there is something about the Flat Earth model that you conform to with little to no evidence to support it.Though for now, I'll assume you're one of the saner ones...but just know that I run into a LOT of Flat Earthers that believe in a lot of crazy shit, with little to no evidence to support it and then they turn around and ask me for solid "proofs" and "facts" for the Globe. These people are hypocrites...and they don't even realize it.
It's a red flag for me personally, because FE makes that claim all the time that they're just looking for the "facts"...valuing hard evidence above all else...but when it comes to the holes in your model, like the firmament, like the ice wall...these things get a pass for some reason? Why? No, I think you guys are just in denial. I don't know why you're in denial...the only reason I can muster, is because it makes you feel superior in some way. If the Earth is Flat, when the entire world says otherwise, then you get to be the smartest person in the world. Even if you're not aware of this reason, I think subconsciously, this could be happening to most Flat Earthers. That's what I'm seeing from my perspective anyway...and this conversation is just cementing that even more. I think it's a lot of things really...and varies depending on the person, but I feel it makes YOU feel superior to people like me, believing you know "reality". No, you don't know reality any more then the next person. You use that word mostly just to annoy people, to assert your fictional dominance, helps you feel special...which is fine really, we all like feeling special.
Anyway, let's focus on some more science.
1
-
@efgtest Getting back to the pressure argument. Yes, I know it was in a container...but that was ignoring the main argument. The argument Flat Earth likes to make is this "matter can't exist next to a vacuum". The smoke in a vacuum chamber however, demonstrates matter next to a vacuum. Which demonstrates my point that falsifies the main argument, matter has no trouble existing next to a vacuum...so that argument I feel is then proven null. But, you ignored the main argument and pointed out that "but a vacuum chamber is in a container"...yes, I know that, again...that's not what I was addressing! I didn't mention a container once...because that wasn't the argument I was addressing. I was focused on whether matter can exist next to a vacuum...and yes, yes it can. The smoke in a vacuum chamber experiment is just one observation you can make that proves that, there are many more.
I think you and me have a very different idea of what a vacuum is in the context of space. A vacuum is just empty space, void of matter, nothing existing in a given space. Many Flat Earthers believe that matter should be sucked off our Earth...it's an argument they often bring up. But that's not how the vacuum of space works simply because...how does nothing, suck on things? It's a good question I feel...why do Flat Earthers believe that empty space, creates a suction? They've watched to many sci-fi movies if that's what people believe.
I get why you deflected the argument into "but it was in a container", because your argument is that a vacuum can't exist without a container. Ok, but why do you believe that? The only reason we use a container here on Earth, is because on the surface of our Earth we have a lot of pressure...and so to simulate empty space here on Earth, you require a container. But that's not the case up in space. From everything we know about space so far, there is no evidence of this container...so we have no reason to believe it is contained by anything.
So to answer your question here "So gravity hold the oxygen and what hold the vacuum? What ? Space is endless? Vacuum is endless without a container?" Yes, as the theory goes so far, we believe the universe to be endless...because we have not found any evidence to suggest otherwise. Can that conclusion change? Absolutely, if we ever discover a container, we'll adjust accordingly...but truth is, we haven't yet.
But, I know what you're going to say...you'll get mad that I'm thinking in "theories" again. Why you get so upset about theories...I've already explained to you many times now, that this is how science operates...theories are useful and they work. Scientists don't know everything, and they likely never will...so they form theories. What's the problem? If it works, if it helps to build our world...then why get so upset about theories? Today the dominant theory is that the Big Bang created our universe...tomorrow some evidence could come to light that makes the Big Squeeze the dominant theory...so what? We have evidence to suggest that the Earth is Round, so you have to understand that YOU also conform to a THEORY...the Flat Earth theory. So long as we have evidence that refutes a Flat Earth...your idea of "reality" is also very much just a theory as well.
It's not reality, it's a belief you have. Get that through your head. So it's no different. You THINK you know what reality is...but no, you do not. It's not a big deal really, nothing to get upset about. I'm sorry the universe isn't as easy to understand as you'd like it to be...but ya, you're THEORY of the shape of the Earth, is still just a theory as well. The difference is, your science is very falsifiable and doesn't hold up when analyzed. We have much more evidence to support our model, with math and science and data that matches and works.
Yes, Flat Earth absolutely does misunderstand the Globe Earth model...you've proven that time and time again with your conclusions during our exchange.
A great example is the two sticks experiment. Your claim was that this observation works on a flat plain with a local Sun as well. But the truth is...it doesn't, not even close in fact. You'd know that, if you actually tested it. This experiment almost sorta, kinda works if you're not going very far, if your two distances are more local...and if you're only doing 2 observations. But take several more data sets, from distances MUCH farther apart from each other...and the only results you get, are the ones that match with the Globe model. Here are a couple experiments that prove this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9w4KtHxZ68&t=908s This one is great, it takes several data sets from multiple locations from all around the Globe, at the exact same time of day, during the Equinox. If you're pressed for time, just watch the final 2 minutes of the video, where he compares the results on a flat plain and then a Globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg Here's a similar simulation, taking data from timeanddate.com during the Equinox, and tracking the Sun throughout a whole day.
What you'll notice in these 2 videos above, is that when you actually TEST that claim, that the experiment works on both a Flat Plain and a Globe...what happens in reality is that you get only ONE conclusion, supporting only ONE model. When the shadow angles are compared on a Flat Earth, using real world data, the Sun's location varies and the points rarely line up. However, when you match that same data to our Globe, you get perfectly parallel lines that all point towards something much bigger then our Earth...and much farther away. So no, the claim that this works on both models...is not true at all. You'd know that, if you actually stepped away from your computer for a change and actually tested it.
Another great example, you had mentioned in a previous comment the "melting temperature of our upper atmosphere" argument. Which is a good question to ask really, "why doesn't the ISS or Satellites melt, if low Earth orbit exceeds melting temperatures?" Great question...but it has a very simple answer. If you know your physics, you'll know that melting points are not just achieved by temperature alone, they also require pressure. We set those melting points based on what they are like here on the ground...which is a pretty standard pressure, but in the vacuum of space...there is essentially zero pressure. So first of all, if there is a melting point in this environment...it's going to be VERY different from surface. So the problem with your misunderstanding here, is you've forgotten that space is a VERY different environment from what you're used to here on the ground. The truth is, with no pressure, no molecules of air to maintain the temperature required for the ISS and Satellites to absorb that heat required to make them melt...most of that heat being sent at them from the Sun, is going to be deflected off of the surface of these vessels, rather than absorbed. That is the truth of why they do not melt. How do you verify this? Simple, a few easy to do experiments here on the ground can teach you how heat transfer works in different density pressures. Put a single ice cube in an empty glass and time how long it takes to melt. Now put an ice cube of equal volume in a glass filled with water, and time how long it takes to melt. Which one melts faster? The answer is easy, the one in the glass of water melts faster. Why did it melt faster? Because it's in a denser medium, there is more pressure, more molecules of matter surrounding it, causing a more constant rate of heat transfer. Another good experiment, did you know you can't boil a potato at higher altitudes such as mountain tops? At any height where the air gets thin enough where you require oxygen, it becomes nearly impossible to boil and cook a potato. It's for the same reason...there is less pressure at this altitude...which creates less heat transfer, a potato will take MUCH longer to become soft. It's the same physics...so basically, the observation you can make here is this, these satellites are in a different environment, and so the physics is going to be LOT different from what you're used to here on the ground. Without pressure, with no molecules surrounding these objects, most if not all of the intense heat from the Sun, is deflected off the surface of these objects, back into space.
Just a couple of examples...and I have many. I can go through all the misconceptions that Flat Earth has about the Globe...and it doesn't take much effort either. It usually always comes down to the physics. Flat Earth just does not know much about physics. So they reach false conclusions, based around their lack of understandings. It's as simple as that really.
1
-
@efgtest Flat Earth is not "truth" it is just as much a theory as any other. This is what you need to understand. You lose us in conversation when you think in such absolutes. There is strong evidence to suggest Flat Earth is not reality, so you have to acknowledge this and learn to stop calling this movement "truth". That requires you prove it...if it can't be proven 100% unfalsifiable, then it is just a theory like any other...the difference is, so far, it's not a good theory, because the Globe model has much more evidence to support it. Feel free to change our minds, but I'm just telling you...rhetoric is not how you do that...prove it with science, and accept the possibility that you could be wrong. Because so far, all I'm seeing is a lot of very delusional people, with a very low understanding of physics...I'm not alone in that analysis of Flat Earth, far from it. You can chalk it up to us being played by the "system", but then prove that as well...with evidence. Some of us don't just listen to people blindly and without question. If the science of the Flat Earth model was solid, we'd believe you...but it's not, there is a lot of things wrong with Flat Earth from a scientific stand point. You can ignore us all you want...but that's the only truth we're seeing currently. Prove us wrong...if you can, anyone is welcome to try.
1
-
@efgtest That's fair, we both have our reasons for which side of this debate we align with. I have been doing the research a long time now, and so far the science has convinced me of a Globe. That's all. If I see any convincing evidence for a Flat Earth, then I will consider it, but most of the time I just find misunderstandings and paranoia. That being said though, I'm not aware of every experiment and every argument...even after all this time, I'm sure there are things I have yet to fully analyze. I think it's just the rhetoric I get annoyed by a wee bit...but as we figured out earlier, we just think differently, so we're going to articulate our responses differently and use our own rhetoric. I imagine Flat Earth gets annoyed with our stubborn tenacity as well, that's why I do prefer just looking at the science, rather then all the rhetoric of these debates.
The observation of the smoke in a vacuum is comparable I would argue, because smoke has mass...and pressure is just mass stacked on top of mass...so there is a pressure gradient in that smoke...it would just be so small, it would be difficult to measure. The point was, matter can exist next to empty space and that without other molecules of denser air around to cause the effect of buoyancy, smoke will fall to the bottom of a vacuum chamber instead of rising. If there was no gravity pulling that smoke down, then it would disperse evenly into the vacuum chamber due to entropy....gravity is just the name we gave to the force that causes things to drop down towards the ground...that's all. We don't pretend to know everything about it, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about it, because we do. If we didn't...things like fusion reactions wouldn't be possible...fusion reactors require a lot of the science of General Relativity...so we do know something. My point in that observation, was just to point out that the claim "matter can't exist next to a vacuum" is false. Even the famous Dog Cam footage that Flat Earth paraded around for a time, is further proof of that. First of all, that footage shows us the black emptiness of space surrounding our Sun...which if the Sun were in an atmosphere, with molecules of any kind surrounding it, this wouldn't occur, so we can conclude that space is possibly empty. And second, the balloon in that video eventually pops, which indicates that it has reached vacuum conditions. So that's two pieces of evidence that I feel also show our own atmosphere, next to a vacuum. There are other experiments I can share as well...but I think you get my point...that argument doesn't fly with me. It's not true as far as I'm concerned currently.
Ring Laser Gyros are deadly accurate...so I feel you're just denying their relevancy in this argument, because they didn't come back with a result you were happy with. And as I explained earlier, the gyros in airplanes have pendulous vanes and electric motors that correct their orientation as they tilt. The question is then, why do these gyros require these corrective measures, if the Earth is Flat? If the Earth is Flat, then they wouldn't require pendulous vanes at all...the gyro would be enough. But the reality is, they do have these corrective systems in place...and many sources online can confirm that, not just Wolfie.
But, if you got any evidence that could refute any of what I just said above, feel free to share. From what I've seen, gyros do more to confirm the shape of our planet as spherical. I'm open to more information if you have it, but for the time being, my conclusion is that Gyros whenever tested confirm a spherical Earth.
The thing about the "water not being able to conform to a ball" argument, is that it also requires you ignore some things about water...and gravity. Water will conform to whatever force is acting upon it...it's not alive, it can't resist forces...so if a constant force like gravity were to exist, and if it pulled all matter to a center point (just like the theory of gravity has worked out that it does), then water absolutely can conform to the outside of a sphere...so too can our atmosphere. The problem Flat Earth has, is that they want to see a clear demonstration of this, and the reality is...unless you go up into space, you can't recreate this...simply because we are currently in Earths gravity well, which trumps all other gravity wells. So a ball in your hand, which has a mass FAR less than the Earth...of course the Earth is going to win and any water you put on the outer surface of a ball in your hands, is going to fall to the bigger attractive force below your feet...which is Earth. So it's not a demonstration we can produce for you guys...at least not here on the ground, because Earth is a variable you can't eliminate from this experiment, here on the ground. Get us far enough out into space though, and you bet your ass we can do it...but even if I showed you videos of water when tested out in space, you'd just call the video fake I'd bet. So it can be a bit pointless to share these things...but, here's some video anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TssbmY-GM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZEdApyi9Vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbKbVTllSd4 bit longer video, but older, long before the ISS. Bunch of different experiments here, some with water in zero G.
But no, it's not impossible under the theory of gravity. Water is just like any other matter...it stacks on top of itself and it conforms to whatever force is acting upon it. So here's a hypothetical thought experiment you can do. For this experiment, let's just assume gravity is a real force and works as the theory says it does. Now imagine you have a perfectly smooth ball in empty space, with no other gravity wells near by, and then you create single layer of water molecules covering every inch of the surface of that ball. It's going to curve as it covers the surface of the ball correct? But now, if you add more water but if there is no more room for any more water to sit evenly beside all the other molecules of water...then what does it do? It begins to form another layer of water on top...and it does this for every layer you add...it's not hard to understand really. Gravity is a constant force, it pulls everything to center from all angles...it would absolutely be able to keep water to the surface of a sphere.
Other than those space experiments in the videos above, I can't show you an experiment of water on the outside of a ball here on the surface of the Earth, but what I can show you is an experiment of water curving when a force is applied to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuXJwxr6U4M In this experiment, water is put under a constant inertial force, as the inertial force is applied, the water has no problem curving, conforming to the forces being applied to it. You'll notice also, that as the inertial force levels off, once the water has time to adjust, the surface of the water sits like glass...smooth as ever. Conservation of momentum and fluid mechanics explain why this happens. If this inertial force were to exist indefinitely, never turning off or slowing down, then the water would remain curved as it conformed to that force, and because of conservation of momentum and relative motion...it would remain to sit like glass. I know what you're going to say though "that's in a container, not the outside of a surface", yes, of course, but that's not the point of that demonstration. The point in that demonstration is to show you how water works, when a constant force is applied to it. If water is held by a force, then it will conform to whatever force is acting upon it. If that force causes it to curve...then it will curve and maintain that curve just fine. And that's exactly what gravity is...a constant accelerating force, that's always there. Gravity is a constant force, it never changes, it's always there and it pulls all matter to center...which causes all matter in 3D space to produce a ball...that's the only shape matter can take with a force like gravity pulling everything to center. Water, conforms to this force as well...so the reality is, the argument "water can't conform to the outside of a ball", is not true...because it absolutely could, with a force like gravity acting upon it at all times.
It's fair to ask for that demonstration though, but just know...that the physics does work and water would have no problem conforming to the surface of our Earth, if it's trapped in a gravity well that pulls all matter to center of mass.
So I suppose the part about that argument that annoys me is this...you're claiming it's not possible, but if you really think about it, it is absolutely possible. So I just wish Flat Earth would stop wording this argument in a way that makes it out to be impossible. It's only impossible if you ignore gravity...and don't bother to understand how gravity works. Which is why Flat Earth denies gravity so staunchly...but ok, then just leave it at "prove the existence of gravity", then I would personally be less annoyed by this argument. Cause that's a fair argument then, prove gravity, that's perfectly reasonable then.
But that's not where the argument goes...it flat out just assumes gravity is not a thing, because it has too for Flat Earth to work.
1
-
1
-
@efgtest Yes, I took the time and watched the videos you sent me. I've seen several of them before, the only one I had not seen was your second gyro video. But that first one is a pretty basic demonstration of a gyro, same lecture that gets taught in university classes all around the world and it's one of the first videos you find on YouTube when you try learning more about gyros. Yes, I know a fair bit about gyros as well and the problem with mechanical gyros is that they do drift over time due to friction in the gimbles and bearings. So over enough time, they won't maintain their calibrated position and will require adjustment either way. This is true, but from what I understand, this takes time...especially in the more well made gyro systems that have eliminated most of the friction, they will precess much slower. Either way, it is gravity and the pendulous vanes that tell the electric motors to tilt the gyro down when it has fallen out of alignment with the surface...and it tilts the gyro on its main gimble. Which means if the Earth were curved it could very easily re-calibrate it away from its original position from take off. You can adjust the main gimble all you want and it will maintain whatever orientation you leave it in from there, it's the other 2 gimbles that won't move the gyro from that orientation, but the electric motors of the pendulous vanes adjust the main gimble or the gyro itself if you prefer.
So in reality the gyro would work on both models (FE and Globe), because if gravity is what notifies the air vanes that the gyro is out of alignment with the ground, and if gravity vectors change as you travel on a curved Earth (which is what the theory of gravity says it does), then the vanes re-calibrate the gyro to the surface, leveling off to the gravity vectors. It would absolutely work on a curved Earth as well, but yes the argument could be made that because mechanical gyros are not perfect, that they precess over time, that this is the reason for the pendulous vanes on a Flat Earth, to keep precession in check and that would be true as well, it would then still require pendulous vanes even on a flat plain. But then the crux to that argument is time. It takes time for friction to cause the gyro to precess, much more time then it would take a change in gravity vectors to be noticed by the gyro on a curved surface. So the question then is this, how often does the electric motor of an artificial horizon kick in to adjust the gyro in reality? If the gyro while flying requires adjustment more times then it would on a flat plain, then you can conclude the ground below is curving. If the motors don't kick on nearly as often, then you can conclude the ground below as possibly flat.
So you could actually test this, by purchasing an artificial horizon and taking it on a long distance flight. Counting the number of times the electric motor kicks on to adjust the gyro. You'd need to know exactly how long it takes natural precession to kick on the adjustment motor, and you could record that very easily by just spinning the gyro up at home before the flight test and recording the precession over time on a flat surface at home. So you test the two, I'm sure their would be a way to know when the motor kicks on to re-calibrate the gyro back to level position, so you would just count the times this motor is turned on and record the time it took between each.
On a curved Earth, you should expect the correcting motor to kick on far more often then if the Earth were flat. So it's a good experiment one could do, I'm not currently aware if Wolfie or anyone else has tried this, but would be interesting to see. Point is, if you're trying to claim that a gyro with pendulous vanes would not work on a curved surface, then let me just stop you there, because yes it would. That much I do know for sure. Gravity vectors would change as you travel along the surface of the curved Earth, these gravity vectors would drop the hinges of the pendulous vanes on the main gimble, which would cause the corrective motor to adjust and re-calibrate the gyro on it's main axis, which would re-calibrate it's orientation in open space. So to be sure of your claims, you'd have to put the gyro to the test. Even then, by itself it's not conclusive enough to make a conclusion from, but it's a good piece of evidence for either argument depending on the results.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, I have researched B and C. That being, "NASA fakery"...and I actually caught more "fakery" and lies, from the people who create those conspiracy videos on YouTube. Every time I take a look at those "faked space" documentaries...I find that the people making them do a lot to fool the viewer into buying their claims made in the videos. Let's see, I'll focus on one example. There is a famous claim in many of those videos where they break down a space walk done by the Gemini crew, which was one of the first successful space walks. Here's one such video, I'm sure you've seen this before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEPuY_OmCps There is a scene in that video footage where the helmet of the space suit swivels. A claim is then made by the creator of that conspiracy video that those Gemini space helmets were not designed to swivel. Well, after some digging I was able to falsify that claim. Here is further footage of that same Gemini crew. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8ep2wSREno At 50 seconds into this video you get a very clear demonstration of the helmet swiveling. So his claim is false, those helmets do absolutely swivel...yet he presented it as proof that footage was faked anyway. He does later point out that they don't swivel once the suit is pressurized...but try as I might, I couldn't find any information that supported that claim and I looked up the actual suit specs, which you can actually find a pdf document online that is full of information on the Gemini space suits. There is also several YouTube videos that go into their specs as well. Nothing I found could confirm that his second claim was true, that they don't swivel under pressure. They absolutely can, because it's the same swivel joint system they use on all the joints, from the gloves, to the arms and legs of different space suits...these swivels are designed to function in a vacuum...otherwise what would be the point of them? If they do not work in a vacuum...why include them in space suits at all? They used these swivels in all kinds of joints, so that claim doesn't hold much weight with me. But he doesn't clarify the pressure comment until later, he first just straight up claims they were not designed to swivel at all...and yes, as that video I shared above demonstrates, they absolutely were designed to swivel. Before you point out that the footage looks "motion captured" or animated...just know that I'm an artist/illustrator for a living, who has done his own stop animation films...I have several more points I can make on that claim, that can and do refute that argument as well...so feel free to mention that if you like, just know I'm quite knowledgeable on the topic of stop animation and film techniques...I have first hand experience in both.
Later in his video, he makes another claim at 3 minutes 21 seconds he zooms in and puts text on the video that reads "nice patch", telling the viewer to pay attention to the american flag patch on his left shoulder. Not 3 seconds later he then presents a photo where you can't see that patch on either of their shoulders. Causing you to wonder, why there is no american flag patch in the second photo. Which leads the viewer to believe that space walk was further faked, and they just forgot to put the patch on the actual space suits for the photo ops. It's convincing on the surface...but I personally never take things at face value and neither should you or anyone else. For starters, he chose a photo where both astronauts arms are covered, you can't see their shoulders even if you wanted too...for another, you wouldn't be able to tell from this photo alone if it were flipped or mirrored. Either way, he presents that photo as evidence of his patch claim...when there are a few things wrong with his photo "evidence", it's not conclusive enough for him to make that claim...and I'd be willing to bet he chose that picture, just so he could lie and make that claim. If you rewind that video to 58 seconds however, you get a single frame of that patch on his left shoulder, clear as day. The funny thing is, the presenter of this video, was very careful not to include more footage with that patch...just so he could make that claim. If you watch the original footage from where he took that from, you see the patch a lot more...the question then is, why did he choose to cut out the rest of the footage? Probably because it would ruin his patch claim...so he was very clearly leading the audience, showing them only what he wanted you to see, to help make his claims seem more valid. Basically, smoke and mirrors...clever misdirection.
That's just a couple examples from a single video, I've caught this stuff pretty much every single time I watch these "NASA faked space" documentaries or video break downs. It leaves me to question the people who created those conspiracy documentaries...not so much the other way around. They present half truths...showing the audience what they want you to see and then making claims, knowing that very few people will actually check them on their claims. I find these tactics very deceitful and it causes me a lot of distrust in the people making them...essentially, it raises a few red flags for me, and makes me doubt the validity of these claims against NASA.
Here is one final video I'll leave you with. Another good example of claims made without much looking into them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiCthIVWIJE&t=102s The thing I'm trying to point out here is this...why do you trust these people who make these YouTube videos claiming faked space? I've caught them lying on several occasions, every single time I look at these videos in fact. They don't seem very interested in being objective with their evidence at all...they seem more interested in hypnotizing the viewer into believing what they're saying without question. It leaves me to question them...so no, I don't hold the "NASA faked space" docs in very high credibility. I have looked into it...the only liars and huxters I found were the content creators of those videos.
Gravity is an accelerating force, not to be confused with an inertial force which is more an objects resistance to a directional vector. Gravity as we know it is actually one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe...so it's very much defined as a force. So not sure where you're going with that one. There are some technicalities in general relativity that understand gravity a bit differently, but we do define it as a force in general terms, because it behaves as such and is best understood as a force. Feel free to elaborate further though.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, but I think you're misunderstanding me. You can calibrate the gyro into any position you want in free space and THEN the gimbles will move freely around it without changing that orientation you have set. What the pendulous vanes do, is they reset the orientation, they move it's orientation in free space...they change it. Make sense yet? The part where gravity is a factor, is in the pendulous vane...not the gyro. The hinge that covers the air valve drops due to gravity, when it notices the orientation is not at 90 degrees to the surface anymore. Then the motors shift the orientation back to 90 degrees relative to the surface...which on a spherical Earth, changes as you travel along it. Nothing I have said, contradicts any of the videos you have shared with me.
What you seem to believe, is that the gyro either naturally sits at 90 degrees and then never moves from there, or that it can not be re-calibrated once it is in motion. This is false, the pendulous vanes do just that...they are there to ensure the gyro remains at 90 degrees from surface and they do this by using gravity in clever ways. I know what the gimbles do...forget the gimbles for now, that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the spinning gyro itself. The part that is spinning...the disk that you can angle in any direction and then once you have it in an orientation, the gimbles can move around it freely. The pendulous vane moves the actual gyro...it has nothing to do with the gimbles.
If you feel I'm missing anything, feel free to let me know.
1
-
@efgtest Yes, they can fake almost anything visually nowadays, though they do still have limits...and some things still will never quite look "real" in CGI. But what's important to remember, is that just because they can fake something, doesn't mean they do. The opposite is also true, it doesn't mean they don't either. So that's why I don't laugh at Flat Earth, I try to listen to what they have to say, because logically...we can't be certain of much. This is the difference between you and me though, as I see it, I believe I have a higher level of trust in people, namely scientists. I know that not everything I'm told is true...but then I know people are generally good and in order to fake something this big, would require a LOT of participation and effort, from MILLIONS of different individuals. Not just in NASA, or any of the space agencies, but ALL the various institutions of science, research, engineering, navigation, schooling, government, miltary...the list goes one, it is quite likely actually BILLIONS of people at this point. It's just not likely is all, but not just for those reasons...but also, because anybody can confirm the shape is spherical for themselves with a few simple observations.
So I choose to lean toward the former of my statement...just because something can be faked, does not mean it was faked. I think where you stand on either side of that spectrum, depends on your level of trust in people and society in general. As I was able to point out to you in my analysis of that single conspiracy video, these people who create these videos are VERY deceitful, in how they present their findings. It leads me to conclude, that they're most likely doing that with most (if not all) of their claims and they play off our growing insecurities of reality to help sell their claims. Now I should point out that though I generally do hold a higher level of trust in people...I do remain skeptical, and that trust erodes just like anybody elses does if I've been successful in catching people in lies often enough...I think this is what happens with Flat Earth...except from my perspective I feel they're being duped by these conspiracy videos. They think like you do and so they know how to gain your trust...by appealing to your disdain for authority.
We got a new conspiracy going around that we could be in a simulation....and stuff like this has wracked peoples minds to that possibility, some people becoming very paranoid about that idea, many very uncomfortable with that possibility. Truth is, as CGI and video manipulation software become more advanced...it does become harder and harder to separate facts from reality. People have a natural resistance to being duped...we don't enjoy it very much, and so we do everything in our power to eliminate the possibility that we're being had...even if it's not true at all. I think this plays a huge role in why Flat Earth has become so rampant lately...CGI. But, it's the reality we live in, so I lean to my statement again, just because it can be faked, does not mean it was. So I'm VERY skeptical, when I take a look at the claims made saying that things are faked digitally...because a lot of the time, these claims are coming from people with ZERO working knowledge of how CGI and digital video effects are created...they do still have limits in what they can do, so if you know these limits, you can spot where peoples claims might just be their paranoia leading them.
That's the big issue I have with Flat Earth...how can you be so sure, you're not just letting paranoia lead your thinking? Paranoia is a tricky beast...and the shitty thing is, you will rarely ever know when you're falling victim to it...because by that point, it's usually to late. I think these people in these fake space videos do a lot to erode peoples trust...and make them just as paranoid as they are. So I pay closer attention to see if I can spot them lying...which I have been successful in doing, every single time I watch those videos.
1
-
1
-
@efgtest Gonna do a double quote here. ""Its about this and i quote " You can calibrate the gyro into any position you want in free space and THEN the gimbles will move freely around it without changing that orientation you have set"
That is the key! that's what you have to understand. ""
But you're still missing what the pendulous vanes do. They change the orientation of the spinning gyro itself over time. The gimbles move around freely, but the pendulous vanes are designed to move the gyro itself, pitching it up or down depending on the gravity vector it's currently in. The gyro is not affected by gravity vectors...but the pendulous vanes are and they move the gyro. That's why they are there.
I think I kinda understand more your observation of that second video you shared, saying that the gyro in that demonstration is not designed to flip a full 180 degrees inside the housing. But if the entire housing is flipping with the plane it's attached too, then the inner components still flip with it correct? Which would be the case as a plane travels from one hemisphere to the next, the entire housing is flipping along with the planes orientation. I think I get your argument there though, saying that the gyro would keep it's orientation in free space, but again...if the entire gyro, housing and all, is flipping upside down from starting position...then the gyro inside doesn't need to be able to flip a full 180 degrees, it just requires a system inside the gyro that can pitch it up or down gradually as it travels from one hemisphere to the next, keeping it in line with the housing. Which it does...they're called pendulous vanes. That's the purpose of the pendulous vanes, to pitch the orientation of the gyro itself, to keep it level with the surface at all times.
Sorry, I know you wanted to move on, just felt there was more to say on Gyros. You seem to keep forgetting about pendulous vanes and what they do, so I'm just trying to shed some more light on what the purpose of these pendulous vanes are. Your observations would be sound, if pendulous vanes were not included in these gyro systems...but they are, and they do pitch the gyro to match with the gravity vector they are currently in. Even if they weren't though, they would still be required in a gyro because of precession. The question then becomes, are pendulous vanes in the gyro to account for gravity vectors or to account for precession? That would require further experimenting to figure out and as I said in the last comment, I'm not currently aware of any experiments that test this. Either way, pendulous vanes can and would account for the curve of the Earth, they are designed to re-orientate the gyro in free space, that is their purpose.
1
-
@efgtest If you're referring to me, I never said I didn't know anything about Gyros. I said I don't know much about the gyros used in submarines, but when it comes to the Gyros found in airplanes, in artificial horizons, I said I know quite a bit about those gyros. I said that from the very start.
So it's not like I'm just now learning about this stuff, but I am learning a little more about where I feel Flat Earth goes wrong with the gyro...and from what I've learned you seem to keep forgetting about pendulous vanes, or you choose to ignore them. Pendulous vanes exist, and their purpose is to shift the orientation of the gyro inside the housing, little by little, keeping it level with the surface as it travels.
So all your observations for a gyro are sound...but you're forgetting about these pendulous vanes that are included in airplane gyroscopes. I'm merely just trying my best to make you aware of this mechanism, even if you were aware of them...you seem to discount them in all your conclusions. The question is why? Maybe you don't much like or trust Wolfie, and you know most of us are learning about pendulous vanes from him, so you discount our observations simply because it came from a source you don't trust...but then you don't need Wolfie as a source to learn what these pendulous vanes are and what they do, there are plenty of other sources that will all say the same thing about pendulous vanes. Many that have nothing to do with the Flat Earth debate...just simple video demonstrations explaining the Gyros in airplanes for educational purposes.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to use the gyroscope as an argument for Flat Earth, then you have to account for these pendulous vanes...because anyone who knows about these gyroscopes is going to counter your argument by mentioning them. What's interesting is that you haven't really addressed these pendulous vanes...you haven't given me any reason to believe they are not used for the purpose I've described them for. So as much as I'm aware you'd like to move on, I'm still left to conclude that you either don't know exactly yet what Pendulous vanes do...or you do and you've chosen to ignore them...but I'd rather you address them, not so much for my sake, but for yours. That's really all I can conclude so far...so that's why I keep mentioning it, because I'm hoping you'll either see what I'm pointing out, or you'll have a counter answer that demonstrates what I'm possibly missing.
When we started this conversation, I asked if maybe there was something you were possibly missing. I was also posing that question to myself, which is why I have these conversations...to see which one of us is missing something. I fear that denial sometimes keeps us from seeing some things...so you have to ask yourself honestly, do pendulous vanes account for your observations of Gyros? Would pendulous vanes account for the curvature of the Earth? I've been trying my best to see if perhaps I'm wrong about pendulous vanes, but so far, no matter how I look at it, they do account for things...quite perfectly in fact and you've given me no reason so far to conclude otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because every observation made, when done correctly, fits with that geometry and makes sense of every observation. We have modeled everything with incredible accuracy today, and it fits and works cohesively...I have yet to see ANY flat Earth model that can do the same...and it's not from lack of trying, I've been looking a LONG time now. On top of that, NOBODY in any field or job title that navigates the world for a living, is using a Flat Earth geometry to help them find their destination. It should be pretty common sense, that you can't hope to find a destination, if you don't have an accurate map. The fact that ALL of these people are using a Global system of navigation, lines of latitude that are equal in TWO hemispheres, should be enough to tell people that Earth is not Flat. These people would be getting lost every single day...if we didn't know the actual shape of our planet.
On top of that, scientists would be pretty damn bad at their jobs, if they couldn't figure out something as trivial as the true shape of our planet.
Observe any fucking sunset ever, and then try and make sense of that on ANY flat Earth model....it doesn't work. You are kidding yourself, if you think we don't know what shape the planet is. Wake up.
1
-
1
-
This video wasn't really intended to prove anything, it's not for flat Earthers looking for evidence and he's not really presenting any argument here. This video is for the people who dipped into the mess, realized it was a con job right away, so they got out and now like to dissect the psychological reasons for why and how people fall for the scam that is Flat Earth. That's the audience for this video and it's pretty clear right from the start. He doesn't share any deep science here, because that's not the goal or purpose of this video, it is for those of us who already know the science and already know where Flat Earth goes wrong in their arguments. We're past that now, now we're interested in figuring out why others fell so hard for what is quite possibility the best example to date, of the power and dangers of confirmation bias. This is a psychological analysis of the movement as a whole, trying to understand how people fall for it, in hopes of maybe seeing if there's something currently wrong with society as a whole. So if you're a Flat Earther, then this video wasn't made for you. It's about you, but it's not for you, so of course you're not gonna get it.
1
-
@jfern777 Ya, again, because that wasn't his goal here, he wasn't out to prove or disprove anything here, the audience he was targeting has already concluded that Flat Earth is a scam, so it was a discussion for those people...did you read my last comment? I really don't like repeating myself.
What argument in particular would you like me address? I actually don't mind sharing information, I do enjoy the discussion, so long as it's civil. But I'd prefer it stick to one topic at a time...cause I like to be thorough, and I'd rather not address a million points at once, cause then I'll just be writing novels here. Science can take awhile to explain and demonstrate sometimes, so keep it brief and I might be able to help ya out.
I am aware of pretty much every Flat Earth argument and experiment at this point, been researching this topic for a little over 3 years now. But I don't claim to know everything and I love learning new things, so just let me know where you'd like to start, if you want.
1
-
@jfern777 Alright, you asked about the canal experiment at Bedford in your first reply, so that's a good place to start I suppose.
The #1 biggest trouble I come across with Flat Earth, is confirmation bias. Ignoring or straight up denying variables, simply because they don't support what you want to conclude. Whether flat Earth likes it or not, refraction is very real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs This does occur in atmosphere, especially over large bodies of water, where the atmosphere is the most dense thanks to the rising water vapor. Yes, this does effect what we will see at distances...and science understands refraction very well, enough that we can calculate it now today and factor it as a variable in equations for long distance observations.
But the trouble is, fat chance trying to convince anyone of this...who will just deny that refraction exists and then won't even bother to take the time to see if that's true or not. I showed you an experiment above, I can share many more that help to verify refraction and explain further how it effects what your eye is capable of seeing at distances. But at the end of the day, it's up to you to realize it's for real and then do the research in this area to see what science knows about this bending of light. It's not hard, tons of resources online on refraction.
It's not just that Rowbotham ignored or denied refraction though, there's a lot more then that as well, LOTS of little errors and things he could have done better, that would have given him a more conclusive result. He also failed to factor (or notice) that the bridge behind the flag dropped below the flag, while at the same time his eye level rose above the bridge. Neither would happen on a Flat Earth, if the Earth were Flat, then the bridge would have lined up with the flag and his eye level would never have gone above horizon. Upon repeating this experiment, it was noted that both occurred. Rowbotham didn't notice, because he didn't care to notice, he was just focusing on whatever would confirm his bias...but also, he wasn't a trained surveyor and was not aware of what a Globe Earth geometry would predict. So that's two more things he ignored. That's 3 strikes to his experiment so far, but there are more.
When they repeated the experiment for the bet with Alfred Russel Wallace, they did more then just use ONE boat like in Rowbotham's experiment, instead they improved upon it and used several flag markers, and planted them into the ground, making sure the flags were all placed the same height from the water table. This helped them make another observation. If the Earth were flat, the poles would all form a straight line leading to the horizon, if the Earth were a Globe, they would rise up and then drop. When observed in the experiment, it was confirmed, the poles created a curve, rising up and then curving down. This is another thing we'd expect to see occur, if the Earth were a Globe. Here's a quick illustration quickly showing why this occurs. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Spectacle.tj1421-768x472.png
Rowbotham only took one data set, with one flag, so you wouldn't see this curve in his experiment. But they improved upon the experiment with the second test during the bet, to include more data sets...a common practice in experimentation, taking more data sets to give you more information, to help you reach a more conclusive result.
Another reported error was his math, the 8 inches per mile squared math is the worst offender of bad math in the flat Earth community. From what I understand, Rowbotham used this math as well to get his position for a geometric point where the flag should disappear. That's not what this calculation is for, it's not for calculating your line of sight, it's a surveyors equation that was used to help them pin point how much horizon drops from eye level...nothing more. So it was bad math as well....and Flat Earth STILL to this day seems to think that equation is the correct one to use for making long distance observations. It is not, it does not account for height of the observer or line of sight, that's not what the equation is calculating for.
So that's about 5 strikes to Rowbotham's original experiment and that's why it was concluded that he ran a sloppy experiment, that was very bias in its conclusion and was full of errors. Upon review, and upon repeating the experiment with improvements, it was found that the experiment actually matches the Globe model predictions, not a Flat Earth model. Flat Earths main error here, is that they don't know much about refraction and how it operates...many even refuse to believe it exists. My question is, why not look into refraction first...to make damn sure it doesn't, before you go assuming it doesn't need to be included as a variable? If Flat Earthers are such great researchers...then why do they ignore so much? It's just odd to me...if you're looking for truth and answers, why so much ignorance?
Here's a great website that has mocked up a quick simulation of the Bedford experiment. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth Just click the yellow tab labelled "Bedford" and then press play to watch the demonstration. What they've done here with this program, is they have generated both a Flat Earth and a Globe Earth simulation that are to scale and then they have placed them beside each other, to help give you a visual of what each model predicts, showing you what we would expect to see occur on each model. Upon repeating the experiment (which has been done now many many times), the results all come back matching the Globe prediction. The bridge drops, eye level rises over horizon, and the sticks curve, just as they would on a Globe.
Here is a pretty similar experiment done across a lake using makers at various distances. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This report is quite thorough, so apologies if it's a bit hard to follow and a bit long and boring, but the observation made here is pretty interesting and should especially not be ignored if you are trying to figure out what shape the Earth truly is. This is what an experiment looks like, when you do it properly.
In conclusion, Flat Earth focuses on just ONE observation here...and that's their error here. The conclusion of Flat Earth, is that the stick should disappear behind a curve at a givin point. The trouble is, they don't know how to calculate that point (their math is wrong) and they're ignoring a lot of key variables and running very sloppy experiments, that do not take enough data collections, to make their conclusions more conclusive. It's bad science...and people fall for it, cause they don't have the patience to conduct better research...it's much easier to chase bread crumbs, listen to con men blindly online and confirm bias.
That's my assessment of the Bedford experiment so far. If you have any more info, feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look, but it is pretty clear to me currently, that Flat Earth is just committing more confirmation bias here on this one, like they tend to do with most of their arguments.
1
-
@jfern777 " Conveniently this seems to apply in every case" I'm sorry...do you think refraction just goes away? It fluctuates a lot, but it's generally always there, and horizon is where it happens, because that's where you're seeing through the most atmosphere, the atmosphere directly in front of you, is a LOT longer and further, then the atmosphere from you to space. I get that you find it too convenient, but that's not an argument, that's called personal incredulity. If refraction occurs and if we have confirmed that refraction is present in our atmosphere, and occurs the most closest to the horizon...then this means you can't just ignore it. It means it HAS to be included as a variable, whether you like it or not.
So if you really want to be objective, you have to do some research on refraction and understand how it works. Even ol' Dubay will use refraction when it suits him and ignore it when it doesn't. Have you seen him try and explain how a sunset works on a Flat Earth? Have you seen him try and explain how the Southern hemisphere has circular rotation around their own celestial pole star, just like the North does? Have you seen him try and explain how Polaris drops to zero degree at the equator? https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/polaris-angle-768x768.jpg He uses refraction and the bending of light to explain all of these...yet he'll ignore it completely when talking about the Chicago skyline...which is FAR MORE believable, then his refraction explanation for any of the above things I just mentioned. What's more believable to you, refraction causing our visible horizon to rise up slightly making it possible to see a little bit more then we should geometrically, or; Refraction causing the entire Southern sky to fold in on itself and form the second celestial rotation around Sigma Octantis, just like how the North rotates around Polaris? Which one seems like a bigger leap in logic to you? I have demonstrated how refraction bends light over a curve and makes things behind that curve appear to rise up slightly and become visible, here's that video again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs. Has Dubay got ANY visual demonstrations, that back up his word salads?
You know what kind of people make arguments like Dubay? Using a concept to explain one or several occurrences and then deny it completely in other occurrences? Scam artists...con men do that, liars do that, bullshitters do that. Eric Dubay is a narcissistic, nazi sympathizing, crazy ass con man, who fits the MO of your standard cult leader. Not a dude I'd wanna follow.
1
-
The point of this video was not to prove or disprove anything, it's very clearly on the Globe conclusion. The point was to delve deeper into the psychology of the people who believe the Earth is flat and figure out WHY and HOW they reached that conclusion, and why some people have begun to turn to these fringe movements like Flat Earth for answers. I'll agree he probably could have done more to elaborate on that, but frankly...YouTubers make money from views, so it's really not in his best interest to turn people away at the start, it's to rope them in and get them watching in full.
The target audience for this though, is not Flat Earthers, or people on the fence either really, it's for those of us who have already concluded it's false, either right out of the gate or through our own extensive research. Now we're just looking for discussions on breaking down how people fall for this stuff online. It's interesting to us, but I understand your frustration.
1
-
1
-
@k6827 No, I haven't proven anything to YOU, because you have your fingers buried in your fucking ears and won't listen or pay attention to any of the proof and evidence I have shared. But I don't share this information for you specifically, I share it for the folks reading these, who are tired of Flat Earths ignorance and bullshit and would like to know where they go wrong.
"Show me a replication of water sticking to a sphere."
All you're doing is confirming you don't understand much about gravity. Water is held to our surface by gravity, anything with mass produces gravity but it requires A LOT of mass before gravity becomes strong enough to hold things to it indefinitely. So it's a little hard to do the test you are asking for, on a smaller scale, while standing in a much stronger gravity well, our Earth's gravity well. Earth will always have a stronger force of gravity, compared to anything else you interacted with here on the surface, so Earths gravity will pull off any water you put on a sphere in a smaller demonstration...like you're asking...and it's INCREDIBLE that I have to explain that to an adult. So the experiment you're asking for is a HUGE straw man and it's a dumb argument...it just tells the rest of us, your lack of understanding in basic physics.
If you knew anything about gravity, you'd know we can't scale down Earths gravity and reproduce that same output, but it can be tested directly on smaller objects. I'm sure you've heard of the Cavendish experiment that tests the attraction between two objects directly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68 This is very repeatable science and more then that it's how we measured the universal constant of gravity we use as G in many equations, from parabolic projectile equations, to plotting orbital paths, to simple aerodynamic lift equations.
But go ahead...tell me gravity isn't real...and then offer no proof of that claim, while meanwhile ignoring the very easy experiment (that I shared above) that does verify its existence.
1
-
@k6827 Did I say we knew what it was? No, I said we know how it works. We have observed a phenomena that occurs in nature, and we have measured its effects, these effects are undeniably true, things fall when you drop them, mass is attracted to other mass and at a predictable rate, that does not correlate to other known forces. General Relativity gives us a broader insight into how it works (proven by the Eddington experiment, Red Shift observation in stars, Time Dilation experiments in upper atmosphere, detection of gravitational waves, etc), but yes, we do not know everything about it, is there a problem with that?
Welcome to the fringes of modern science, did you think science was supposed to have everything figured out? Nope, still a lot we don't know, and that's fine, science is happy to admit where it's currently at...but just because we don't know what gravity is or what exactly causes it, does not mean it isn't real. We'll keep working on it, and if we discover something new that can replace our current theory of gravity, then we'll adjust accordingly...that's how science works, but so far, all attempts to falsify general relativity, have only helped to prove it further. And now, we use our understanding of gravity to do everything from put satellites into orbit, help build better planes, or unlock the mysteries of nuclear fusion reactions. Science has accomplished a LOT more with this understanding, then you realize...and it's arrogant of you to spit in the face of that progress, especially when you don't really know shit about anything...you just watched some conspiracy videos on youtube and now you think you do.
You people are just trying to play make believe pretend. Just ignoring or denying anything you disagree with, rather then trying to understand it further, filling in the blanks with bullshit, demanding so much from mainstream science, while pretending your own science doesn't require the same level of skepticism and review. It's incredible.
Just simply claiming that gravity doesn't exist, is not an argument in itself...it's just empty conjecture, providing some evidence that verifies where we're going wrong, THAT'S how you join the conversation. Proving your claims accurate, with actual scientific evidence, falsification through experimentation. Can't do fuck all with empty claims and paranoid bullshit. You are falling for a scam on the internet, perpetuated by village idiots. It's fine to question what you're told, in fact it's logical, but chasing confirmation bias through empty speculations and bullshit...is not how you find answers, it's how you join cults.
1
-
@samtraji1 No, Samual Rowbotham conducted a sloppy experiment, designed to confirm a bias and nothing more. It's a good experiment yes, but when you only pay attention to the details that support your bias and ignore all other variables that refute it, then you've conducted a bias experiment. Rowbotham only collected ONE visual data set and which only paid attention to ONE detail...the detail that supported his bias. He gave no effort to falsify his conclusion, he just concluded that his observation was perfectly sound...when it was in fact very sloppy and poorly formed. The key to science is falsification, and any GOOD experiment, accounts for as many variables as it can and collects MANY data sets...not just a single observation.
Here is an example of that same experiment repeated today http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is a far more thorough version of this experiment, that takes into account several more variables in the math, like height of the observer, height of the object and the biggest variable that Rowbotham overlooked, refraction. Upon all proper recreation of this experiment, it is found that the Earth is in fact curving, and at the rate that is predicted in the geometry. Go ahead and give it a look over sometime...that is how a proper experiment is conducted, with patience and attention to every detail, not just the ones that support a bias.
Rowbothams experiment is taught to science university undergraduates, as the perfect example of a bias experiment. They teach this to students of science, to help them understand the importance of conducting an experiment PROPERLY! They teach it to students, to illustrate the dangers of one of mankind's biggest flaws, our tendency to chase what we WANT to be true, over what IS true...our tendency to fall into confirmation bias.
That's why he included this experiment in this presentation, because it's a perfect example of an experiment that Flat Earth continues to use to con people...and that is the subject of this video after all, getting to the root of WHY and HOW people fall for the scam of flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tranquoc-binh5287 Ok, thanks for providing more context. But you are missing some details about gyros. Are you aware of gyroscopic precession? It’s actually not hard at all to change a gyros axis, you just apply a torque and it will precess naturally. This is well understood in physics, here’s a demonstration https://youtu.be/ty9QSiVC2g0.
This actually presents a problem for all mechanical gyros, because there will always be friction in the gimbles, which will apply a torque, which means a gyro will always eventually undergo a steady rate of precession. There’s no stopping this in mechanical gyros, it can be reduced, but the axis will actually not stay flush forever, it will precess over time. Some clever engineers took full advantage of this to create what is known as a gyrocompass, which actually uses the Earth’s rotation to create the most stable compass. Here’s an explanation for how this device works https://youtu.be/d1tQcGAgYMc. It works on two principles, gyroscopic precession and the Earth’s rotation, take away either variable, and the gyrocompass will no longer work. So it’s actually a proof of Earth’s rotation, an applied science that uses Earth rotation and Earth’s geometry, in order to function.
And no, it’s not actually bs, mechanical gyros on planes do have a mechanism for correcting its axis over time, they’re known as pendulous veins. https://youtu.be/_MoS5Yw9ZgE They’re a simple mechanism, they’re essentially weighted hinges on the gimbles that will fall when the axis is not perpendicular to the current gravity vector. When they drop, they open a valve, that allows air into little channels on the gimbles, which applies a torque, which causes the axis of the gyro to precess back to level with gravity. Once level, the hinges close, the precession then stops.
These are used on every mechanical gyro within an airplane, you can easily pull them apart and find them. Here’s a pilot taking a horizon indicator apart to find the veins https://youtu.be/z1QGRPVBZvw.
So there are some details you’re overlooking, details that matter to the larger conclusion here. I can only assume it’s because of a cognitive bias. You could benefit from learning more about the physics of gyroscopes and the engineering that goes into the devices used in air and sea navigation.
I should tell you, I’m not new to this discussion. I’ve been researching Flat Earth for over 4 years now. I’ve reached the opposite conclusion, Earth is most definitely a sphere and it is in motion. I hope I was able to help provide some information you may have missed or overlooked. Feel free to ask me anything else if you’d like, I don’t mind sharing more info.
1
-
1
-
@tranquoc-binh5287 Destructive moving force? It’s just a bit of angular momentum, but you’re treating it like it’s a bomb or something. How exactly is it “destructive”? You’ll have to be a lot more specific. Do the math on Earths rotation, which ends up being 0.000694 RPM, about 15 degrees every hour...how is that going to be hard for a fly wheel to account for? Gyros will easily precess, with just a little torque, and fly wheels are pretty well contained...even a little bolt is going to apply a torque, it’ll precess with Earth’s rate of rotation just fine.
No, we don’t throw out everything...because of unanswered questions, where did you get that assumption? Because a lot of the time, questions that YOU personally think are unanswered, generally just turns out to be misunderstandings from the person questioning. Physics is difficult, just cause someone doesn’t fully understand something...doesn’t mean it’s a “win” for the opposite conclusion. That’s not how science works at all. Seriously, why do people think that’s how it works? Please elaborate.
You need to consider this very real possibility, that you’re not really building an objective “score card”, you’re really just building a stronger cognitive bias. You’re ignoring a lot of physics and then deflecting with a slew of other information, which will effectively confuse a layman, sure...but that’s what con men do, not objective researchers.
Sorry, but I just feel like you’re jumping to false conclusions, from personal misunderstandings that are your own. I hope you do research more though, I just feel you might have a bias leading your conclusions, so you should keep that in mind. Science doesn’t just throw the baby out with the bathwater, because of questions.
1
-
@domagojbiskupic3807 Many people have read the Bible…and some believe it, while others after having read it, find even more reason to fortify their position for not believing it. The Bible makes many claims that science today has proven to be absolutely false…so it doesn’t take much logic to conclude that the Bible was written by man, in a time when these things were not known, so they just made it up. That’s not difficult to accept for many, it makes perfect sense…while others would prefer the story be real, so they instead ignore the science, and conclude that God said this and that, so the science is wrong, not the Bible. But where’s the logic in denying evidence…in favour of belief? 🤷♂️ That’s the perspective many of us have…we just see a bunch of ignorant people, unwilling to accept reality. Is it really so difficult to see how we could have reached that conclusion?
Here’s the leap in logic I take issue with. Many religious people will argue that God must exist, because reality is too complex and humans are too precise for it all to be conceived by chance alone. There is logic in that, sure, it can be contended, I mean there are many counter arguments to the watch makers argument, but that’s not really my gripe for now. My gripe is in the leap from “God exists, therefore my version of God is the true version”. Even if we could 100% verify a creator God does exist…it still does not mean YOUR version of that God is confirmed as well. Make sense? That’s the bigger error made in logic here I feel. The existence of a God in no way means you have any idea what that God has planned, or if it even does have a plan.
My trouble is when I’m yelled at by a Christian to “repent my sins and come into Jesus”, and then the next day a Muslim with just as strong of a devotion in their faith yells at me claiming “accept Allah, or burn”. Two very different conclusions…..both are right? These people will argue with absolute impunity that it’s THEIR VERSION of God that’s correct….when all I’m seeing, is two people who probably would have easily subscribed to the others faith, had they been born in each other’s geographical location.
Just saying…everybody thinks it’s them who has the superior logic, while forgetting (or never realizing) that logic is often just inferred, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right. Just cause you think you’ve reached a logical conclusion, does not mean you couldn’t be in error somewhere in your logic, because of information you either lack or intentionally ignore.
Food for thought, you can of course believe whatever you like, just as I am free to reach my own conclusion. I think what’s not appreciated, from any side, is when people try to force their conclusion upon you, believing it to be perfect in logic. There’s many different perspectives, so best not to assume yours is without flaw. That goes for everybody I feel.
1
-
1
-
It's not hard to imagine...but that's all you're doing, imagining. You don't have any real proof of this conclusion you've reached, of "hidden masters" hiding the truth, yet you're almost 100% convinced it's the truth anyway...which means it's a belief you have, which means this comment of yours is pretty hypocritical. You're not the first person to conclude that there might be some hidden puppet master pulling strings somewhere, that logic isn't lost on us, we get it. But science is a little hard to lie about...because it is based around fact, things that anyone can test for themselves, so hiding the shape of the planet from us...not very likely. Do you really think scientists can create all the modern technology of our time, but they can't figure out something as trivial as the true shape of the planet? Is that really all that hard for you to comprehend?
Go ahead and re-question things, that's perfectly fine, but eventually you'll just come to the same conclusions science already has...because a lot of science actually is pretty undeniable once you really look at it objectively. I think confirmation bias is a flaw that mankind has, a flaw we tend to follow blindly more often than we realize. So before you go seeking answers you have to recognize if you have bias, identify what it is, and then do everything you can to remove it...or else you just risk chasing shadows down empty rabbit holes, that will only serve to make you more paranoid, which is just gonna rob you of your better reasoning and make you crazy. Science learned of this flaw a long time ago, that's why it included peer review in the process of science, to weed out bias, among other things. Flat Earth has no such system...which for me personally, explains a lot.
What's your current bias? From what I can tell, a deep lack of trust in authority, so you conclude before really looking or listening, that any institution of authority must be lying...so you're aligning with any knowledge that is contrarian to what they say, even if that new knowledge is clearly complete bullshit. Not a very good way to go about seeking real answers in my opinion, putting value on the source of information, over the actual information itself. I know it takes longer to focus on the info itself and red herrings are everywhere...but following bias and paranoia is just gonna lead you to false conclusions.
I'm not saying you shouldn't look for your own answers...just be careful how you go about seeking it, cause paranoia is real and it will lead you chasing your tail if you're not careful.
1
-
So your argument is "they can fake it, so they did fake it", do you not see the error in logic there? Do you conclude everything on bias and paranoia alone, or do you have actual tangible evidence to support your conclusions? Just because they can fake things today...does not mean they did or that they do. I'm afraid you have to be a lot more diligent then that. Like it or not, without evidence supporting your empty ass claims, the other conclusion is still that they do go to space and you're just too incredulous, ignorant and paranoid to accept that. We understand that CGI today has made it very difficult to determine 2nd hand visual evidence as real or faked, you people are not stumbling upon some hidden revelation that we don't also realize...but if you honestly think that's the only evidence the Globe has, then you are delusional.
Just LOOK at the world around you, pull your head away from your bible and your YouTube university classes sometime and LOOK at the modern world sometime. Do you REALLY think scientists could bring you EVERY modern comfort and technology you enjoy today...but they couldn't figure out something as trivial as the shape of the planet? Do you honestly think these people are that evil, that they'd actually spend their days devising ways to fool you? Is that what people go to school for...a masters class in how to fuck with people? Do you really think pilots, ship captains, military and rescue crews could ever hope to find their destinations around the world...if they don't have accurate maps?
Use your head bud...you're falling for a scam on the internet. Flat Earth is exploiting your growing distrust in authority and using that paranoia to fill the gaps in your knowledge and experience with some bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s true Flat Earth isn’t exclusive to the religious, nor are the majority of religious flat Earthers, far from it, but within flat Earth the majority are religious…and it’s a big reason why they became Flat Earthers, because it helps confirm their religious beliefs. I’ve talked with hundreds of flat Earthers, and there’s no doubt…the majority are drawn to it because it helps confirm that particular bias. So it’s relevant to mention, even if some would find it hard to accept.
Though yes, I’d agree, I believe the bigger names are typically atheists, but that’s not reflective of their followers. These people are conmen, they’ll lie, and exploit any fears or biases they can to sell their grift…and sadly, the desire to confirm a creator and an after life is a powerful desire for many, that can cloud their ability to reason objectively, making them perfect targets for a conspiracy/con like this. That’s not to say they’re stupid, but it does create a strong bias that can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I’m afraid they do change, I’m not lying to you, it’s basic astronomy. Seriously…the seasonal stars are well known in astronomy, you can look them up any time you’d like and go out and find them on any clear night. If you can’t find the zodiac constellations out of season right now currently, then you’ll realize I’m correct.
The Big Dipper is a circumpolar constellation, does not lie close to the ecliptic, so the Sun never comes directly between us and it…hence why it’s visible all year round. I think you could really use a geometry lesson and a lesson of the heliocentric model. The poles are always tilted in the same orientation, they’re never pointing away from Polaris in the North and Sigma Octantis for the South, that’s where the angle is locked. So it’s always pointed towards Polaris…hence why the circumpolar stars do not change in a 6 month period.
The Earth rotates, so just get yourself a globe sometime and make a simple observation for me. Shine a light on half of it, one side is in day seeing no stars thanks to the atmosphere being illuminated too much for stars to shine through, the other half is in night, seeing stars just fine. Put an observer on the North Hemisphere during night, you’ll notice it’s 180 degrees of sky (if placed perpendicular to surface) encompasses the polar axis making it easily visible. So if that sky is locked towards Polaris and all the stars surrounding it…pretty common sense that you’d be able to see those stars just fine all year round. The stars along the ecliptic however, that is the stars along the same plain as the Sun, you’re right, they would change periodically….and they do, they are the seasonal stars.
I’m not yanking your chain, I’m simply stating a fact. You can confirm it on any clear night, so go ahead.
So in all of that, you avoided answering for the Southern Hemispheres stars. You wanna talk about a GLARING PROBLEM for the FE model…why are the stars different in the South? Why can’t the North Hemisphere see the Southern Cross? Why can’t the South Hemisphere see the Big Dipper? Why do they have their own rotation of stars, around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis?
I’ll remind you…I’ve been to the South Hemisphere and I’ve seen the second sky…so don’t try and tell me it doesn’t exist, because that’s extremely ignorant.
I’m off to bed now, but you asked some other questions about the motions of the planet, I’ll address those figures later today when I’m up again. In the meantime, don’t ignore the Southern Hemisphere stars please, I would like an answer…a LOGICAL answer, for how there is a second hemisphere sky, exactly like what we’d expect to see on a globe.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 You’re not really giving a logical answer, you’re asserting that Polaris (and all the stars really) both stay in place and begin to drop at a perfectly consistent rate, at the same time. Perspective will not do that, perspective would make Polaris drop, but not at a consistent rate by latitude, it would drop less and less by degrees to horizon, the further you go….and it would never reach horizon, not at the altitude the stars are at. In reality, the stars drop at a consistent rate to horizon…that’s how sailors are able to know their latitude, because it’s a consistent drop. That’s what we’d expect to happen on a globe, because the surface angles at a consistent rate…it’s basic geometry. Also explains how Polaris eventually reaches 0 degrees at the Equator and it explains the sudden appearance of the second sky…and it explains it with absolute ease.
You’d also have two other problems. If we assume the stars are fixed to a dome in a single layer, then the perfect circle would become more oval the further away you got. If we assume the stars are more scattered, within various layers, then we’d expect a LOT of parallax between stars. Neither of these things occur in reality, so we certainly can’t conclude the geometry fits a flat Earth with a dome of stars. And if the stars begin to drop as you travel…then that implies a moving sky relative to the observer. Which is an un-falsifiable belief, that would imply the sky is personal to every single observer on Earth, which…I mean talk about the mother of all ad hoc explanations. Occams Razor is sure out the window there.
The last problem is that this dome has never been interacted with, so it has no physical evidence supporting its existence…also another big problem.
But really, the biggest problem here, is that nothing you’ve just said for your second hemisphere explanation, falsifies the Globe models explanation, which is far more geometrically sound. While you’re making extreme leaps in logic here, with unfalsifiable ad hoc explanations…the Globe geometry fits observable reality here with absolute ease.
I know we’re discussing a model you do not agree with…but if you’re going to argue against it, then you should know the model inside and out….that’s just common sense. I know your models, so I can easily falsify them without much effort. They do not fit reality…as hard as you try to ram that square peg into the round hole, that’s just a fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Still up, so I might as well answer this too. The speeds of Earth really aren’t that ridiculous, if you consider the scales you’re dealing with. You think a few million miles means much of anything…to a galaxy spanning Quadrillions of miles? Let’s put the scales into perspective for you. Imagine you’re the Earth, orbiting the Sun at a blistering 67,000 mph. If your diameter is 8000 miles, then at that speed you’d have moved roughly 8 and a half Earth diameters, every hour. To put that into even better perspective, imagine yourself moving, oh about a meter and a half forward….over the span of an hour. WOAH! Soooo fast!
Understand this…a mile means a lot to you and me, the microscopic life living on the skin of a giant rock in space. But these units mean nothing to the scope and scale of Earth and the galaxy it inhabits….miles per hour, might as well be a snails measure for forward velocity. You know what parallax is I do hope…you’re well aware what effect distance can have on an objects perceived rate of motion. The further away an object is, the slower it will appear to move….so what do you think this effect would have on objects that are trillions of miles away in all directions? Pretty simple to understand why the constellations don’t appear to move in a human life, when you really think about. But, again you could really benefit from learning some basic astronomy…the stars ARE changing, it’s well documented, we have accurate star charts going back hundreds of years….the stars do change, any actual astronomer will tell you that.
So you’re focusing on big numbers and not really thinking about them in context.
Now, of course none of that proves the vastness of space, merely explains how it’s possible. But satellites, deep space probes, space travel, bouncing lasers and radar signals off of the Moon and even Venus….these all do verify much of that space. As does astronomy mathematics, used for predicting celestial events (like eclipses, retrogrades, planet transits across the Sun, etc.) down to the second, decades in advance. As well as stellar parallax, which confirms it all further.
So you’re arguing against CENTURIES of collective knowledge, evidence, hard data and understanding….and you’re doing it largely because a Nazi sympathizing Yoga teacher sitting on a beach in Thailand, decided he knew more about reality than actual experts, with real world experience in their chosen field.
These aren’t your own insights or ideas…these are all Dubay’s talking points, repeated verbatim. I’ve heard them repeated many times now….I’ve falsified them all again and again.
As much as you’d hate to admit it, we have every reason to question Flat Earth, just as they now question modern science. Your models do not fit reality and do not work…maybe you can ignore that, but the rest of us sure aren’t going too.
You need to stop patronizing us, because all you’re really achieving, is a form of Cunningham’s Law; “best way to get the right answer from someone online isn’t to ask a question, it’s to post the wrong answers.” You’re educating us…which I’m actually pretty grateful for. I was already pretty well versed in general science and physics, astronomy as well…but thanks to FE, I now know the Globe model…pretty close to inside and out. So FE is increasing our knowledge, you’re actually making us all better at arguing with you…which is probably the opposite effect to what many in FE were hoping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Well if you’d have read my prior comment way up above, that you didn’t read because you said it was too long, you’d understand why we know you can see infinitely far…because I already explained it. Because we understand how vision really works. Everything you see is due to light that arrives at your eye…your not really seeing out, you’re brain is interpreting light that’s coming in, coming to YOU…that’s how you see. Since there’s no known limit to how far light can travel, and this is well tested, we conclude you can see infinitely far. So long as light can reach your eye…you can see. Simple deduction from known variables. Understanding how your eye works, helped us understand this. I tried explaining it to you before…but you tuned out….like I’m sure you’ve likely done all your life. You’re not listening.
Stars aren’t just far away, they’re also THE largest and THE brightest objects in the entire universe, that we are aware of. This matters…because size matters to how far away you can see something. This is common knowledge. Little mosquito, can’t see it for more than a few feet in front of you….big mountain, you can see it fir hundreds of miles. How far you think you’d be able to see objects MILLIONS OF MILES in diameter, with a luminosity rating so intense, stars have their own category? I’ll tell you how far….Trillions, to Quadrillions of miles. The math even supports this.
A zoom lens isn’t actually physically zooming forward…it’s magnifying and focusing light that’s coming into the lens…that’s how all telescopic lenses work. They’re just focusing in on light that’s already arrived to the lens…magnify it’s intensity, making it visible. It’s basic light refraction through convex and concave glass, sharpening the light that’s already arrived at the lens, but unseen before that light was focused.
What I’m explaining to you now is basic lens engineering….we know how to build lenses for cameras, because we understand how your human eye works. A camera lens is basically an eye….works the exact same way, but with modifications to make them even better than your eye. So you know how science knows it’s RIGHT about how your eye works? If they didn’t….then cameras wouldn’t work. We reverse engineered the human eye, to learn how to construct cameras and lenses. So you’re arguing against APPLIED science. Do you know what that means? Engineering…you’re arguing against the foundations that went into the technology you use every day.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 We are thinking for ourselves…what do you think I’ve been doing this whole time? You might have noticed…I haven’t just been bending over and taking what you’re selling. I’ve been questioning you…which is an act of thinking for myself, rather than agreeing blindly. You have been questioning me as well, so I’m more than willing to accept you are also thinking for yourself…I wouldn’t disrespect you there, you’re clearly choosing your own path and I do acknowledge and respect that….so at least have rhe decency to give me the same level of respect.
You think that just because I disagree with you…it means I don’t question the mainstream knowledge? Why would I research flat Earth for 4 years, if I wasn’t making an attempt to question the Globe and its science? I had to ask questions of the globe, to learn what I know…so save your empty “wisdom” rhetoric on the suckers it works on.
I’ve questioned both models along the way…you know what I’ve learned? That Flat Earth is comprised of mostly layman, who lack basic understandings of science…like how vision and light works, for example. Your side does not have a working model, it can not actually be used in any applied science. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Your proponents do not have any major contributions to engineering or discoveries that are actually useful for applied science….I’ve looked, I’ve found none so far. Meanwhile, the Globe proponents are scientists, engineers, pilots, sailors, surveyors, teachers, astronomers, astronauts, EXPERTS who have actually created new technologies, and made discoveries that are actually useful for human advancement. I can introduce you to many, they can all produce their credentials that verify their experience.
You have a Nazi sympathizing Yoga teacher…who thinks Dinosaur bones are all fake…and writes rap songs admiring Hitler….really good choice of idols. 👌
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Alright, experiments used to verify Earth rotation.
Foucault Pendulum - https://youtu.be/M8rrWUUlZ_U - In this version of the experiment, it’s conducted in a stairwell, without any motors, just a weight and a string. He even pays attention to the rate of rotation, which he can then use to calculate his latitude, making the experiment even more conclusive. Easily repeated, been conducted over and over for nearly 200 years.
Ring Laser Gyro measuring Earth rotation - https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss - not a simple experiment in the slightest, but not difficult to understand if you give it the time. These device’s basically detect rotational motion. They’re so good at doing this task, they’re used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll. So they are deadly accurate for that task. So scientists have also used them to detect Earth’s rotation…with success. Even flat Earth has done this https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=51.
The Gyrocompass - https://youtu.be/CUbPynV68Bg - this device was developed in the early 1900’s and it works on two premises. Gyroscopic precession and Earth’s rotation. Basically, it’s a gyroscope, that’s designed to precess at the exact rate as Earth’s rotation, so that it always points to true North. Used in pretty much every large modern sea vessel today, far more accurate than any magnetic compass. If Earth wasn’t rotating…then they would not work as designed, it’s that simple.
Testing Coriolis Effect - https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38 - pretty simple experiment to recreate, also goes into good detail on the physics of Coriolis. One of many experiments you can do to test Coriolis effect. But if you really think it doesn’t exist, take it up with this sniper explaining what effect Coriolis has on bullet drop rates https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs.
Measuring Earths Centrifugal Force - https://youtu.be/t2aSVsifj-o - did you know you weigh slightly less at the Equator? Ever wonder why? Earth’s rotation generates a small amount of centrifugal force, that at Equator is the strongest, negating about 0.3% Earth’s gravity. This is a simple experiment anyone can do that tests this.
There, 5 simple experiments verifying Earth rotation, go nuts.
Whoops…4 simple, one extremely complex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Alright, I watched what I believe is the part you’re referring too. They discuss the Sun from about the 5 minute mark to at least 10 minutes, and then they move onto the Moon. Never once do they mention a solar filter being used, and from what I can see none actually do. They’re all conveniently during cloudy days, showing a sun illuminating the surroundings clouds and then slowly being obscured by them.
Checking the description, there’s also NO external links to where to find each individual video, no sources at all really, just links to more gish gallop docs like it. But most of them I have seen before, they’re nothing new…same rehashed videos from other gish gallop docs on YouTube.
So they’re quite easy to falsify, they’re not using solar filters at all….if they were, they wouldn’t be grainy, blury, distorted, they would be crystal clear, like this video here. https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc. Do these look blury or grainy or over exposed? No, the Sun is so clear, you can see its features…these are taken with a solar filter. He shows you the camera, the filter, the lenses, the mount, the location…everything, with complete transparency. The Sun never shrinks….one of many videos verifying the exact same thing.
Globe always shows crystal clear images and photos….while FE only ever uses out of focus, over exposed, blury, grainy pieces of shit video. Wonder why that is? Hmmm…🧐
Seriously, I know you don’t like me…but I think you need to see the videos I’m showing you here. The comparison is night and day. Globe proponents always film in crystal clear clarity, while Flat Earth always cherry picks from examples from clearly unclear days, where the video is over exposed and poorly shot. It’s also a clever trick using a digital cameras auto exposure setting. You wanna see what a cameras auto exposure setting can do? Here’s a clear demonstration of how Flat Earth tricks people https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8.
I urge you to watch these and see the evidence for yourself. The people in your doc, are lying to you…and for some reason, you’re eating it up without question.
You have to at least agree, all the examples of a setting Sun shared by FE proponents are poorly done. You should be asking yourself why that is. The examples I’ve provided are crystal clear…and if you’d bother to actually watch them, you’d see you’ve been duped by theses conmen.
Mock, belittle, ridicule me all you want, you’re really just mad that I’m actually proving your claims wrong. You’re just mad, because you know I’m right.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I don’t mind you challenging the modern consensus of science. That’s actually the one thing I do admire about FE, challenging science the rest of us have moved on from. Even despite the ridicule it brings, it’s quite commendable actually. What I DON’T admire, is the ignorance, the arrogance and the lying. I don’t admire people who clearly don’t care about what’s true, only care about what they WANT to be true. Your movement is so rampant with confirmation bias, it’s incredible you guys don’t see it as clearly as I do. You’re free to question things all you wish, but that goes BOTH ways. You’re not free from the same standards of review. And neither am I, nobody is. But you sure haven’t spent much time on rebuttals of evidence, you mostly have just…mocked and bragged. Not very productive.
All I’ve tried to do here is peer review your claims…and you’ve mocked, ridiculed, and spoken down to me every step of the way. It’s fine though, I have a very thick skin, your behaviour is expected when being corrected or criticized.
How many videos of mine did YOU watch? I’ve listened and followed your claims, addressed them accordingly to the best of my current knowledge, and I’ve watched the links you’ve shared. Have you done the same? I very much doubt it…so you yelling at me for not watching something, is pretty hypocritical.
I don’t claim to know everything, and as I said the other day, I don’t like assuming your positions. Providing me with time stamps, citations, sources, direct evidence, keeps me from assuming to much about your arguments…it focuses the argument, and helps me see YOUR conclusions clearer. I have seen the videos you were referring too, but until I watched them, I didn’t know that I had seen them…I was hoping you could maybe provide something new.
Point is, YOU made the claim….so it’s then YOUR burden of proof to provide the evidence. It’s common sense.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 No, not fake, they are real videos, just filmed poorly. I did look objectively, the videos are inconclusive, due to how sloppy they’re done…that’s being objective. Anyone actually being objective, would point out the same thing. If I brought blury video to you, YOU would immediately point it out as well. Take a look at my videos I’ve shared, you’ll see the difference. You also claimed they used solar filters, they did not, you can easily tell when a solar filter is used, you will only see the Sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Just saying, if you had any arguments, you wouldn’t be yelling at me, you’d just be providing the evidence. If you were being objective, you would look at the evidence I have provided. That’s what I do…I don’t bitch, or moan, or whine. You make a claim, I refute it with evidence. You provide evidence for a claim, I take a look. If I spot any errors upon my peer review, I provide more evidence to counter your evidence…and that’s how the process of objective falsification goes. If I can’t falsify your evidence with evidence of my own, then the process stops and I would then either admit I was wrong, or conclude for the time being to gather more evidence….THAT’S SCIENCE.
You’re being a child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 So you have some time to calm down? Finally ready to examine the evidence a bit more? Just two quick vids I think you should watch. Here they are again.
https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8 - sunset demonstration showing why it’s important to get clear images, with the exposure settings on the camera locked.
https://youtu.be/WtQiwbFD_Cc?t=660 - following the sun throughout the whole day, with an actual solar filter. Sun does not change size.
Now I’m more than willing to look at any counter evidence or explanations you have for these, but I need your head screwed back on, or we’re not going to get anywhere. These are crystal clear images of the Sun, during a clear day, removing any variables like over exposure, glare and cloud density, that would make the Sun appear to shrink in the video, when it’s actually not. It just makes sense, that if you’re going to gather evidence like this, you’d want to see the Sun perfectly clear, no glare and no clouds in the way. That’s what my videos above did, they just removed glare with solar filters, kept exposure locked and observed during a clear day. Doing this reveals the true physical size and shape of the Sun, removing all brightness and glare that would distort its size.
The Sun does not shrink in these videos, which makes it a problem for Flat Earth’s argument that a sunset is caused by perspective. All I’m asking for is someone from FE to be honest and objective enough, to take a look at the evidence. I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m just being objective. If you have counter evidence, if you have any explanations that could falsify this evidence, feel free to share with me, I will take a look at anything you share.
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I get that, but why? You claimed to be objective…yet I share evidence and you won’t even look at it. That’s not objective at all, that’s intentional ignorance. Typically, people do that when they’d rather not learn how they could be wrong.
Otherwise, why such a melt down over me just providing a little counter information and evidence? Am I not allowed to question you or debunk your claims if I can? Where’s the sense or logic in that? If I have evidence or an explanation that I feel refutes your position…I’m going to share it, that’s how a debate works.
I’ll go away when we’ve concluded the point, when one or both of us reaches a point where we can no longer provide evidence in support of our arguments, then one of us can either concede or conclude we don’t have enough evidence to continue. I feel my counter evidence successfully falsifies your evidence and the argument of perspective presented by FE to explain sunsets, and you so far haven’t given me any reason to conclude otherwise.
So that’s where we are at…I would just like to come to a resolution. I don’t mind being wrong, but you so far haven’t proven me to be wrong, so nothing is resolved yet. Why bother having these chats with people at all, if you’re not really interested in doing what it takes to reach a conclusion? Would just be nice to conclude this point in a rational manner.
But up to you…if you’re not interested anymore, then that’s fine, I will leave you be. But if we don’t continue, then I will just conclude that you couldn’t continue because you didn’t want to be proven wrong. I will then just conclude you’re not really interested in finding the objective truth, just another Flat Earther looking to confirm a fantasy.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Just trying to reach a conclusion, I’m not trying to be a dick, just pointing out errors where I see them, sharing information. If you’re truly objective, then you’d be interested to know how you could be wrong. If I’m wrong, then I’m more than willing to explore how I am, but so far, I have no reason to conclude that. My apologies if I’ve treated you poorly…but I mean if that bar is set at “anyone who challenges your positions and doesn’t agree with you blindly”, then I’m not sorry at all. I’m free to do so, we have every reason to question Flat Earth, and FE proponents need to wake up and stop pretending like we don’t.
Up to you, I wouldn’t mind a resolution on the point.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I’ve reached my conclusion, largely because nobody from Flat Earth is able to continue. I just find it odd is all…if you’re so certain of your conclusions, then why can’t you continue arguing them? At least to stalemate…I would eventually get to a point where I have no further evidence, Flat Earthers just give up long before I’ve ever gotten to that point. I can only learn so much on my own, to learn an opposing viewpoint, I have to discuss directly with the opposing viewpoint. Only one of us can be right, but we’re both certain it’s us…yet only one can be. I find that fascinating and I’m curious to find out which one it is for certain. For that, I require someone from the opposite perspective to go the distance with. But…nobody in FE does…so I can really only conclude it’s because they know they can’t. They won’t admit it to me, but that’s the only conclusion I can reach.
You say you’re objective…but then you won’t look at what an opposing viewpoint has to show you? That’s not very objective at all…an objective researcher would at least look at evidence provided.
I’ve come to my conclusions for good reasons, I have the evidence, I’ve done the research…and so now I’m just looking to challenge that evidence and see how well it holds up. But nobody from FE seems up to the challenge, almost like they don’t want to find out if they’re wrong. Could care less if I’m wrong, I would just like to know for certain. Best way to do that, chat with my opposition, and see what I can learn and how well my evidence holds up.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 Yes I did have my conclusion already, I’ve said many times, I’ve looked at it for 4 years now…I’ve long reached a conclusion, but so did you. We’re both bias, nobody is free from bias…that’s the reality. Some people really like to think they are….but nobody is, science realized this a very long time ago. The best way to combat your bias, is to chat with your opposition, openly, and actually listen and look at what they share. It doesn’t mean that once I look, I’ll immediately agree…if I can falsify what you share with me, then I will. It’s just to see what we might have overlooked due to our bias, that’s why we discuss with our peers of different opinions. That’s why science included peer review into the method of science, to combat bias. Because it’s very hard for an individual to spot their own biases, but your peers…have no such filter. Our peers can’t wait to show us the holes in our reasoning. So that’s why I have these long chats…it’s not easy, it’s gruelling and annoying and hard, but I do often learn a lot…despite the headaches.
I just prefer being honest, and if I’m not convinced, then I’ll let anyone know why I’m not. I’m not afraid to be wrong, but to prove me wrong is not an easy task…I don’t just roll over, I challenge, until I can’t. And with 4 years of knowledge on this subject, plus a lifetime of experience, I can go a long time before I’m out of evidence.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 You could convince me actually…if you had evidence I couldn’t refute. I would admit whenever I saw that evidence. But so far, Flat Earth has not provided that evidence, while the globe has. So that’s why the Globe position has convinced me. It holds up…and chats like this just prove it further. Only one of us can be right, if you can’t continue…then perhaps it’s time to consider the very real possibility, that the Flat Earth is wrong.
I am very concerned with that possibility…because if it is true that Flat Earth is wrong, then a lot of people are following a movement that isn’t true and it’s effecting their lives. They’re giving up on education, they’re not joining society and they’re not really contributing much, they’re instead finding reasons to hate society and tear it down instead. I chat with lots of Flat Earthers, and they’re generally very angry…and for good reason, they think they’ve been lied too their whole lives. I understand that, it would piss me off too to learn something like that. But if they’re wrong here, then they’re angry for no reason…then they should be angry at the bastards who made them think it was flat. I’m just worried for the mental health of society of late…I think Flat Earth is a symptom of a greater issue we need to address.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well you’re at it, don’t forget to keep the camera rolling and notice that eventually objects reach a point where their base is sinking into horizon and no amount of zoom will ever bring it back into view https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc?t=59. Then do some research on the vanishing point of the human eyes optical resolution, then realize that Flat Earthers were never bringing objects back from horizon, they were just bringing them back from vanishing point.
The best way to reach the most objective conclusion is not to set out with a goal of proving your hypothesis, the best way is by setting out to falsify your hypothesis. That’s how science works, through falsification, it’s the best way to remain objective. If after all attempts you could not falsify your hypothesis, then it’s very likely because it’s the correct conclusion. But even after that, you must still submit your findings for peer review, because there’s always the chance you missed something. So I’ve pointed out something you missed, falsifying your zooming in conclusion. If you feel I’ve overlooked something, now is your chance to falsify my conclusion, see how this works? When we can no longer continue down the process of falsification, you are then left with the most objective conclusion.
You just described the problem with Flat Earthers, they only look at the information that confirms their bias, because all they’re doing is trying to prove their conclusion right. They stop looking at a problem the moment their bias is confirmed. You’re always gonna have that problem if you set out with the goal to prove a hypothesis. The goal is to falsify, not prove, that’s how you remain objective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trukeesey8715 Calls me a paid troll...provides zero evidence for that accusation except flawed logic and empty paranoid conjecture, then asks me for evidence? You seem to be just fine reaching full conclusions without evidence...so do I even need to point out the hypocrisy here? The troll I'll accept, I do take joy in correcting misinformation where I find it, but paid...I wish I got paid to chat with paranoid idiots all day...that'd be great...where do I sign up for that? It is criminal that I do this shit for free....but I see it as a public service and it's a hobby I guess. Flat Earth makes baseless claims, as you did, and so I just share the information that refutes those claims.
But alright, onto some science, lets start with any easy one. How does a sunset work on the Flat Earth exactly? Ram that square peg as hard you want into that round hole...you'll still have to admit, the Globe makes sense of this observation with far greater ease. Flat Earth likes to say it's perspective that causes it, then they pat themselves on the back and move on. But, that's not evidence...that's a hypothesis, the next step is to PROVE it, with experimental evidence. First of all, it's just common sense, if the Sun is up as high as they say it is, circling above a flat Earth...then you'd expect to see it all day long, from everywhere, it would never set. But it's not just common sense that tells you this, spacial geometry does as well, the perspective math does not fit a Flat Earth model....but it sure does fit a Globe. Here are some simple experiments and observations that help to provide evidence for this observation. Feel free to mull it over all you like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM - tracking the Suns motion throughout a day, can tell us a lot about the geometric shape of our planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw - tracking the path of the Suns shadow angles during the Solstice, then doing a little trigonometry to see how those angles fit on each model can also help to verify which model is accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s - taking shadow angle measurnments of the Sun light during the Equinox, then plotting that data on each model to see which one it fits...spoilers, it's the Globe again.
Just a short sample of some observations and experiments anyone can do with the Sun. Your first clue should have been that a sunset is impossible on a Flat Earth...but bias is a powerful thing isn't it.
I can share more if you'd like. Like I said, you haven't been looking very hard in my opinion, if you haven't found any evidence for the Globe yet. Maybe stop listening blindly to the flat Earth con men on YouTube feeding you bullshit and lies, and start questioning flat Earth with the same skepticism you now treat the mainstream. You might find out who the real liars are when you do.
Chat with me for a few days, I'll share actual evidence for you, that is overwhelming. There is a reason we concluded the Earth is a sphere...because it is and we have that evidence, mountains of it. Just have to shut off that paranoid bias long enough to pay attention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, the old guard isn't just going to roll over every time some new idea comes along. No matter how popular it is, it still requires evidence in support of it, before it can even be considered. This is how we keep liars and con men at bay...if they just accepted every new theory without inquiry, or without going through the process of peer review and falsification, then junk science would be everywhere, and then we'd really be fucked. Can't do anything with junk science, it simply does not work...the more of it we have, the messier things get. So love it or hate it, I think we have the best system we can have. Of course it's not perfect, but the flaws of mankind kind of makes it impossible to ever have a truly perfect system.
People should be more persistent. Einstein was laughed at and despised in his day, because he was shaking up the consensus of his time, that being Newtonian gravity. But, he knew he had something, so he fought for it, he marched on and PROVED he was right, he never gave up and look at him today. The process of science is rigorous, but it has to be...because people are flawed. There exist liars and con men who have made it necessary to operate with an iron gavel, but you can't really argue against objective facts and evidence. Einstein did it, and so can anyone else, just requires they find that evidence.
1
-
@Cybergrip1 Well, like I said, it's not perfect, but nothing really is, to many variables to account for any system to ever be truly perfect. Your point on Edison though, that wasn't so much the systems fault, as one stubborn mans fault for not realizing when he was wrong. Man is flawed like that, those flaws don't just go away so easily, we have egos and bias, that'll probably never change.
I think we've developed the best possible system we can, to counter mans flaws and keep us progressing...of course there's always room for improvement, society is always changing, but I would hope we only makes changes for the better. I don't think stream lining the process would help though, I feel it would just allow pseudoscience to run rampant...I think with the internet, currently making it possible to spread misinformation like never before, that's kind of already happening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FelicianoMediaCo Jesus pal...why are crazy conspiracy people so bad at punctuation and proper paragraph structure? Break that shit up man...you're just giving people a headache looking at that mess of words. All that nonsense...and you couldn't share with me ONE piece of evidence that helps to verify any of it? You just made empty claim after empty claim...and completely verified what I was talking about. None of that is evidence...all of what you just said up there, is just empty speculations. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE, between evidence and speculation. Can't do fuck all with empty conjectures and bias.
I don't think less of the ancients, I just don't like bullshit. I'm sure there is lots of things from the past we don't know...and you're right, many ancient civilizations likely did have knowledge we have lost today, but I'm not about to go chasing down empty claims and bias and I'm not about to romanticize them either just cause they're mysterious. When they find a statue of Mickey Mouse a few thousands years from now...I'm sure they'll make up some fantasy stories about it as well, see why we can't just slot in whatever we WANT to be true? We have to be objective and keep bias at the door. Provide evidence, or there's nothing to discuss. I used to be exactly like you...dazzled by this bullshit, listening blindly to non-experts, feed me nothing but lies and conjectures they made up, cause they WANT it to be true so badly. Evidence is all that matters here...I don't care about empty claims that speak of a fantasy past, unless you can verify these things with evidence.
As for the shape of the Earth, I have been researching that topic for over 3 years, and I now know for absolute certain the Earth is not flat. It doesn't take much either to verify that...just a little bit of time, effort and travel. Heck you don't even need to travel, just observe any sunset or sunrise and then just TRY and make sense of that over a flat Earth. You will have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work...meanwhile the Globe answers for this effortlessly, the Earth rotates away from the Sun each day...there, explanation over. Do you think a 5 year old could understand that easily enough?
It's basic common sense stuff and all observation, experimentation and mathematics agrees with the Globe on this. Only a globe can explain why our Sun rises and sets the way it does. Here is some evidence that helps to verify this, that I don't think should be so easily ignored. Give it a look sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJGczcwJ6TA&t
I won't discuss anything more with you if you can't provide evidence, and I certainly won't chat any further until you can learn some proper paragraph structure. I don't mind switching gears into a more civil tone however. You have misjudged me as well...I am no slouch on these topics, I have been looking at all of this a very long time now and I know exactly where people go wrong with Flat Earth. I don't mind sharing that evidence if you'd like to see it...but please learn how to communicate better...these walls of text are really annoying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onlytruth6337 Our senses also can’t sense the microwave frequencies that send and receive our wifi data…but you’re certainly not gonna argue they’re not real. But had scientists listened to you idiots…they’d have never made that discovery. Truth is our senses are pretty crappy, very limited in scope, and always playing tricks on us. So it’s simply illogical to conclude something doesn’t exist, just because we can’t sense it…and you know all about that, you’re more than happy to accept a God nobody has ever seen (besides hallucinations they claim are real), so don’t pretend like you have some higher ground here. 😄
Here’s a small sample of the many proofs of Earth’s rotation. You can look these up in your own time, I’m not doing your research for you.
- Foucault Pendulum experiment.
- Foucault Gyroscope experiment.
- Ring laser interferometer measuring and detecting rotation.
- Coriolis effect.
- Eotvos Effect.
- Objects weighing slightly less at equator due to the increased centripetal force.
- The Gyrocompass.
Any one of these verifies Earth is in motion…all together they make it an undeniable fact of reality. The most interesting one being the gyrocompass, because it’s a device that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function. Basically, if Earth was not rotating, then the gyrocompass would not work as designed. You can learn all about its engineering specs, with demonstrations, whenever you bother to search it. These are used on pretty much every large commercial ship today. This is applied science…the end goal of science, which makes it pretty much undeniable. Earth is in fact rotating, whether you like it or not.
You are just another religious zealot lost in your own delusion…and people like you have been doing nothing but slow human progress for millennia. Luckily though, we’ve long since moved beyond the delusions that bind you, science is now free to explore and discover reality without much of any resistance from you people…it’s a beautiful thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@krystastyles8089 It was a poor comparison, even Neil realized that later and clarified it more clearly that Earth is an oblate spheroid, slightly wider at and below the equator. You’re not supposed to take comparisons literally…he did not mean it was literally a pear shape, it’s just slightly wider below the equator, so a pear was the best comparison he could think of on the spot to help people better understand that, but probably not the best example. It’s actually a very slight difference, from the naked eye observing it in space, it would look perfectly spherical to you. But it’s not, it’s measured, and so science has to be accurate, Earth is oblate. Heres a way to make it more apparent https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ, this short video can demonstrate how oblate the Earth really is, by comparing the equator to the poles.
Every planet in the solar system is oblate actually, because they all rotate on an axis, so that’s what’s gonna happen, it’s expected and that is what we observe and measure. The most obviously oblate being probably Saturn, give it a look again sometime, it looks squashed at its poles, much wider at its equator.
The trouble here is that people seem to take things too literally…or they’re just trolling Neil. Either way, it’s difficult to take some questions seriously…because some should be obvious, he wasn’t making a literal comparison. And if you’re just trolling him…then why should anyone bother answering jaded questions? 🤷♂️ You can ask questions of science all you want…but it’s difficult to know a persons intentions for those questions. If someone is asking a question to genuinely learn something, then great, that’s when people would be happy to answer those questions. But when the questions are presented more as evidence, where there’s a feeling you’re not really interested in an answer…that’s when people would probably rather not waste their time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said it’s an “undeniable fact” that stars have not moved in 4000 years, claiming that it’s been charted. Care to share this ancient star chart you claim verifies this? Then if you’re capable of that, please point out on this chart what stars haven’t changed, show your work that has led to your “undeniable”conclusion.
In the meantime, it’s pretty common knowledge among those who actually spend there nights observing and recording the stars every night (astronomers), that they are in fact changing. There are several stars you can even begin tracking now, and spot noticeable shifts (without the aide of sensitive measuring equipment/software) within just a 2-5 year span, the most popular being Barnards star http://monteboo.blogspot.com/2011/03/barnard-star-constantly-in-motion.html, which is also the second closest star to us after Alpha Centari. All the stars have been tracked over hundreds of years now, that much is true, and they are found to be shifting...any astronomer will tell you that.
Here’s a simulated projection, created using actual star chart data, showing some constellations and what they looked like in the past and what they’ll actually look like over time https://www.wired.com/2015/03/gifs-show-constellations-transforming-150000-years/.
So I don’t think your claim is as “undeniable” as you seem to think it is. I feel you’ve just reached your conclusion on pure assumption, from a lack of actual star tracking experience. I would encourage you to start making your own observations, if it really interests you that much. Doesn’t take much to get started, just need a decent camera and telescope...or you can visit your local observatory and actually talk to an astronomer, might save time.
If you’re curious as to why the stars take so long to shift, I’d urge you to learn more about the parallax effect. Distance plays a huge factor here, yes, things are moving fast...to you and me, the microscopic life living on a spec of dust in the cosmos, who think a mile is a distance of significance...but understand that when there’s trillions of miles between each star...a few thousand miles per hour, doesn’t really effect much.
1
-
1
-
Ya, and all that tech needs to be tested for deep space missions, before it can be included in any new spacecraft they develop for manned missions...which takes time, it's part of the engineering process. Can't send people out into space, if your tech is not cleared for safety. The trouble is, unlike the old analog systems which were tougher and weren't damaged by magnetic fields and solar radiation, the tiny microchips we use today...are easily damaged in these environments. So it took a long time to develop systems that could resist the harsh environment of deep space, far from the shielding of our Earths magnetic field. For example, most data has been stored on magnetic strip disks in hard drives for the last several decades, technology that is easily damaged in strong magnetic fields...but today we have solid state memory, which is not damaged by magnetic interference or radiation, so guess what...now we finally have technology that CAN be used in a modern spacecraft, that CAN last the entire trip without failure. So they've solved one of their bigger hurdles, and so they are finally developing spacecraft again and new missions are being planned.
It's not as simple as you think it is...for some reason, people just assume this shit is easy. It's not, traveling into space is one of the hardest things mankind has ever attempted and that will likely never change. Just cause we have a lot of really amazing new tech today, does not mean it's cleared or tested for space travel...that requires extra time. We can't send astronauts out into space, with tech that could possibly fail after long term exposure in deep space. That's been the biggest problem facing engineers working on these new systems...getting that new technology to function without failure in the harshness of space.
It just baffles me how people who know nothing about space travel, think they're somehow experts on the topic. There are valid reasons why we have not gone back into deep space with manned missions...it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
I don't think you're stupid, I just think people generally lack a lot of knowledge on the subjects they argue against and this causes them to make a lot of ignorant assumptions. If you knew more about the engineering hurdles of space travel...you wouldn't be so quick to make such ignorant comments. Just because we have a lot of new and impressive tech today, does not mean it's going to work the same in space. It's not that simple.
1
-
1
-
@shawnm2113 No, the “ship hull disappearing” observation, has just been twisted by flat Earthers. They’re demonstrating the vanishing point effect when they bring an object back into full focus. That is caused by perspective, but this is already well known and understood by science, because they make these observations with telescopes and zoom lenses too, you’re ignorant if you think they don’t. Eventually, objects reach a point where no amount of magnification will bring them back, they begin to sink hull first….that’s the observation they’re making. So Flat Earth has conned you with a sleight of hand trick, they zoom something back from vanishing point, then they claim scientists have been lying. If you don’t dig any deeper, then you’re not likely to realize that vanishing point and horizon are two different things. Keep watching the horizon, eventually things reach a point where they begin to sink hull first, and no amount of zooming in will bring the bottom back.
Plenty of observations of this as well online, so maybe don’t spend all your time watching videos from only flat Earthers. The horizon is different from vanishing point, if you can zoom something back into full focus, then it hasn’t gone over the horizon yet…it’s that simple. If you zoom in and the hull is missing…then it’s reached the horizon. The con works like a magic trick, they dazzle you when they bring the ship back completely by zooming in, demonstrating vanishing point, then they complete the trick by saying the horizon doesn’t really exist. If you never question it, as some don’t, then the trick works.
In reality, it’s just bad science, forcing a conclusion before it’s been properly peer reviewed, and ignoring any attempts to point out his it’s wrong. That’s when you know you’re dealing with pseudo intellectuals.
It gets worse, when they keep the lie going, using the wrong math. 8 inches per mile squared is a parabola equation…it does not represent a line of sight, or even an accurate Earth curvature for that matter. It’s missing many key variables required for an accurate calculation of line of sight over a curvature, the biggest variable being height of the observer. I’m sure you know that the higher you go, the further you see, right? Well, 8 inches per mile squared only gives you one figure, regardless of how high you go. It’s really only accurate if your eye is at sea level…but when is your eye ever tangent to sea level? Never…so the math is quite simply wrong.
Use the wrong math, and of course your observation isn’t going to match the numbers…that’s why scientists and mathematicians always double and triple check their math, whenever observation doesn’t match the predictions.
So why would anyone even consider these people have any grounds for an argument, when it’s so very clear they have no idea what they’re doing? It’s a con…the people who perpetuate it online are the victims of a con. It’s sad really…they have no idea they fell into a hoax, pushed by conmen and narcissists.
1
-
@mikeflatbird729 You made several empty claims, all of them tailored to a biased belief you have. You know it, and I know it. Just sayin, speculations do not equal evidence…yet you think we should blindly agree anyway. You may be happy with being conned by huxters feeding you endless made up bullshit, but the rest of us require actual evidence. Sorry.
You can make several observations in the South actually. Observing the 24 hour Sun is a good one, flat Earth has a tough time explaining that one, without conjuring up more bullshit. Plenty of video online of this observation too, it’s well documented. You can observe the second celestial rotation as well, and try your damdest to spot Polaris and the Big Dipper…the Southern Cross will be in clear sight though, I’ve seen it many times myself. You can also learn it’s pretty easy to go there…background checks, pffft, it’s as easy as getting a travel visa for any location you want to travel too…it’s also no different.
Just sayin, I don’t know how anyone can honestly think empty claims are good enough. Good ol’ YouTube university, conning usuckers to believe anything and everything since at least 2014. 😄 You need a better bullshit filter.
1
-
1
-
Alzerr Facts can be distorted and misinterpreted, as is the case with Flat Earth “facts”. From what I’ve seen, you are people with a strong bias and a poor understanding of most things, and you have egos just like everyone does, which is why you get so angry, so don’t act so holier than thow, ridiculing and trolling occurs on both sides, not just the Globe. But, I’d rather not attack character, it’s the information that matters, so let’s go through your facts and see if they actually hold up.
Fact 1) True, but of course curvature becomes trickier to see the larger the sphere is and the closer you are to its surface. Just basic spherical geometry and perspective.
Fact 2) Yup, no disagreement.
Fact 3) False, the actual fact here, is that Flat Earth has convinced people to use the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender, but there are others) and ignore important variables (like height of the observer and refraction)...and people fell for it, because sadly most people are mathematically illiterate, and have no idea how to even beginning checking or deriving equations. That’s a fact, not an opinion, so it’s easy to dazzle and fool people with false math. So you use the wrong math, get a figure that doesn’t match with your observation, then you conclude we see to far...never taking a moment to wonder if MAYBE your work was just in error.
But, I’ll give you a chance here. Feel free to provide a long distance observation where you feel we see to far, and provide the math you used, I don’t mind going through an observation with you, I’ve done it many times now. In the meantime, here is where you can find the correct math you should be using https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ and here’s a handy calculator that puts the equations here to use https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. It has a geometric calculation as well as a standard refraction calculation, good for most observations, except for on days with high refraction, for that, I’ve found this calculator to be most accurate. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator little harder to use though, but it has many more variables included, such as refraction variables.
4) This is a misunderstanding on 2 levels, linguistics and physics. First of all, water isn’t “seeking level”, it seeks lowest possible elevation, like all matter does. From there it stacks on top of itself, like all matter does. Water is a fluid though, so unlike solid or gaseous matter, it has a chemical bonding that is free to bind and unbind and that has surface tension. It is fluid, that seeks to form a surface that is equipotential within a field of force. So really, it seeks to be a sphere, a sphere is the most rigid shape in nature, a surface with perfect equal distance from a center, that is an equipotential surface. That’s why bubbles form into a sphere, water droplets as well, planets, stars...everything forms into a sphere because of forces that squeeze them to a center, forming the most rigid shape in nature, a sphere. Bubbles and fluid droplets form spheres because of air pressure and surface tension, planets because of gravity. That’s what gravity does, it pulls all matter to a center.
Gravity keeps waters surface at equal distance from center, water seeks equipotential.
The second part you’re misunderstanding is the definition of level. You assume it has just one meaning, you seem to think it can only mean “flat”. But as I’m sure you know, words in the English language take on new meaning given the context. Look up the word level in a comprehensive dictionary. Here’s a link https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Under adjectives (3rd entry), read definitions 1 and 5. Definition 5 under adjectives is as follows: “being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : EQUIPOTENTIAL”. This is what is meant by “sea level”, the surface of our ocean is level perpendicular to center of Earth, maintaining equipotential distance from that center.
So it’s a misunderstanding of the proper definitions being used. Level doesn’t always mean flat and flat is not what is being implied by “sea level”.
This is the trouble I see with Flat Earth...they’re twisting the facts to fit their bias, then pretending as though those “facts” are air tight and can not be disputed. They absolutely can...so that’s why people are.
You want some facts? It’s a fact that a very large majority of flat Earthers are not scientists or experts in any field relevant to the topic they’re arguing. It’s a fact that the world does not use the Flat Earth model for any applied science, it’s not used for navigation, engineering, infrastructure or invention/innovation. Quite frankly, flat Earth science is not creating the modern world, so do you ever stop to maybe consider that MAYBE you’re just layman, being conned by huxters online, who are taking advantage of your lack of knowledge and using it against you? It’s your ego that keeps YOU from listening to your opposition, so again, don’t go assuming you don’t have ego...we all do.
I’m not saying you should agree to what I’m saying without question, all I ask is that people remain objective and never assume they’re positions can’t be disputed. I feel people are being conned by Flat Earth, you should at the very least consider that possibility and listen when an opposition offers some information from the opposite perspective. Don’t just assume your facts are accurate, there’s always a chance that you’re just missing some details.
1
-
@ericc7119 Well we certainly don’t settle science with quick simplified descriptions, there’s a lot more to inverse square law than your cherry picked description can tell you. Keep reading the larger study of inverse square law, you’ll find that when discussing light and inverse square law, it’s in relation to illumination, meaning the intensity upon the surfaces that the light source is illuminating, not so much the point of light itself. The reason is because photons spread out from the source, and the further away you get, the same amount of photons are now spread over a wider area, causing less illumination. But the intensity of the light source itself doesn’t change because light photons don’t lose energy, they are constant. So closer to the moon you get, it’s not gonna get much brighter, because most of the photons you see arriving to you from Earth, are still pretty close to the same amount as when you’re really close to it. The individual photons of light are not increasing in power, that’s not what inverse square law is implying, it’s the amount of photons that become more focused in an area…there’s plenty of diagrams you can Google image that even say this pretty close to the same as I’m saying it to you now.
I’d urge you to actually learn more about inverse square law, cause you’re not quite understanding it. You know you could even simulate this to test this. Shine a good enough flood light on a white wall at night so that it’s brightly illuminated, stand a couple hundred feet away, then move yourself closer until you’re practically hugging it…is the wall now so bright that it blinds you? Not likely. Now understand that the Moons surface isn’t as white or reflective as that wall, it’s a lot more opaque.
Your argument is focusing a bit too much on the words and simplified descriptions, and not enough on the deeper context of the actual science. You could just test your Moon hypothesis, scale it down…or just read a bit more past the first description you find.
1
-
1
-
@CalsTube Electricity is a free flow of charged electrons through molecules that allow for that transfer, called electrical conduction. It’s not invisible…you see electrical currents just fine, weak electrical fields however, are harder to see, yes, but can still be detected. You’re acting like we just harness this great power…without any knowledge of it, pretending like we can just wield it without knowing anything about it. It’s not magic that creates these things, we don’t pull inventions out of thin air…we don’t accomplish anything without first acquiring accurate knowledge of physical reality, accurate knowledge that we then teach, so others can apply it as well. We know more than you seem to think we do…but this is the attitude of the deeply religious that I find so troubling, many of you seem to think that because you’re ignorant, the rest of us should be as well…as if dumbing ourselves down and forgetting knowledge that’s proven to work, would ever help us achieve anything. We don’t need more ignorance, we need less….I mean clearly, we now have people believing the Earth is flat for Christ’s sake. :/
You’re not stupid, so I know some or even most of what I’m saying is making sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonytucker7229 Yes, they publicly stated which conspiracies they felt were the larger problems of misinformation, so they took direct steps against the more popular ones, they weren’t hiding anything, they directly mentioned Flat Earth as a problem they would be addressing. They also focused on antivaxxers, Qanon, climate change deniers, space/NASA deniers, and a few others. Nobody’s about to storm congress over 2pac, UFO’s, or Bigfoot…but some conspiracies do get people upset, and do cause real harm to people, both mentally and physically. Mob mentality is still a real threat in society, some conspiracies do wind people up and motivates them to do harm.
So far Flat Earthers have been peaceful, but I’ve talked with hundreds of them now…and they are angry. Understandably so, they’re convinced the entire scientific community has lied to them and hidden something big from them. It’s misplaced anger, drummed up by conmen, who exploited the gaps in most people’s actual scientific knowledge, and fed their fears and paranoia. I think it’s good that something was done to at least slow the spread of some of the more harmful conspiracies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shocker, the Bible is not a science text book, it has no data, no experiments, and has been proven to not align with reality very well at all, or it would have made mention of dinosaurs, bacteria, atoms, the electromagnetic spectrum that now sends you your wifi connection...and the true shape of the planet. So what can we conclude then? That the Bible was very likely written by men, not God, but men who really knew nothing about how the world actually is and so they filled the gaps with assumptions and superstition, based around what they thought they knew during their time. They once thought the Earth was Flat, they really had no science telling them otherwise, so that's what they believed back then. You can be religious all you'd like, but the Bible has no place in a discussion of science, for good reason...it has no real answers in that department.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s not really slowing its velocity, but what’s happening is light passing through a denser medium is bouncing off of more particles, having more interactions. Which in a way slows it down as far as time is concerned, but it’s not velocity that’s changing, it’s rate of travel that’s being changed as the light meets more resistance. Light is a photon, so basically a bundle of energy, so it can interact with mass, even without having any, as energy effects matter.
It’s important to know for certain how physical reality operates, if we’re going to have any hope of innovating technology and advancing forward. It matters a great deal that a majority of us are on the same page and actually understand how these things work, or progress will slow...maybe even grind to a halt, if enough misinformation poisons the well of information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
19 billion dollars really doesn’t go very far, when you have a population of 340 million. If you were to disperse that evenly, it’s like 55 bucks a person…what are you gonna do with that? Buy a few groceries that’ll last maybe a few days? You’re not thinking very far ahead, very short sighted. We are natural explorers, that’s what mankind has always been. We’ve explored everything here, but we have a vast expanse of space to explore, so why wouldn’t we? We have to start somewhere and it’s not cheap, but if you think NASA gets a lot of money, just look up the US military spending sometime, you’ll shit yourself. If anything needs to be defunded, it’s the military, leave our science sector alone. Funding science advances us further, if we were smarter, we’d invest more, not less.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@synergy082294 I have researched this topic, pretty thoroughly. As well as physics and general Earth science. Do some research on an equipotential surface sometime. Water doesn’t “seek level”, it “seeks” lowest potential energy state, like everything does. In a field of force like gravity, lowest potential energy is closest to centre of gravity as possible. Since gravity emanates out from a centre, it puts water at equipotential distance from centre, forming all mass around that centre, including water…which forms a sphere, the most rigid shape in nature.
Whether you like it or not, you’re not falsifying the globe with your point there, you’re actually doing more to demonstrate your own lack of understanding in basic physics. Same with your point on uniform circular motion. They’re not really arguments, they’re misunderstandings.
1
-
@synergy082294 Science is all about theory, that’s the chosen word to label the most tested and proven concepts within science, that describes HOW phenomena operate at the mechanical level. Not to be confused with a scientific law, which only describes WHAT is occurring, but makes no attempt to understand HOW it happens. Nothing goes beyond theory in science, that’s the reality. Because you will always have more power and control over a system, if you understand HOW it works, rather than just WHAT it does. So, scientific theory’s are as high as all knowledge within science goes. When you go around saying “theory isn’t science”, you’re just demonstrating your scientific illiteracy, again. Why should anyone take seriously, a group of people arguing against science…if they don’t seem to really know anything about science? It’s really no wonder then why you’re reaching so many false conclusions…you’re misunderstanding even the basic language of science.
They were very wise to use that wording for their top conclusions, and here’s why. Whether you like it or not, we will never know everything there is to know. That’s the reality of our situation. So this means that old information will ALWAYS have the potential to change, as new information is acquired. So, we can never conclude anything with absolute certainty…so science doesn’t, it doesn’t think in absolutes, it instead thinks in percentages of certainty. So a theory is the best word to use for our conclusions, because a theory is not rigid or absolute, a theory has room for expansion, room for errors, it even allows us to discard information if it’s later proven false.
That’s why they use that word. They were very wise to do so. Please at least learn the basics, if you’re going to argue against science…otherwise you just end up demonstrating exactly why you’re reaching such false conclusions…because you don’t really know much of anything about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brettparker7395 The trouble is that you’re not quite understanding what constitutes as a force in general physics. Density is already defined, it’s not a force, it’s just a property of matter, in mathematics it is a scaler variable, it’s just how much mass occupies a volume of space, that’s it. It has no means to cause motion on its own, and that’s what a force does, anything that can cause motion, is a force. Density can not cause motion on its own, so it is not a force.
In any equation involving motion, you need at least two things, a scaler variable (density) and a force (gravity). Here’s the simplest use of gravity in a working equation, the formula for calculating weight; W=mg. Mass times the downward acceleration of gravity, equals weight. A scaler variable and a force. Your trouble with your conclusion is this; how would you ever derive a working equation…without a force variable? Look at the equation for weight again, but let’s put density in place of gravity, so it’s now derived as W=md. Mass times density? Where’s the motion? It’s now become redundant…because mass and density are basically the same thing, except mass deals with individual particles, and density deals with how many of those particles there are in a volume of space, basically. So you can’t calculate weight now, because that requires the mass to be in a motion…but there is no force variable now, so no motion, so the equation doesn’t work now, you can’t calculate weight with it derived as W=md.
Force=motion….that’s the part you’re not getting. To a physicist, when you say it’s density not gravity…they’ll get confused, because density is not a force, it can not cause motion on its own. Falling is a motion, a motion that occurs free from our control, meaning it’s a mechanism of nature, a phenomena of nature. Motion does not occur without a force, so there’s obviously a force present causing that motion…it’s pretty simple. All they did was give that motion a name. If we can name the upward motion buoyancy, why can’t we give a proper name to the downward motion? We can’t name it density, density is already defined in physics, so it would just get confusing to use it twice, as both a scaler and a force. So they called it gravity, makes it much easier to discuss these things when we separate everything into different names. Buoyancy is the upward motion, gravity is the downward, density is how much mass occupies a volume.
You also don’t seem entirely aware, but you’re just explaining how buoyancy works basically. It’s well understood that gravity causes buoyancy, the downward motion of matter, starts a chain reaction of displacement by density, which causes buoyancy force. So you’re basically reaching the same conclusion that science already has…but you’re just replacing the word gravity, with density.
Density is not motion though, without a force variable to cause motion, nothing will happen, it would just float in place. Density does not answer for the motion, and it certainly does nothing to explain why that motion is always down towards the surface.
See the problem yet? You’re really doing more to demonstrate your lack of understanding in the basic fundamentals of how physics is structured. No wonder so much science doesn’t make sense to you…you don’t quite have a firm grasp on the basics, so you don’t have a foundation.
That’s the problem we’re really having with discussing this topic with Flat Earthers I think, we’re not really speaking the same language, not entirely. So we’re lost in translation, because we’re not on the same page with the basics.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
@KangenAlec Rainbows are reproduced in simple garden hoses in your back yard, and even in any mist you produce indoors...so how exactly does the dome reflect itself, in a closed off space? No, rainbows are caused by the scattering of light rays that can occur when passing through any transparent/reflective prism...like raindrops, or any man made glass prism you can buy at a super market....so just more ignorance and bias.
You don’t seem to realize the difference between an empty conjecture and evidence. You can’t just claim tv signals are bounced off of a dome, and then provide zero scientific evidence of that claim. It’s not evidence of a dome, because satellites are still very much an alternative explanation...the difference is, real people engineer, build, and put satellites into orbit, and any amateur astronomer can go out at night and track them...even pull data from them. What you have isn’t evidence, it’s not even a hypothesis, it’s an empty claim...of which you are full of.
Rockets appear to arc in the sky, because they’re putting themselves into an orbital trajectory, which means they’re curving with the Earth. It’s how an orbit works...instead of flying straight up where you’re constantly fighting against gravity, they instead use gravity to their advantage by flying at an angle, eventually curving with the Earth. From your perspective on the ground, this will appear like it’s curving back down to the ground.
No, you don’t have evidence, you have empty conjectures. Evidence is something more tangible...but forget touching it, or interacting with it, you don’t even have an observation of this apparent dome. So try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Why should we trust scientists…”
Because they’ve brought results…you’re currently using technology created from those results, to read this message. That doesn’t mean you trust them with absolute blind servitude, scientists are only human, and are thus in no way infallible, but you should perhaps be a bit more grateful. You owe them quite a lot, and you take a lot of their efforts for granted. From the power that heats and powers your home, to the combustion engine car you drive, to the fridge that chills your food, to the plumbing that brings water direct to your house, to the electromagnetic frequencies you access with your devices to send and receive your internet over a wifi connection…all discovered and developed by a scientist.
God may have created it all, it’s certainly possible, but he didn’t leave an instruction manual for all this stuff. Like it or not, Science has more than proven itself as the best tool we currently have, for bringing the best results in unraveling the mysteries of (at least) physical reality. That can’t be denied I feel. Does this mean scientists are always right? Of course not…but that certainly doesn’t mean we toss the baby out with the bathwater.
1
-
1
-
1
-
fred Not true, bring up any emergency landing example, and I’ll demonstrate the flight path on a Globe. Pilots fly what are called great circle routes, flat Earth tricks people here by not using great circle routes when plotting the emergency path on a Globe...they just create there own path, call it the shortest path and then conclude things. If you know your geometry though, you’ll know that on a sphere, the shortest distance between any two points is a great circle...that’s what pilots fly, so you have to understand what that is, then you’ll understand how flat Earth cons people here.
A lot of times they’ll even use a Mercator map to demonstrate the flight path for a Globe...which is, pretty ridiculous. A Mercator map isn’t a Globe...so why would you think it’s accurate for a Globe? So go ahead, bring up any emergency landing example and I’d be happy to show you how a great circle route works.
1
-
fred I didn’t say they were stupid, I just said you shouldn’t romanticize old knowledge simply for being old. The ancients didn’t know everything, they can be wrong. The truth is it doesn’t matter how smart you are (or think you are), if you lack the pieces to a puzzle, then you will likely never solve it. Our ancestors are no more intelligent or stupid than we are now, they just lacked information, that is all. Flat Earth is muddying the waters of information by giving people false puzzle pieces...and lots of them. So it’s not so much intelligence that’s the issue...it’s bad information. It’s made worse by people’s tendency to chase bias and put speculation above actual tangible evidence.
I’ve already gone through these emergency flights, I know how flat Earth tricks people here. I’m not new to this discussion, I’ve heard it all at this point. I’m not saying you shouldn’t question things, go right ahead, but it’s easier than ever before for con men to spread misinformation...so I’m just saying, be careful where you get your information from and don’t forget to also question the Flat Earth claims with just as much skepticism. Cause if you think you can’t be tricked, then that’s the perfect amount of over confidence they’re looking for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tubamirum007 Ok, and yes, questioning things is perfectly fine, I’m not here to discourage that, only here to point out that I feel evidence should hold more value over speculations...no matter how many speculations you have, it’s evidence that matters more. Even if I disagree with you, I do see your points and they have logic to them as well, otherwise you wouldn’t have reached those conclusions...I’m just a stickler for speculating. I won’t waste too much more of your time with long responses, just address a few things quick...cause if you can’t already tell, I have been doing my own research, I’ve been doing this a very long time now in fact.
It’s true that the Eratosthenes stick experiment works for both models, if you conduct it like the original test with only two shadow measurements, but if you take any more than two data sets, from locations all around the world, then you can actually pinpoint the Sun and figure out which model actually fits. Here’s a couple experiments that did just that.
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=424
https://youtu.be/yrsaP7nBWt0
8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math to use, the only people who use it are Flat Earthers...which is why your numbers don’t add up. Use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple. Here’s where you can find the correct formulas to use https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
Yes, I understand your point, sometimes the best way to hide something is in plane sight...but, still, all we can do is speculate and I’m just not one to do that. It’s good that some people are, but to me it’s chasing bread crumbs that you could be creating. I prefer to stick to things I can verify or falsify scientifically.
I’ve watched the 15 minute interview with Admiral Byrd and I’ve watched his documentary. I think flat Earth are misinterpreting his words, spinning them to fit their bias. From what I saw, he slipped up and chose his words poorly...which is easy to do on live television in front of millions of people, he was also very old at the time of the interview. Flat Earth likes to focus on one comment he makes about “land beyond the poles, bigger than the United States”, but then fail to pay attention to the 3 times he says the words “at the bottom of the world”. Either way, it’s just more speculations, even worse, it’s cherry-picking and confirmation bias. Hearing what you want to hear, instead of considering the alternatives. Watch his documentary...you’ll learn he was no Flat Earther, never was.
Yes, I can see how an object a third the size of the Earth could appear as it does from 270,000 miles distance. I’m an illustrator as I said, I have a pretty keen eye for scale and perspective, after years of training it...that’s what got me into this mess in the first place. When I first heard flat Earthers say a sunset is caused by perspective...ya, I had to call bullshit on that. Perspective has many other pretty basic rules you can’t ignore, objects don’t just drop to horizon, they do many other things as well that I find Flat Earthers are far to happy to ignore. Same with the argument for why ships appear to disappear, saying it was just vanishing point and perspective. While you may have recently learned what vanishing point is, I’ve studied it for more than half of my life. Vanishing point and horizon are not the same thing, vanishing point can and does occur before horizon...so if you can bring a boat back from vanishing point, then it means it has not gone over horizon yet...it’s pretty simple. I’ve seen enough observations at close to full zoom to confirm this, once an object has gone over the actual horizon, no amount of zoom will ever bring it back. Vanishing point also converges equally, it doesn’t pick and choose to make the bottoms of something disappear first. https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/10/curvature-on-parade-turning-torso-video.html?m=0
Your Moon argument is just an argument from personal incredulity. Actually do the perspective math sometime, you’ll learn the Moon is exactly as it should be.
Anyway, thanks for the civil discussion, I hope I didn’t come off as to pushy, I’m not trying to discourage anyone from asking questions, just trying to get people to remember the difference between speculation and evidence again. I feel it’s important.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidkahil5158 "the bedford level experiments prove the exact opposite...that there is no curvature."
Only when performed incorrectly, by ignoring important variables that are necessary to factor, like refraction. Here is an in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done over 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This experiment is quite thorough, and accounts for every variable required to reach a more conclusive conclusion. What Rowbotham did in his original experiment, was only take ONE data set, then he did some bad math and called his work done...it is the perfect example of a sloppy experiment, doing only what's required to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking. It's the perfect example of the dangers of confirmation bias...which is exactly why science included peer review to the scientific method, to weed out errors and bias and lies.
"I know of the shadow experiments by Erastosthenes, they do not proove the earth is a sphere they only prove that sunlight emanates from a source much closer than 90 million miles away."
If you take only two shadow angle measurements, then yes, you can't actually use this to determine flat or sphere. But if you take several more data sets, then you absolutely can. If you take many more shadow measurements, from all around the world at the same time of day, then those angles can be used to pin point an accurate location and distance of the Sun. Here's a group of people who thought to try this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s They then plot their data on each model to see if they can pin point the Sun's location, it does not work for the Flat Earth...but guess which model those angles do fit on. Here is that experiment done again in a separate year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t This time the data is plotted on many different models of flat Earth that have been proposed...again, the Globe is only model that accurately fits the data collected.
"I just have an open mind..."
Really, cause you sure seem to shut that mind off pretty quick, the moment anyone starts sharing information that directly refutes what you're claiming.
1
-
@davidkahil5158 All of what I shared helps to verify the Earth is a sphere, so your claim that none of it does, is completely bogus. You'd have to actually click on those links though and actually absorb that information, in order to know for certain...but your bias leans flat, so my guess is you tend to ignore any spherical Earth evidence, and you don't even realize you're doing it. That's not being very open minded or objective of you. Honest research requires you look at both sides and try your damndest to falsify both positions. The position you can't falsify, is likely the truer position...but even then, peer review must then be conducted, cause there is always a very real possibility you might have missed something that others may have an easier time spotting. Which is kind of what we're doing right now, peer review.
So please feel free share this laser test you're speaking of, I don't mind taking a look. I've seen many of these tests as well, and they're all pretty inconclusive. What I've seen are experiments designed to confirm a bias, without doing all that is required to account for every variable. A big variable they miss again in laser tests, is refraction...Flat Earth loves ignoring light refraction. Are you aware that lasers bend and refract as they pass through dense atmosphere at distances? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLufSkz-et0&t=549s This is a variable that must be accounted for, and Flat Earth never does, they only focus on what they're looking for that confirms their bias and then they stop looking. It's the equivalent of a slight of hand trick...this is how you do science wrong and reach false conclusions without realizing it.
1
-
Why not share that laser experiment then? Is it really that hard to provide a link along side a claim that is made? Do you really think we should just take your word for it at face value? Would you?
Either way, we should never reach conclusions in science from single observations and no experiment should be free from the process of peer review. Has this laser test been properly peer reviewed? You do realize that people make errors, follow bias and lie, right? That's why peer review is important, it weeds out potential errors, bias and lies. If an experiment can't be repeated, then it's likely been done in error. So please provide a link to the experiment you're talking about, would be nice to do a little review.
When Space shuttles get up to the speeds they do in orbit, they're not in the atmosphere anymore. So what is the force that military planes are fighting against when they reach those incredible speeds in our atmosphere? Drag force...what causes drag force? Air resistance....so what happens when there's NO AIR that you're smashing into at thousands of miles per hour? No drag force....you getting how this works yet? Space is empty...there is no air here, so by extension, there isn't any drag force occurring either. This also makes it easier to reach higher speeds, since drag force tends to also slow a vehicle down, keeping it from maintaining momentum. So shuttles actually have a much easier time accelerating in space and maintaining those speeds.
We're not saying you don't know how to do math, but there is a rule of thumb in mathematics that is very important and I'm sure you'd agree with it, use the wrong math and you will reach a false conclusion...it's pretty simple. In my experience looking at and reviewing flat Earth experiments, they often use the wrong math for the wrong job and then never think to check their own work to make sure the error wasn't theirs. In pretty much every case I've reviewed (and it's been hundreds at this point), Flat Earthers just did only so much as to confirm their bias...and then they stopped looking. So it's not really so much that you can't do math...it's more your bias that keeps you from doing the CORRECT math.
I see it happen all the time with long distance observations, the 8 inches per mile squared equation being the worst offender. Flat Earth has successfully conned a lot of people into believing this math is the correct math for curvature...and it's incredible to me that they all just believe that blindly without questioning it. Here is the correct math for making long distance observations, in case you were wondering. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/ In this thread you'll find the formulas, as well as handy calculators that make use of them, as well as a break down of the math being used and all the variables that are being accounted for.
So again, the trouble isn't that you don't know how to do math...the trouble is that flat Earth is using the wrong math and then never thinks to check it.
From what I've seen, Flat Earth is deeply bias in their approach. I admire that they're questioning things, it's perfectly fine to question what you're told, that's what true science is all about....but you gotta be careful and diligent, because bias can and will mislead you along the way. I hope you find this information at the very least interesting, feel free to point out anything you feel I may have missed.
1
-
Refraction is a tricky one to be sure, but not impossible to pin down. The observations are not the same though, because the light measured in shadow angles is not going to bend the light much to change those angles very drastically. There is about 1 degree of error due to refraction with light rays from the Sun coming down through our atmosphere, that's about it, doesn't change the angles very much at all. The difference with light that we observe on the horizon, is that it's passing through a lot more humidity at the surface...and that humidity makes air far more dense at the direct surface, where the horizon is, so a lot more refraction occurs here, causing light to bend far more drastically, then anywhere else in our atmosphere. Which causes this to happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction is not as severe in upper atmosphere that creates our shadow angles.
Flat Earth sure likes to blindly claim that refraction causes things like the sunset though...and then never provide any evidence for that claim. Meanwhile, we have experiments that verify by how much the light is bending in upper atmosphere, through understanding density gradients and how it effects light, and we have experiments like these.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=421s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw
If flat Earth wants to be taken seriously, then they have to start providing experimental evidence for their claims. I've seen them explain sunsets with refraction....and then offer ZERO evidence in support of that claim, just simulations with no data collected in the real world to help corroborate their demonstrations. If you'd like to learn more about refraction on this topic, here's a good thread discussing it. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.7881/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mihawk Hawkeye Oh boy...you say to use physics, then you completely ignore physics. Gravity gives objects weight, they always have mass, but weight is created by gravity. Weight is just a measurement of the inertia created by an objects mass and the force of gravity squeezing it down against the surface. But tell me this, where exactly do you think matter would go, without gravity? What means or mechanism does lifeless matter have, that it can use to resist forces such as gravity? Do you think gravity is in a tug-o-war with some other force? What force? What direction is it pulling? What’s creating it? So where would our ocean fall or move towards, if gravity were to just shut off for a moment? I feel you haven’t thought this through very well.
Water is lifeless, it’s not producing any energy it uses to resist gravity. Us and other living creatures resist it a little bit everyday, just simply standing up is resisting gravity, but that requires energy, energy that our body produces through burning calories. Water doesn’t have that, it’s just a lifeless molecule, it’s not actively trying to resist gravity, it has no means to do so on its own, so it conforms around the strongest force that’s present and can influence it, gravity.
You’re really wracking your brain over this, but you’re completely misunderstanding how gravity works...and it’s causing you to reach a false equivalency. Earth isn’t like a ball you hold in your hand, there isn’t any Earth below it creating a stronger gravity that will pull our oceans off. So the error here is in your understanding of gravity...it’s not accurate.
1
-
1
-
Mihawk Hawkeye Because gravity pulls to center...not down to the South and off. Gravity’s influence is towards center of Earth, so down is always towards the ground...no matter where you are. South is not the bottom, North is not the top, in reality there is no top or bottom on Earth. Gravity pulls all things to the surface, towards center of Earth, that’s how it works.
You say you’re educated and that you get this stuff...but then it’s clear that you don’t get it. I don’t want to patronize you or lecture you, but you’re not understanding how gravity works, it’s just that simple. So I’m just trying to help you see where you’re going wrong, I’m not doing it to insult your intelligence, but there’s only so much I can do to help...the rest is up to you really. If you’re not capable of understanding, then you’re not capable...not much I can do about that.
1
-
Mihawk Hawkeye You do realize water can form a shape all its own, right? It doesn’t always require a container. Fluids just have a different chemical bonding, they’re in a state of matter in between solid and gas, where the bonds are not rigid and firm, but they’re still bonded, unlike gas where the molecules are no longer bonded. This creates a surface tension, which is different depending on the viscosity of the fluid. But water forms a sphere when not under any other influence but surface tension, that’s the shape it looks to form when in free fall, because the surface tension squeezes it into that shape. Spheres are the most rigid shapes in nature, mass building around a centre point and expanding out from there, the surface always at equal distance from the centre, we call that an equipotential surface. Gravity forms Earth into a sphere...that’s why it’s a sphere, mass forming around a central point. Water keeps perfect equipotential distance from centre of gravity’s influence.
So your logic on liquids is also flawed. This the main problem with Flat Earth, it’s built around misunderstandings.
1
-
Mihawk Hawkeye How does it pull to centre? That’s the part science is currently working to figure out, the current leading theory being that mass bends space around it, this curved space keeps matter always in motion, so it’s essentially following this curved space down to a centre.
That’s the current understanding, how mass bends space, that’s what modern science is trying to figure out, so welcome to the fringes of modern gravity theory.
There is still a lot to learn, but just because they don’t know everything, doesn’t mean the conclusions science has drawn are incorrect. The current knowledge of gravity is now an applied science, we use this understanding of gravity to put satellites into orbit, predict the movements of stars and planets, and we’re even using it to unlock the mystery of how stars burn, through nuclear fusion, which we have now recreated in fusion reactors, using the equations from General Relativity, the current leading theory of gravity.
Either way, even if they’re wrong about gravity and the bending of space (which is very unlikely at this point), it’s still pretty common knowledge that things fall, they fall towards Earth...so all matter is drawn to it. Earth is also measured and observed to be spherical, which makes sense...because as I said earlier, a sphere is the most rigid shape anything can form. A force pulling to a center, makes sense of why the Earth is spherical and why everything we observe in space is also spherical.
People can argue against what causes this attracting force, still some room for argument there, but the shape of the Earth...there’s probably nothing in all of science that we’re more certain of. Misunderstandings of how gravity works, does not make 2000 years worth of science just go away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No such thing as a dumb question really, can't learn anything new if ya don't first ask a question. Nobody knows everything, so nothing wrong with asking a question. :)
Well, yes, in all actuality it's very tough to discern a 2D shape from a 3D shape, just from single observation alone, but luckily we don't reach conclusions in science on single observations, the key to science is compiling many small pieces of evidence that all fit together to complete a larger model of reality. If no two points of information contradict the other and if no other information successfully falsifies any of that information, then the model can stand as conclusive.
So some extra information they gather in space, is during an orbit. These orbits that astronauts travel, put the astronauts on a path that circles around the planet, which enables them to see all of it, not just one side. If the Earth were indeed flat, then the shape of that flat round coin, would be apparent at some point in that orbit, as the planet would become more and more oval and then eventually a thin line, until coming around the other side where it would grow oval again and then eventually round again. Much like how a flat coin looks when you rotate it. Upon closer observation during an orbit, the Earth is observed to fit that of a sphere. You can't really notice from a single photo, but video can help. https://youtu.be/FG0fTKAqZ5g?t=11
Anyway, I hope that helps with things. It's a great question so don't feel discouraged for asking it, that's how we learn. So stay curious. :)
1
-
No...so far through the use of the scientific method, the Earth has been more than verified to be a Globe. Not a single industry in the world, uses a Flat Earth model to help them accurately navigate, innovate or engineer our modern world. Wake up bud, you are not special, you are not smarter then the men and woman who actually have and do contribute to our collected knowledge...all you've done successfully is fallen for a scam on the internet. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can prevent yourself from going crazy....otherwise it's going to be a long painful ride back when you finally do realize it.
Learn how to read those research papers and interpret them, and then you'll understand why they "assume a flat earth" in those sections of the manual. Allow me to help you a little bit, they are simplifying the math in the summary sections, letting the reader know which variables won't be included in the formulas to follow. When they do this, they have to state VERY CLEARLY what is being omitted, so that anyone attempting to crunch those figures knows that. They are not making a statement or a conclusion, and they are not revealing some hidden truth, they are summarizing what the math is calculating for, in the equations to follow, nothing more. When it comes to flight aerodynamics, in most situations the shape and motion of the Earth are irrelevant variables to include (especially when it comes to wind resistance over the body of the vehicle), so they make the math easier by removing variables that are not relevant to the problem being solved. That's how they write these papers.
You are a layman, who does not know how to read those manuals, you clearly do not understand how they are structured, so you now are taking words out of context and spinning them to fit a narrative you are bias towards. This is called cherry picking and it's a very familiar facet of confirmation bias, that will lead you to false conclusions, if you continue doing research in this way.
1
-
1
-
@pauldooris539 1) Technically yes, you’re correct, but there’s always nuance. Science doesn’t think in absolutes, it prefers reasoning in percentages of certainty, but we can reach a level of certainty to a point where it’s a little nonsensical to continue questioning it further. Globe Earth I feel is one of those examples. The trouble is today I feel a lot of people have spent too much time online and not enough time experiencing the actual world, and learning things about it first hand. This has muddied the waters with more argument from ignorance, than actual valid rebuttals and points.
For example; a person who’s never navigated for themselves across an ocean, is more likely to argue that navigation doesn’t require accurate information of Earth’s shape in order to do it successfully. In their mind that’s a valid argument, cause they haven’t confirmed it independently…but on the surface it’s really just an argument from ignorance and lack of real world experience. That’s the problem…people use that technicality of “we can’t prove things scientifically” to wedge misinformation and ignorance, into a discussion they could learn more about if they were willing to listen too experts, rather than pretend they know more than they do. In psychology it’s called the Dunning Krueger effect; non experts tend to think they know more than they actually do, often to a point of thinking they know more than experts. But can you navigate a ship across the pacific? Probably not…so where’s that common sense gone? Real sailors sure can, and they’re happy to share that knowledge. I’m going to trust their knowledge and experience, over an argument from ignorance, any day. So are we really witnessing a mass paranoia? Is the general mental health of society eroding? Where has the trust gone? The information age was supposed to educate…but I fear it’s actually done the opposite, misinformation spreads faster.
For me it’s simple; the difference between science and pseudoscience, is whether or not the information can actually be applied. Are we inventing any technology applied sciences with a flat stationary Earth model? Nope, but the globe sure is, everything from the gyrocompass that helps sailors find true North, to the geographic coordinate system designed for a globe to help them find latitude and longitude. The model works when applied…millions of times per day in fact. At that point, is there any room for argument against the model? There is of course, could be in a simulation for all we know, who knows…but the point is, ignorance is not an argument. Just cause someone doesn’t currently know something, doesn’t mean they can’t learn. Nobody is adding to the conversation by sitting at home, in front of a computer, listening blindly to every conspiracy video they come across. Huxters exist…so you still have to be very careful where you’re getting information from. For me, I determine the difference between science and pseudoscience, by which knowledge can actually be applied…and what can’t. For me, that’s proof enough.
2) Even a broken clock is still right twice a day, what should matter is the information itself. However, yes, we all do this; if something has lost credibility, then we lose trust. But still, I do feel the information is what matters…why do you think I chat with Flat Earthers, even though I strongly disagree with them?
3) There’s a lot of speculation that they were faked, but that’s all really. That’s why I don’t really focus on the Moon landing conspiracy, because I can really only speculate…and that pretty much goes for everyone. I can argue the engineering and the physics, that part I enjoy, and I can falsify certain claims made regarding those topics…but does that mean I’ve proved they happened? Nope…I can only speculate on that, and I don’t care to chase speculations and make arguments from ignorance. So I prefer sticking to conspiracies I can verify…that’s the nice thing about the Earth, I live here! I don’t have to speculate, I can test the Earth myself, by experiencing it. As an amateur astronomer most my life, with a lot of travelling under my belt, I’ve done that…I really wish more people would do the same.
4) Yes, and not all of it is verified science yet, still a lot to learn. But that’s the exciting part! There’s still so much to learn about our reality. I hope you’re not trying to make an argument from personal incredulity by mentioning those speeds though. If you understand basic Newtonian physics (and I assume you do), then you likely know the laws of motion, and relative motion…so you understand that we don’t actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid change in motion.
See Einstein didn’t abolish every tenant of Newtonian physics, just time and gravity really, the rest is still very unchanged. But even his understandings of gravity and time are still useful understandings, Einstein just found some nuance and expanded upon them. Anyway, I digress; Science thinks in percentages of certainty, not absolutes. Some things are less certain, where the Globe model would have probably a 99.999999% certainty, Big Bang would have more like a 70%. It’s the leading theory of cosmology because it currently has the most evidence. Until a better theory comes along, that has more evidence, it will remain the top theory. That’s how it goes.
What irks me is when people think in absolutes. Some seem to think if they can find just one problem with the model, or if they can destroy the credibility of a major source of info, it means we then have to toss the baby out with the bathwater and start over. But no…that’s not how it works, nor should it. If NASA were proven tomorrow to have faked the Moon landings…does it then change the laws of physics? Nope. Does it change the geographic coordinate system used by every pilot and sailor in the world? Nope. It just means they faked the space race…and that’s pretty much it.
It would mean certain things would have to be reevaluated, it would mean public trust would be lost to an extreme…but it doesn’t change the fact that I can toss a ball up within a moving vehicle, and it will conserve the momentum of the vehicle at all times, and land right back into my hand, demonstrating the first law of motion and conservation of momentum.
I feel people focus on the wrong things, and tend to think in absolutes far too often.
Now, do I personally think the Moon landings were faked? Nope, I do not, but I don’t pretend too know for absolute certain, nor do I really care, honestly. I hope it’s not true, because science has lost enough trust lately…but I very much doubt it is. The physics and engineering checks out.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Sadly, I feel most of the bigger names in Flat Earth (Globebusters, Mark Seargent, Dubay, etc) are grifters…not genuine. So no, I’m not very interested in hearing a conman talk…nor do I think they should be allowed access to such an audience. The well of information is tainted enough; the modern online world is a conman’s paradise…they don’t need more opportunities to spread misinformation. I don’t feel they should be outright censored either though (unless they’re spreading hate or in-sighting violence, two things freedom of speech laws actually do not protect, people tend to forget that), but that doesn’t mean we have to hand them an audience for free. If they want a debate amongst experts, then it should be earned through the proper channels.
That’s my stance on that. They’re free to make videos and chat in comment sections, but I don’t think many of them are genuine and those guys don’t really deserve to be on a platform as large as Rogans podcast…but that’s just me.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Yes, I’ve heard it all before…but understand that he did not present evidence, what he actually did was speculate endlessly and make a lot of empty claims. Evidence is tangible, does he present anything tangible? Not really…just goes off on a tangent dropping various points. Most are speculations, like his Clinton comment…did Clinton say the Moon landing was faked? No, he just said jokingly that he wouldn’t be surprised. Is that evidence? No…it’s just something you can bounce endless conjectures upon.
Then other comments are scientifically illiterate. For example; he goes off on the Van Allen Belts, basically claiming that it was impossible to go through the belts, that they’re deadly. Is that actually true? Yes and no, the belts are deadly only after prolonged exposure, as in several days…but you know how much time the astronauts spent in the belts in total? The first Moon mission spent roughly 45 minutes inside the belt in total, there and back. The radiation dose each astronaut received; no more deadly than a few Xrays. And, he fails to mention that they actually waited until Earth’s tilted axis would put them on a trajectory that largely went around the belt, not directly through it.
Joe Rogan is not a scientist…he’s actually pretty ignorant when it comes to science. He has gotten better though, he’s talked to hundreds of scientists and experts at this point, and he’s since changed his stance on the Moon landings after all those conversations.
That tends to happen when you actually learn the science and the little details of something…rather than chase endless speculations.
I feel people really need to relearn what constitutes as evidence…because empty claims and speculations are definitely not it.
1
-
@pauldooris539 What evidence would I require? Well actual evidence would be a good start…speculations, ignorance, empty claims, misunderstandings, these do not count as evidence…though many seem to think they do, for some reason.
But alright, I suppose a very clear example of the physics or engineering being verified as impossible, beyond any doubt. Trouble is, the more you learn in physics and engineering, the more you realize that the Moon landing isn’t only plausible, but it was very likely. It actually would have been harder to fake it…especially back then.
But feel free to share any evidence you’d like, especially if it’s science or engineering based, that’s what interests me when it comes to the Moon landings. I might be able to help you fill some gaps as well, so let me know.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Well, I just prefer solid evidence over empty speculations and (potential) misinformation. I don’t like following a mob mentality down rabbit holes of hysteria, I prefer to stop and think for myself before I jump on any bandwagons. The arguments of Flat Earth and the Moon landing conspiracy are just so paper thin, when you really get down too it…so why would I blindly agree to their claims, if I’m able to identify where they’re going wrong? 🤷♂️
It’s almost like you don’t really care if they’re wrong…it’s a vehicle you can drive at a system you don’t trust and desire to attack. I get it, governments have done some shady shit, and there’s certainly some justice to be deal’d out, but when you focus your attention on things they probably didn’t actually do, following a mob of fabricated hysteria…you just end up dulling your blade, cause you lose credibility yourself. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take a look at every possibility…just means maybe don’t buy into them so quickly, without thinking about them a little first.
Flat Earth is just…wrong, and it’s really not hard to verify that, so it shouldn’t receive any extra attention I feel, it should just circle the drain. The Moon landing conspiracy is a bit better, but the arguments are just so bad…laced with so much scientific illiteracy, and endless speculations paraded as evidence. So while it has more plausibility…the people toting it, are not doing a very good job, they’re doing more to demonstrate their willingness to accept any flimsy ol’ evidence, as long as it confirms their bias. Not realizing that just makes them appear like irrational quacks…hard to get behind them when they shoot themselves in the foot again and again.
I’m more than willing to challenge established science…but Flat Earth and Moon landing sure aren’t making any dents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pauldooris539 If you think it’s evidence, then that means you’ve reached a conclusion on its conclusive nature. But nothing you’ve shared is conclusive. For example; that guy in your video claimed the flag was wet…did he physically hold the flag in his hand to check its moisture content? No…he just eyeballed it, said it appears wet, then called it a day. That’s not conclusive…yet he’s reached a conclusion anyway. So by definition, it’s a speculation. That entire video is like that…he just makes a bunch empty claims and speculations, none of it conclusive, but pretends it’s evidence anyway.
This is a real problem with the conspiracy minded.
Now as for your Aldrin quote; the problem with it is that you’ve drawn your own conclusion from a literal interpretation of the words, removed from their context. Many different interpretations can be made, so your conclusion is not conclusive, it’s speculation. You also called it a testimony…but he was not on trial, there was no lawyer or representative of the law questioning him, it was just a casual Q&A. So it wasn’t a testimony.
Again, this is a real problem with the conspiracy minded…you see only what you WANT to see, unable to draw other very plausible conclusions. In any case, your conclusions are not conclusive, yet you’ve aligned with a conclusion anyway…that’s the problem.
1
-
@pauldooris539 Things can reach a level of certainty where they are considered conclusive. Twist things as much as you like, even you understand that. Science deals in percentages of certainty, the goal being to reach a percentage of certainty so high, it’s pretty much as close to proven as it can be.
If you have enough evidence, that stands up to scrutiny, then it can be deemed conclusive. Example, the flag argument again; his claim is that it’s wet, the only evidence he presents is that it appears wet because the colour is darker. I can counter that evidence by pointing out that the material used for the flag tends to do that…the shiny, velvety material reflects light in odd ways, causing those darker spots when viewed at certain angles. So I can easily refute his only “evidence”, so his conclusion is not conclusive. Meaning his conclusion is speculative.
We can both only speculate on the true interpretation of Aldrin’s words. My interpretation is that he is saying it wasn’t scary, but it could have been. So your conclusion isn’t conclusive, because my speculation is no more or less valid than yours, they’re both speculation.
That’s my point…we both can only speculate. So it’s a pointless argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daveware3936 Alright, well here’s someone who did take the time to place every world flight on that map you think is accurate https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho. He does the same for the globe, you’ll notice the flights are curved and the ones in the South are extremely long when placed on the AE/Gleason map, they only really work when placed on a globe.
The UN represents every nation of the world, so what’s a good logo for something like that? A map of the Earth, that shows every nation. Can’t represent an entire 3D globe on a flat 2D flag, some nations would be left out, so a flattened projection map of the globe is used. From a designers standpoint, the AE projection map has a pretty pleasing composition, it’s very balanced. So they probably chose it for a similar reason the Flat Earthers chose it, it looks nice. We’re simple creatures, we’re naturally drawn to symmetry and pleasing composition.
In any case, the current system of navigation uses the WGS87 globe model. Every pilot and sailor today uses this system, with lines of latitude and longitude equal for two hemispheres. So they verify the globe every single day, with every successful voyage that uses that model…so millions of verifications a year.
If you think it’s wrong, by all means learn to navigate, then go ahead and try to navigate anywhere by ship or plane, across an ocean, without using the global system of navigation to help you do it. Go ahead, why speculate when you can test it directly? Learn to navigate…you’ll learn pretty quickly what shape the Earth is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Though I agree he could have elaborated further to avoid confusing some people, it wasn’t really the point of this video to delve into the science, just to talk about why they believe what they believe, examining their ideology. But, yes...I’ve read a lot of comments here, from people expressing a similar frustration, which could have been avoided if he’d have just done even a slightly better job explaining on those two experiments. Is what it is at this point, but if we look at its main objective, it still succeeds there, and does add some interesting opinions on the topic. So still good, in my opinion.
1
-
NASA didn’t prove the Earth was spherical…that was well established knowledge for over 2000 years before they came around, and anyone can verify it for themselves with just a basic understanding of geometry and a few simple observations. And why would they apologize for a conspiracy a bunch of numpty’s fabricated from their ignorance of physics, and their paranoia? 🤷♂️ From what I’ve seen, those making claims against NASA don’t have actual evidence, they just make a lot of speculations, and reach a lot of erroneous conclusions from very poor understandings of basic physics.
To be fair though, there’s very little most of us can really do to confirm much about space travel for ourselves, so nobody can really do much else but speculate. So why would anyone waste their time? When it comes to the Earth however, you don’t have to speculate about anything, we all live here, we all have experience here, we can all make observations here. You wanna know the best way to verify Earth’s shape for yourself? Learn to navigate…then test it. You learn pretty quickly which shape the Earth is in navigation…spoilers, the entire system of navigation is built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. If you think it’s bullshit…then you just go right ahead and try navigating across a large ocean sometime, without using the globe model to help you do it…see how well you do. :/
Seriously, it’s fine to ask questions…but when it comes to Earth’s shape, people really gotta snap out of this delusion of Flat Earth as even being remotely possible. If you don’t know how that conclusion was reached, that’s fine…but please learn, we have enough problems with misinformation today.
1
-
Well, he did kind of mention why actually, though yes, it was quite a brief explanation and you'd miss it pretty easily if not paying attention. This video isn't really for that however, it's mostly a psychological discussion on why and how people fall for the scam of Flat Earth...he's not trying to convince anyone here, that's not the main focus of this video. It's mostly for those of us who have already concluded Flat Earth is a scam, now we're just looking for some mild discussions/entertainment on the topic. So you won't find any lengthy explanations or evidence here.
But if you're looking for the information as to why Rowbotham (Parallax) and the Bedford level experiment are flawed, I can provide a more in depth explanation for you. Basically, he conducted a sloppy experiment that was only designed to confirm his bias. Upon peer review of his experiment, it was concluded that he had performed a sloppy experiment. Peer review improved upon the experiment, adding several more markers along the channel and this helped them make a few more observations and collect even more data, that could help them reach a more conclusive result.
Here's what they learned upon repeating the experiment and including more data sets and controls and conducting the experiment with more diligence.
1. The markers rose up and then dipped back down, as they would if going over a curvature. Illustrated simply enough in this diagram here. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Spectacle.tj1421-768x472.png
2. The markers actually dropped from eye level the further they got...also indicating a curvature.
3. The bridge that was behind the markers was actually observed to be visually below several of those markers, indicating a curvature.
4. After doing the calculations correctly, including a variable for refraction (that Rowbotham didn't include in his math), the calculations matched with observation perfectly. The markers dropped at exactly the rate they should have, over a curved Earth at our scale.
Most in flat Earth believe you don't need to include a variable in your math for refraction. Here's why you have to include a variable for refraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Because it is real and it does occur in our atmosphere and it does change what we see at distances. So it can't be ignored. Rowbotham ignored it...as do all Flat Earthers. This means they're not being objective when they choose to ignore refraction, they're being bias. That's not how you conduct proper research...that's how you confirm a bias.
Upon all recreation and peer review of the Bedford Level experiment, it is concluded that Rowbotham did only the bare minimum, conducting a sloppy experiment, that was performed in a way designed to confirm his bias and was not performed objectively. Which makes it a perfect example of bad science...which is very common to happen when most layman try to do their own experiments...and it's basically what's happening with Flat Earth currently. Tons of bad experimentation and bias research being done...and what sucks the most is they just won't listen to us when we attempt to show them where they went wrong. They reject all peer review...which is probably the most important step in the process of science.
Anyway, here's a really in depth recreation of the Bedford Level experiment, this time done across a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is how a real experiment is conducted and this is also how they are generally presented in actual journals of science. Very in depth and thorough, controlling for variables, taking multiple data sets, remaining as objective as possible, by not ignoring any variables they are aware of. There is a LOT that goes into a real experiment...all Rowbotham did was make ONE observation of a flag disappearing behind curvature, that he believed was to far for him to be seeing that flag. Which caused him to reach a false conclusion.
That's why Rowbotham was wrong. Upon peer review, his conclusion of no curvature was falsified. But thanks to him, he has given us a good experiment we now use to help further verify Earth curvature, so in some small way, we should probably thank him.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting and informative. The video above wasn't created to go into any specific details...if he had, it would have gotten to far off topic to the main focus of his video, which was a discussion on the psychology of Flat Earthers and why they believe this stuff.
1
-
@aarondavis7826 Nope, it’s just you cherry picking and misinterpreting models you don’t really understand, all to confirm a bias you have. Here’s a thought…all these documents have an author, have any of you flatties ever thought to maybe CONTACT any of them, and ask them directly? 🧐 Or at the very least, have any of you thought to bring it to an engineer or mathematician, who has actual experience with reading and writing mathematical models such as those? I’ve not seen any of you do either.
I know these to be math simplifications, for simulation purposes, it’s just a mathematical model…models are not perfect replications of reality. That’s why these details are in the summary sections…it’s to let the readers know exactly what variables are being simplified, or omitted, for the math that follows. They’re not making literal statements.
1
-
Stand under a light in your room, now while looking up at it, spin yourself a full 360 degrees around…did it ever once leave your field of vision? No…it didn’t. Now look at the walls, and spin again, they do pop out of your vision for a time during your rotation. You gotta think in 3 dimensions my dude, the stars work in much the same way. The Big Dipper is an example of a circumpolar constellation, meaning it’s close to the axis of rotation…much like the ceiling above you as you rotated. Then there are the seasonal stars, that lie along the ecliptic plane, think of them like your walls as you rotated…you know many of them as the zodiac constellations. These stars you only see during certain seasons.
Also, not everyone sees the Big Dipper. Anyone South of the Equator, won’t really be able to see it…they have a different set of stars and constellations though, and their own pole star, known as Sigma Octantis. People in New Zealand, Argentina, and South Africa, don’t see the Big Dipper, they instead see the Southern Cross constellation, which is their most prominent and easy to spot constellation. You’ve never seen this constellation, for the same reason they’ve never seen the Big Dipper…because the Earth surface curvature is physically blocking the view of each other’s hemisphere.
It’s one of the easiest proofs of the globe to verify. If you’ve never been to the South Hemisphere before, I’d suggest travelling there sometime…the sky is very different there.
Anyway, there’s some basic astronomy knowledge for you, hope it’s helpful or at the very least interesting.
1
-
@hopebear06 You didn’t really ask a question that warranted evidence, you just implied that you were asking for the explanation why planets remain in their orbits…so I gave you the explanation. What answer were you expecting? A full thesis paper on planetary orbits, including every bit of evidence? 🤷♂️ If you want some evidence for the conclusions, ask better questions how bout. Or just look it up yourself, lots of information and evidence on gravity and planetary motion, start with Newton’s law of universal gravitation, then Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, the Cavendish experiment, the history of how we discovered Neptune, etc. It’s not my problem you didn’t pay attention in physics class, and personal incredulity isn’t an argument, but it’s not hard to catch up in the information age…knowledge today is just a few keystrokes away. I don’t mind sharing evidence, but then ask for that if that’s what you’re confused about.
You’re also making a lot of assumptions, and expecting me to agree to them. Are you an astronomer who’s actually collected data on the positions of celestial objects every night? How do you know the planets have been in the exact positions for millennia? Who’d you get that information from, and why’d you believe them without question? 🧐 Just sayin, your argument isn’t as free from assumption, and theories you pass off as fact, as much as you seem to think it is. Why are you free to make empty claims, but everyone else has strict standards they must adhere too?
From my understanding, the planets do drift, slow down, speed up, wobble, etc, it’s a very complex system. It is in balance, and they do remain in their orbits for the most part, but your thinly veiled argument here hinges on the assumption that they have never changed…and I feel that is very ignorant of the nuances of their orbits and the actual recorded positions over the centuries. Did you watch some ancient aliens on history channel…and all of a sudden you’re an astronomer or something? 🧐
So the way I see it, you started with a claim, that planets have remained exactly the same for millennia…burden of proof is yours to verify that. So what led you to that conclusion?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KangenAlec I’m well aware of what you numpty’s think causes things to fall, but you’re not getting it. Nothing is put into motion without a force first putting it into motion. Density is not a force, it has no physical means for putting matter into motion by itself...it’s the motion that you people ignore. What causes the downward motion? That’s what you’re ignoring. Even in a vacuum, things still fall towards Earth, there’s no density displacement happening in a vacuum, things just fall...and it’s always in the same direction. The question is why? To which flat Earth’s explanations have no answers.
Flat Earthers think they have it all figured out...but all you’re really doing is ignoring variables, ignoring what you need to, to keep a fantasy alive. Can’t do much with ignorance, denial and bias won’t get us very far at all. Maybe you’re fine with living in denial and ignorance, but the rest of the world knows better, thankfully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Okay, why is it that every star makes a perfect circle around the North star and the spin of the earth does not interrupt the pattern?"
Great question, and a tough one for the Globe model for sure, but it does have logical and testable answers, so let me help you out. First of all though, every star doesn't spin around the North star, you're forgetting about the second hemisphere which spins around a different center, which does exist, anyone can verify it for themselves with very little effort, from pretty close to anywhere on Earth...but I digress, that doesn't answer this question specifically.
So the first thing to understand here is that the Earths axis is always tilted at Polaris (or well, close to it, Polaris actually isn't at direct center of axis, it's off a little from center by a few degrees actually). So if the axis is always parallel to Polaris, then it's going to remain in center of our rotation as the axis revolves around that parallel. Why doesn't it appear to shift in a 6 months span though? That's a good question, but not hard to answer if you understand how parallax works.
Truth is it does, astronomers actually do measure a stellar parallax in Polaris over a 6 month span, but because of the Stars distance, that change is measured in arc seconds...which are very hard for the human eye to see. Distance effects parallax, because the farther an object is from you, the less it appears to move or shift relative to you. There are trillions of miles between us and Polaris (according to the heliocentric model), if this is true then it explains why the stars remained fixed relative to us.
Here's a good experiment you can do that can demonstrate the role that parallax plays in vast distances. Find a way to hang a light so you can raise it up in intervals from a central point. At that central point, 90 degrees to the light and parallel to it, stick a pole in the ground directly under it, this will help you trace an orbital circumference. Now let's measure out a radius, let's say 2 feet. Place a camera at two adjacent points, let's say East and West, resting each camera on a table so they're facing up, their view perfectly parallel to the light source above, and placed exactly 2 feet from the pole directly under it. This is a test of parallax and why distance will effect the angle of what you see.
So now the test is simple, just raise the light up from that central point in intervals...starting close to the cameras and then going up from there. Take a picture from each camera while it's close, then move up slightly, take two more pictures with each camera, move the light up again, take two more...you get the idea. Continue this as far as you want to go, but a few pictures should easily make it clear what's happening. Review the images, and notice that the amount of parallax between the two photos is greatest while the light is closest but then it starts to shrink more and more and more the further it gets from the cameras, even though they're observing the light from two different angles, it's almost like it's converging at a point due to perspective...much like a railroad track in the distance converges at a point.
Stars are no different, the further they are, the further Earth will have to travel to make a noticeable dent in that parallax. Astronomers use this method to actually help them measure the distance of stars, it's called stellar parallax and it's much like my camera experiment, taking a photograph of the sky at 2 different points in our orbit, then overlaying them to compare the stars to see how much they have shifted.
You can tell a lot by how much something shifts due to parallax, you can actually use this to accurately measure the length of your arm, without measuring the arm directly...among many other things you can measure the distance of with this parallax method. It's a very clever method...and it uses math to do it. Here's a video explaining it more in depth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWztvBIP6qc
This of course does not prove the stars are far away, it merely helps to explain why they don't appear to move, given all of our motions. Parallax and distance are the reasons why, the further something is away from us, the less it will appear to shift and move. That's why things on the side of the road as you drive appear to be whizzing by you at great speeds, but the distant trees, houses, hills and mountains barely appear to move and shift at all, the further away they are. The Moon even appears to follow you as you drive, never appearing to shift position at all...it's distance to you is the reason why, if it were closer, it would appear to be shifting a lot more while you took a night time drive.
Lots of great experiments you can do that help to explain further why the stars never appear to move. Here's one more example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKMN_dJbmY - The whole video is interesting, but about 5 mins he's starts an interesting experiment with a Globe, a gopro camera and a tarp with holes in it, draped all around the Globe to simulate stars. At 6 minutes he points the camera north and then spins the globe, even though the camera is at the Equator, it spins and makes a perfect circular rotation of stars around a central point.
This was a big one, so lots to cover on that explanation. Again, this doesn't prove those distances are correct, but if they are...then it explains perfectly why the stars do not appear to move. There is more I can coveron distances as well, as distance will also effect the rate of seperation from each star to the next. There are trillions of miles between each star...and if they're only traveling at about half a million miles per hour...to close that gap at that speed, would take thousands of years, and that's assuming all the other stars stood still. Our closest star is Alpha Centauri, at 4 light years, roughly 25 trillion miles. At our current rate of travel, if that star stood still and allowed us to catch up to it...it would take about 6000 years to catch up to it. I know half a million miles per hour SOUNDS impressive to you, the microscopic life that lives on the skin of a cosmic spec, who thinks a mile is a measurement of significance, but to the galaxy...our solar system might as well not even be moving.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it that The sun does not cook the earth if it is 93 million miles away and is hot enough to give us summer and a tiny tilt of the earth gives us winter and yet both poles are frozen?"
Another good question and I see why people get confused by this one, they're focused to much on distance and ignoring the other ways that heat is increased. Because distance to a heat source is not the only way you increase or decrease temperature. You can also focus light to increase temperature, so what happens when light hits directly upon a surface in opposed to arriving at an angle and then spreading out over a wider area? I'll tell you, the area that is receiving more direct rays of solar radiation (sun light) will have a more focused light over a given area, which means more potential energy being focused over that area. Light arriving at angles however, like as they do closer to the poles, spreads that same energy out over a wider area.
You can test this very simply with a heat lamp (or even a flashlight) and a thermometer. Test an area that is under direct light, then shine the light at an angle so it spreads out over a wider surface, then test that area. The thermometer will read hotter under direct light, then it will in the area that is at an angle. Same amount of light being projected, just less focused and spread out over a wider area. It's basic physics of focused light vs less focused light....I'm sure you've seen people use a magnifying glass to burn ants with, same amount of light, focused to a central point to generate more heat.
So this one is interesting, because I do see where people go wrong here and it's understandable...but it's just a misunderstanding of the science, focusing on one aspect that you're familiar with when it comes to the increase of temperature and ignoring or not aware of the other factors that will also effect temperature.
Think of it this way as well, if NASA or any other science agency really wanted to fool you...don't you think they'd make a model that's more believable to those who don't focus on the science of things? It would have been easier to fool the majority of people, had they just made summer occur when the Earth is closer to the Sun....but they're not doing that, they're looking at things objectively.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Really? You're an engineer....but you're making an argument that math isn't useful? Sorry...but I'm going to have to call bullshit there...no engineer would ever argue against math, at least not in the way that you have. You're either not a engineer and you lied, or you are and you're just a poe, pretending to be a Flat Earther for a challenge. I've seen it before, so which one are you? Cause no true engineer would ever claim math isn't useful...you'd have a working knowledge of advanced mathematics, you'd know better then most why it's useful, because you'd be using it in your everyday line of work. Which means you'd have caught why the curvature math Flat Earth uses is wrong right away as well...among many other math formulas and physics they get wrong. Sorry to be blunt, but it don't add up. I was going to go through each comment and answer them...but if you're a poe then it's a bit pointless and if you're a liar, then it's not likely you'll listen to anything I share.
I've been in the mess of Flat Earth for several years now as well, I've talked to hundreds of Flat Earthers at this point...very few have ever claimed to be in a position like engineering without lying about it. A job that required they take a BOAT load of secondary education...that includes advanced physics and mathematics. I'm not saying it's not possible entirely, I've just never met any Flat Earthers in that field of work...and I find it very suspect that you'd make an argument against math if you actually were. Though there are different titles of engineering, so I shouldn't assume anything just yet, just a bit suspicious is all.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Ah screw it, I'm not up to much now, I'll answer the rest of your questions anyway. It's a good exorcise either way to brush up on what I know.
"Why is it we can't just go freely down to the south pole and fly over it and why do all these Nations have treaties there and yet are enemies? Russia during the cold war?"
We can go there freely, the treaties that exist say NOTHING about stopping individuals from going there, if you actually read the entire treaty, it only states that COMPANIES and COUNTRIES can not own it and they can't be down there without permissions granted by the other nations first. Antarctica is a MILE STONE achievement in mankind, because it's the first time we've decided that instead of fighting over a land mass and claiming, we're SHARING IT! That's why that treaty exists...to lay down some ground rules for every country, so that we continue to share it, while maintaining the peace among nations. That's why all treaties exist.
Here's why they were very willing to sit down and negotiate a treaty...they were just fresh off of a World War...one where Nuclear arsenals were introduced. It was a tense time, the Cold War was rising, and so they needed treaties more then ever to keep the peace. It's not hard to see why they'd be drawing up treaties during that time...nobody really wanted a World War 3, everybody was working harder to ensure that never happened...cause there would be no World War 4 after the third one hits....that still holds true today.
You're spinning paranoia on it...it's as simple as that. You are free to go there anytime. People have even planned trips trekking across it, it happens all the time and you are free to do the same whenever you'd like...but you're naive if you think it'll be cheap or easy. It is a straight up lie that Flat Earth tells, saying that people aren't allowed to go there freely...when the truth is, it's just not easy. It's one of the most dangerous and uninhabitable land masses on the planet...there's nothing there, but miles of ice, rock and bitter cold. YOU will very likely die, if you don't have the money to fund a proper expedition, so they prefer you have the means to trek it freely, or you're just going to be risking your life.
What you can do easily enough though is get a job there. Tons of base camps that require a wide range of different positions, from more important positions like engineers, to simple positions like line cooks and house keepers. At any time, YOU can plan to go there and you can achieve that. Or you can just go there and visit the base camps. Yes they are guided tours, but you can confirm a few things on these tours, such as the 24 hour sun that does occur down there every single year...that doesn't make a whole lot of sense on Flat Earth.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it the shadow of the moon is always in the wrong place?"
I can only assume you mean the angle of its phases relative to the Sun. Here's an interesting and very simple experiment you can perform at anytime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVZ3tgEEXcU The light from the Sun hits us parallel, as it does the Moon as well, this means if hold any sphere up to the Moon and observe it from the same angle you're viewing the Moon, the shadow will fall on your ball from the same angle. Perspective creates an illusion that makes you think the angles do not match...but there are tests you can do to confirm those angles, like the one above.
It's also important to MODEL things to test them, we live on a 3D geometry and it's VERY hard for our 2D brains to interpret what's going on, we get lost in all the tiny details of that perspective, so it helps to model things to give us a better visual. So here's a great solar system simulation, that allows you to put an observer on the ground and then you can zoom out and observe it the angles as they are from space. http://www.solarsystemscope.com/sss2/
The angles line up, you're just not doing enough to help you see them. Perspective fucks with us a bit, creates little optical illusions that we will reach false conclusions with, if we don't ponder things deeper.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it the moon light is colder that the shade of the moon?"
It's not...Flat Earth performed a sloppy experiment that didn't think to include controls to the experiment, so they reached a false conclusion because they didn't control for hidden variables that would give them the same result. It's nonsensical to conclude that light can be cold...that breaks the laws of physics. Light is essentially a bundle of energy...energy is how ALL HEAT is produced in our reality. Energy is not anything but hot...the absence of energy is what creates cold. So it's very nonsensical to even suggest light from the Moon can be cold.
As I said, Flat Earth did not include proper controls in their experiments...which is key to any proper experiment. So all they did here was prove to us that they don't really know how to run proper experiments...only bias experiments. This is a perfect example of a sloppy experiment done to confirm a bias. The Bedford Level is another example...and their are many others. This happens all the time in the world when untrained layman attempt at doing science for themselves...they fuck up and then don't bother to peer review their work.
We have peer reviewed this experiment, and this is what we found. They didn't include a control experiment. Here's an example of someone who DID thinkn to include a control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t=348s A good control you can do for this experiment, is to run the exact same test on a night when the Moon isn't out, like during a new Moon phase. If you get the same results on a night when the Moon is not out, then you can not conclude it is the Moon that is causing this effect. That's exactly what this guy does in the experiment above, includes a control experiment like this, and he did get the same result during his control. Which means it confirms what we already knew, the Moon is not causing this. The more likely answer, is radiative cooling, which is a very well known and understood and tested concept in the physics of thermodynamics. Watch that video to see his conclusion. There are many more like this on YouTube as well.
It pays to conduct an experiment properly, this is just another of many examples, of Flat Earth leaning on bias and doing poor experiments to help confirm a bias.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why do they tell us the distance of stars in light years and give us exact distances when that would be impossible?"
They don't give us exact distances and those numbers change all the time. They give ESTIMATES, based on what we currently know. Those numbers do change a lot, because you're right, it is VERY HARD to measure those distances without actually going out and measuring them directly...which we can not currently do. So they give best estimates, which helps them in their calculations for predicting celestial occurrences.
What is known for sure though, the stars are far away...doesn't take much to deduce that much, all observation and calculation and experimentation points to that conclusion and that is something ALL of science agrees on. They argue about the numbers, and they change often, but nobody is arguing that the stars are not far away...and that's for a good reason.
Stars however may be tricky to measure the distance accurately...but our Sun is not. We can measure this almost directly today and we have. We bounce radar off of Venus, which gives us an accurate distance to it, we do the same for the Moon, Mars, Mercury, then we use this information to help us pinpoint the Sun by triangulating those distances...it's very accurate, and not off by much at all. It has to be accurate, because we now use that knowledge to help us navigate our Solar System. We measure the AU (Astronomical Unit, distance to the Sun) in several different ways, all giving us the same average figure of 93 million miles.
To help further our conclusion of a MASSIVE sun that is far away, giving us sunlight that arrives parallel, we can measure the angels of the sun light. Here's a few great experiment that have been done around the world that helps to verify those sunlight angles further. The Globe fits with all observations made in the real world...the Flat Earth does not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2quy8ur6Io&t=334s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Why is it the guys who created the ball theory and the solar system made so many different distances and could not agree on any of the numbers?"
Because science is an on going process and we have a little something called peer review. No single person can know everything, so each person is looking at a problem differently, giving their own interpretations of it, based around their knowledge and understandings. Flat Earth is an example of that as well, in some small way Flat Earth is the peer review of what science has concluded, conducted by the average person joining the conversation, the trouble is most average people are layman, not experts at anything, so they often over estimate themselves...and make a lot of errors because of it.
But yes, there is a lot of different numbers you will get in science...until we narrow it down more and more and more to get things more precise. If you were to calculate an orbital trajectory to get you to Mars and back lets say....you have to be VERY precise, there is not much room for error here, so they do have to focus more effort on these sorts of calculations and agree on the numbers...and they do, our solar system is very well understood now today and our measurements are a lot more precise in this realm.
But yes, the distance of stars will fluctuate as we learn more, that's how science works, it is an on going process. But it's fine, we're not exploring these regions of space yet, so we don't really need to be all that precise with it yet.
Questions like this I feel just ignore how science operates....it is a community of different minds, working on different problems, reaching varying conclusions...it is a process of refinement and it takes time. That will never change. The trouble I feel, is that general public doesn't like living in the grey areas of uncertainty...we like black and white certainties, that's where we're comfortable. Science can't and doesn't operate this way though...and it never will. Nothing in science is concluded with absolute certainty, that's part of why they file their end conclusions under theory and not fact. Theories have room for change....facts do not, so they were very wise to use that wording, because they understand that old information always has the potential to change, as we acquire NEW information. That will never change.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "How can you prove that gravity is holding the moon in place? and why if the Moon is suspended on gravity it never spins but actually tilts and returns to it's position? And why do the pits on the moon all look round instead of angled and yet there are bare spots in places?"
Science works by falsification, we eliminate everything we know that ISN'T occurring and then all we're left with is what is most likely. It's a process of deduction, and currently gravity is the leading theory on what causes our celestial orbits...and it makes sense that it would. Until a better theory can come around that explains it better, then gravity will remain the dominant theory. That's how science operates...Flat Earth is being very irrational when it focuses on proving absolute certainties. That's now how science operates...so they will fail in their attempts.
We have measured a force that is constant, that attracts all matter to other matter, and we have observed how it does this by bending the space around it. Experiments that have verified this are the Eddington experiment of 1919 (the experiment that launched Einstein to fame), the detection of gravitational waves, Red shift experiments, solving the orbit of Mercury which Newtonian gravity couldn't solve, experiments for time dilation in upper atmosphere...the list goes on. It's not that we're trying to prove gravity, it's that we're trying to falsify it...and so far it has held up upon every attempt...so that is why we believe it is there, because we have not been able to falsify it yet...in fact every attempt just verify's it further.
Also, the Moon is spinning, it has to be in order for its one face to constantly face us. A good way that helps you to realize this, just understand that in order for an object to go around something and always face towards something, it has to actually be rotating as well. It just rotates at the same rate as its orbit...and it does that for a good reason, because it's tidal locked to Earths gravity well. This happens to orbits of objects when they're close to the gravity well of the mass they are orbiting...our Moon is not the only example of this. Mercury is tidal locked to the Sun and pretty close to every Moon in our solar system that orbits other planets is also experiencing this same tidal locking effect. It is not exclusive to our Moon...it is exactly what we'd expect to occur, if gravity functions the way we believe that it does currently, with the strength of gravity becoming greater the closer to the gravity well you get.
"And why do the pits on the moon all look round instead of angled and yet there are bare spots in places?"
They actually don't, If you observe the craters closer to the edge, they are oval to our perspective, indicating the Moon is a sphere. But yes, most of the craters are in actuality mostly round (with a few exceptions). A common argument is that asteroids impacting at angles will cause more elongated craters and it's a logical argument to make...until you factor in the impact and what that does at those speeds. Asteroids aren't just coasting into the moon, they're hitting them at thousands of miles per hour. This will change that impact greatly, causing more of an explosive impact, that will burst out in all directions equally, creating a circular crater site.
Here's a lab that does tests for impact craters, firing high projectile objects at beds of sediment to see what sort of craters they produce. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCGWGJOUjHY It was found that an asteroid would need to impact at an angle of less then 15 degrees to create a more elliptical crater...and even then, it is more consistent at as low as 7 degrees. The amount of asteroid impacts that hit the Moon at these angles, is less than 7%. So there are very few elliptical impacts.
So why isn't the surface completely riddled with asteroid impacts? It is...but most of them are just not large enough to be visible. Understand that the Moon is 1/3 the Size of Earth...so each one of those craters that you CAN see with your naked eye...is HUNDREDS OF MILES in diameter. VERY FEW asteroids that hit the Moon can create craters like that. In fact I don't think we have ever recorded such an impact in the short few years we've been watching the Moon...they just do not occur very often. The ones that do occur daily, do not create craters large enough for you to see from Earth. It's pretty simple.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "Also tell me why we stopped going to the moon and just gave up completely on it when we could have been way ahead of any Country on earth? Money was not the problem because we had the fed. They write bad checks all the time."
Because we've been to the Moon...and there's nothing there, it is a rock. The only reason we were going there back in the 60's - 80's, was to verify that we could and to establish ourselves as a super power on the world stage, which gave us a footing during the Cold War. But it was a shared dream of mankind since we've been forming civilizations...so it was a goal back then. But now we've been there, several times...it's a rock, the goal has been obtained, so there's no need to go back...unless we find a good enough reason.
But you're wrong, they do require funding. It's not NASA that is printing money, it's government...and even they don't have full control over the fed, the fed is a private bank. Yes, it's fucking greasy as all hell, but NASA doesn't have a direct line to the Fed...and so it has to get funding the old fashioned way, by sub contracting to government interests. The government is not interested in going to the Moon anymore...so it's not going to fund it.
It used to cost half a billion dollars PER ROCKET LAUNCH. Elon Musk has very recently just dropped that price tag down to about 60 million per launch....that is HUGE! That is a HUGE chunk off the price of going back...so guess what they're doing, they're going back. They have new missions planned to build a base on the Moon and now that it's cheaper to achieve this, with the new falcon rockets from Space X, this is a much easier thing to pitch to a funding board.
On top of that though, it's still dangerous as fuck. If they had no reason to go back...then they weren't going to risk the lives of people, just to maintain a science project with no return on investment, both financially and intellectually. So they didn't bother...until recently.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 There, that's every one of your questions answered now. Most of these aren't proofs of anything though...most of your questions, lead down empty roads of speculation. I prefer to focus on the science, the things that I CAN verify for myself. I don't like speculating on things I can not verify, such as the moon landings or the goings on at NASA. I'm not an astronaut, I've never been in space, I do not work at these institutions...so there's very little I can actually confirm here, the same is true with you and all of Flat Earth. So why focus so much on the things you can't really verify? You'll just go down a rabbit hole of endless speculation, that'll get you nowhere.
Focus on the science you can verify, there is an Earth right below your feet and you can test it directly. You have done some of that, some of your questions had things I could actually share experiments with, that help to point out the various flaws in the arguments of Flat Earth. That's what I personally prefer to focus on, the science and observations that I can verify for myself. I have done that now, as I hope these answers help to verify for you. I have been looking at this mess a long time...I have successfully falsified every claim made from Flat Earthers...so currently I have concluded it is a scam. It's fine if you've reached the opposite conclusion, but that's where I am currently.
I feel that all they're doing is feeding the growing paranoia of people today...robbing you of your better reasoning. Dazzling you with half truths and bullshit, only showing you what they want you to see, taking things out of context, cherry picking information, teaching you misunderstandings of physics, so they can get you to doubt modern science. Once they got you doubting, even a little bit...then it's all down hill from there, cause then you resort back to your instincts of rejecting things you don't trust...but it's just teaching you how to follow bias over objective truth. Science doesn't care about what you trust or don't trust, it has no emotional leaning like that, no bias, it is just looking for objective truth...but Flat Earth isn't doing that, at it's core it's rejecting something it doesn't trust...which means it's being bias, contrarian for the sake of spiting and rejecting what they now deem the enemy.
It's placing value on the SOURCE of information, rather than the information itself. If you dig deeper into every argument though, you find the information Flat Earth keeps from you...which just verify's how much Flat Earth is really bullshitting...they're the real liars, not science.
That's why I tell people to question these bastards just as firmly as they now question the mainstream. I don't share information to discourage you, I just feel you're missing some details that Flat Earth overlooks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "How can any of it be proven? The Bible says the sun is in the firmament. So are the Moon and stars. Have you ever looked through binoculars back words?"
So because Flat Earth makes a claim and then shows you a few examples of light being bent in odd ways with chunks of curved glass...you now think this is reason enough to conclude our conclusions are wrong? Do you honestly think scientists haven't considered these possibility's? The trouble with these glass dome explanations...glass distorts light in many different ways, ways that are understood and tested. We do not see these distortions out in the real world, so it is not likely that their is a dome. Besides that, we have not interacted with this dome in any way, shape, or form. If it existed, we would have discovered it by now.
This is just another tactic from Flat Earth, that is designed to create doubt...but when do you ever see them ACTUALLY building a model that works? Should be easy now that they got this deeper understanding of how glass can be used to bend and distort light, so where is it? All I've seen is a few short experiments, they just shine a few lights through curved glass, which gives them the result they're looking for and then ignore all the other distortions it creates as well, asking you JUST focus on what they want you too, ignore everything else. Then when we look in the real world to confirm any of this, we do not see these distortions that would occur and be quite apparent, everything is quite clear, except for a slight refraction that is exactly like we would experience, with our atmosphere. We understand how glass bends light...but what we observe in reality does not match with any of this...so we can't conclude there is a dome, because there is no evidence of it. To do so, would be bias at this point. There is no evidence for this dome, just words written in a book that is very likely not true.
But Flat Earth is free to disagree...meanwhile EVERY SUN ANGLE still works on a Globe. So even IF they could create a working model, WE ALSO have a working model, that matches with all observation. Flat Earth doesn't have a model though...and from what I've seen so far, it's for a very good reason, because it's not reality. All they're really doing is the bare minimum required to put doubt in people...which fuels paranoia.
But I am open to seeing more, I don't claim to know everything, always up for taking a look at any models or explanations you might know of. I have yet to see a working model of this dome...just parlor tricks that work on those not paying attention. Smoke and mirrors and misdirection to create doubt, it's not how science works, they HAVE to do more I'm afraid.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 "You said the word....Theory" I sure did, a theory in science is actually the highest level anything can achieve, there is nothing higher then a theory in science, when it comes to explanations for HOW and WHY things operate the way they do. Not to be confused with a Law in science, which only describes WHAT is happening, but does not go into further details and explain WHY or HOW it's occurring. That is what a theory is for, theories in science explain how and why something works the way it does.
There is a language here that most people are not aware of...and you pretty much forfeit yourself from conversations of science, the moment you say things like "it's just a theory". No...it's not just a theory, a theory in science is not the same things as regular theory, hypothesis takes the regular meaning of the word theory, while a theory in science, becomes the highest level anything can achieve in science...nothing goes beyond theory. That's for a good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will, so old information always has the potential to change as we acquire new information.
So to review:
LAW OF SCIENCE: Records observed facts that do not change, they describe WHAT is happening, but do not go into detail to explain why or how they occur.
HYPOTHESIS: An educated guess based around prior knowledge, that requires further testing and observation and data collection in order to verify it further.
SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Is a deeper explanation of observed facts, that further explains WHY and HOW something occurs the way it does at the mechanical level, that only reaches this position once it has been verified conclusive through experimentation and then peer reviewed. Nothing graduates to this level until it has been verified to be true and nothing graduates beyond it in science either.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS: The small details that are undeniable that by themselves don't explain anything, but together build up the foundations of Laws and Theories. Facts do not explain things, they don't go into details, they just are. Theories explain facts, Laws record several of the bigger ones, facts make up the foundations of both.
This is stuff you were taught...especially if you're an engineer like you say you are. It just baffles me that anyone can receive a secondary education and not understand this stuff...still making arguments like "it's just a theory". Like how did you achieve your degree exactly without understanding these principles? This is basic stuff.
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Yes, I do, because I understand the physics that makes it possible, everything from a how a gravity well can be used to increase velocity, to the conservation of motion that allows them to conserve fuel and never lose velocity, to thermodynamics, to the difference between convection heat transfer (which is not what happens in space, cause there is no air pressure to create a convection heat transfer) and direct solar radiation. But...understanding that it is possible is not the same as proving it did, for that end, all we can do is endlessly speculate...and I prefer not doing that. I like to focus on the ground I live on, the place I can verify for myself. I have done that.
But apologies if I've come off as a bit pushy so far in our dialogue exchange. Admittedly, my patience has worn a bit thin over the years that I forget to treat my opposition with a little more respect, which keeps me from recognizing these few moments where a civil discussion is actually occurring. Very few of these types of opportunities occur in these debates and it's where I learn the most from the opposing view, so I should be more grateful really. So thank you for listening and continuing, while remaining civil and level headed...it's a rare thing.
I am looking at the science, I have reviewed both sides of this argument in great detail, but I've seen nothing yet that convinces me that we're being lied too, just a lot of misunderstood physics and endless speculations and conjecture, that I recognize as bias and paranoia, which I can't ignore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Electromagnetism is also just a theory, it's currently sending and receiving your WiFi data. Nobody is saying theory is fact, we're saying science has no choice but to operate in percentages of certainty...not absolute certainty. It has no choice, for the simple fact that we DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING and we never will. There is to much to know, so we can only operate in percentages. You're very happy to do that already, you believe the Earth is Flat...but you don't really know that for certain, it's just a hunch you have. You believe in the Dome firmament as well, yet it's never been discovered and there is no evidence supporting it...so you already believe a lot of things you have not yet confirmed, so you may not be aware of it, but you're doing the same thing already.
We do not need to know everything about a concept, to make it useful for us. For example, we don't know what gives matter it's mass or how it bends space, all we know is that it does. But we don't need to know everything about gravity, to make our current knowledge work for us. We put satellites into orbit using orbital mechanics that is based upon the measurements of gravity, and we time our GPS using the physics we have confirmed in General Relativity. We're also hot on the trail of Nuclear Fusion, we've recreated it in labs, none of that would have been possible if the current science wasn't verified to a level of certainty we can use. Applied sciences are the end goal of all research, and it all works on theory.
You may not agree this is the best way to conduct research, but what is the alternative? Conclude things with certainty and then never review them again? Okay, well science makes that mistake sometimes when it communicates knowledge to the general public...look how that's working out. The moment you conclude something as 100% certain, it stops you from looking at it further...but that's not how science works, there is too much to learn, and old information can change. Flat Earth is currently trying to change Globe science and you're arguing with me about the language of science...thinking we should just conclude things as absolutely certain. It's not that simple I'm afraid, nothing is that simple in science...so science knows now that it is a fools errand to operate in absolute certainty, instead it concludes things in percentages of certainty. Big Bang for example, probably about an 80% certainty, still TONS of room for debate here, and science does still debate it often. The Globe however is probably the most certain science is about ANYTHING else, it holds a certainty percentage of probably 99.999999% (and probably even higher, I just didn't want to flood the page with 9's).
There isn't much room here for debate, of course there still is, cause we still don't know everything...but Flat Earth isn't talking about anything new, Flat Earth is actually several pages behind modern science. Which is fine really, I am actually glad SOMEBODY is out there questioning the science the rest of us has moved on from, but so far...I haven't seen anything new from them, just misunderstandings of old science that has already been answered.
1
-
1
-
@dominiccharvet546 Ok...so now you're just getting paranoid about COVID....see there's no talking rationally with you people, because you just seek out paranoid bullshit. How many times do we have to go through a potential "world ending event", Christians freak out and say the rapture is coming...and then nothing happens? How many times has that happened now in your life time? Pretty much every year there's a new rapture scare from you people. :/ Do you remember 2012? What happened? Nothing....nothing fucking happened. But you people sure thought it was going too. I'd wake up almost every day to a new "the end is nigh" headline in 2012....and then nothing happened.
There's a reason we don't believe this shit anymore, cause you don't really know shit...but you think you do. Jumping to conclusions, reading bullshit articles that are written up by other sensationalists who really don't know shit.....and you just eat that shit up without ever questioning it and then jump on the warning horns, before you even know for sure anything is really happening. It's called crying wolf....and we're sick of it. Christians have been doing it now for hundreds of years. That's why we have a very hard time believing you people....so you've really done this to yourselves.
5G towers are not dangerous...and you know nothing about microwave frequencies. Those same frequencies are in the air right this second, sending and receiving data and 5G is not new....we've been using it a very long time, in other technologies.
Do you EVER QUESTION where you get your information from? Cause from where we're sitting, you just believe all this bullshit...cause it terrify's you and it confirms a bias you have about scriptures. YOU are scared of things you don't understand....and so you let that fear lead you. Is that how you like living your life? Thinking about the end all the time? Religious people spend so much time thinking and worrying about the end that you forget to live in the HERE and the NOW. Do you ever notice how many times Christians have blown that rapture horn? You people have been doing this for HUNDREDS of years now....it's really getting tiring.
There's no speaking rationally with a person who's afraid of every little thing...and doesn't bother to control that fear for 2 seconds so he can do some better research.
I'm sorry Dominic but it's pretty clear your bias won't allow you to listen to what I'm sharing with you. So I'm gonna have to end things here. I know you are afraid right now, but that's no reason to lose your head. Pandemics happen, this is not new in human history, it's just new in ours because there hasn't been anything like this in a very long time. I know I won't convince you of much, so all I'm asking is you stay sharp and don't lose your head, question the articles you read and information you're reading...if even just a little. In 3 or 4 months time when we're out of this pandemic, look back on this conversation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Not a proof against a globe, just an incredulous claim made from a lack of insider perspective and a whole lot of paranoia and bias. They also took lots of footage on all those voyages, and it's well archived. Thousands of pictures of Earth. Here's one such archive. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
2. Empty speculation, you're making a serious accusation against these people, without actual proof that they had any involvement in Epstein's crimes. That's confirmation bias, asserting what you WANT to be true, but not actually having any tangible evidence, just empty accusations. Here's why this is wrong. So if you were invited to a BBQ in your local neighborhood and then shortly after that BBQ, the host of the event gets arrested for being a pedo and running a sex ring from his home...the same home YOU were invited too. By your logic, does that mean YOU are now also guilty as an accomplice to the crimes, simply because you spent a night in his backyard breaking bread with him? No...it doesn't...and I'd be willing to bet, you would REALLY LIKE IT if people didn't accuse you of something you are not guilty of, wouldn't you? :/
3. Yes, they haven't rebuilt any of the old lunar modules...but why would they? It was old tech, if they're going to go back to the Moon, they'd prefer to build something NEW, something that includes all our modern technology. That is going to take a LOT of R&D, a lot of testing and engineering...and until there is interest to go back to the Moon, they will not have the funding to create that new spacecraft for deep space manned missions. But you're in luck, cause they are going back, new missions are planned for the next few years up until about 2028 - 32. So be patient.
4. No, some scientists were taken in under project paper clip, but just because somebody was once under a fascist regime, does mean they necessarily believed in the doings of that fascist regime. Nothing is that black and white. A lot of people in Germany had no choice but to become Nazi's...and MANY of them did not want to have anything to do with them, but they had no choice. It would be no different here, if Trump one day decided to go full dictator and turn America into a fascist regime, where you either join his side or become an enemy of the state. See how that works? How nothing in realty is as black and white as you want it to be? Just because a few scientists were citizens of Germany during a fascist take over, does not mean they were Nazi's.
They had some of the brightest engineers and scientists of their day, and had America not taken them in and put them to work in their science departments, their enemies would have. Russia did the same thing, they took many scientists from Germany in as well and put them to work on the same space race. So shut the fuck up and maybe stop thinking in such blind absolutes....that's how mob mentality works. Idiots think in absolutes...do you like being a gullible idiot, who lets paranoia and black and whites rule his thinking? :/
5. False, the horizon when measured actually does drop the higher you go. Did you even bother to check that claim before you believed it blindly? This is a perfect example of Flat Earth feeding you bullshit, and then people just eating it up without ever checking to make sure it is true. Here are two ways you can test it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI&t=3s - simple leveling rig you can build with scraps you can find at home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc&t=8s - using a simple surveyors tool called a theodolite, which is a tool used for measuring horizon drop, you can download easy to use apps for your phone or you can purchase real ones online. They're quite easy to use.
6. Level does not necessarily mean flat. It is one of those words in the English language that takes on new meaning, depending on the context. In the case with 3D geometry and gravity, level means "perpendicular to center of object/mass". I know you won't understand what that means, but it does mean the "water seeks its own level" argument, just demonstrates how little you understand about mathematics and gravity.
7. HemiSPHERE not hemiFLAT, AtmoSPHERE not atmoPLANE. Oh look, I can do that too....stop looking at patterns that aren't there dumbass.
8. No they do not. ONE GUY who worked in the composite department at NASA, was once interviewed and asked to explain what HE DOES at HIS JOB! Then Flat Earth cut his words out of context, respun it to fit their bias narrative and now you people drone on and on claiming that NASA officially said something they did not. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias...and it was one of the first red flags for me, that you people are not rational and therefore are likely chasing bias and paranoia. Upon digging deeper over the years, I have confirmed that to be absolutely the case.
9. The Earth rotates once every 24 hours...to put that into perspective, Imagine if the hour hand on your clock was 2x's slower then it already is...do you think you'd be able to notice it spinning in real time? No, you wouldn't, the Earth is no different. But what they can do is film the Earth over a long period of time and then speed up the footage...and they have, many times. Here's sped up Earth rotation footage from the Galileo spacecraft that was taken back in 1990. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs One of many examples I can pull from.
10. Our senses often lie, they are not very good at all and they can be fooled quite easily. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMY9Vd8Ym5Q So they are not the most reliable tools to use in every situation, we have to be more diligent then that...or we will risk reaching some false conclusions.
11. Planes don't have too, they are constantly fighting gravity, gravity keeps them curving with the Earth, like a rope tethered to their feet swinging around a center, never allowing them to leave the atmosphere...all they need to do, is remain perpendicular to center of mass, which isn't hard with artificial horizon indicators. Aside from that, what makes you think you'd notice any small change in degree? It takes 70 miles to arc ONE degree on Earth...that's how big the Earth is. Do me a favor and pick something up, now arc it 1 degree (if you can, it's a very small measurement), do you notice a difference?
12. No they are not. Upon reviewing the experiments done by Flat Earth that make this claim, it is clear they reached a false conclusion, due to sloppy experimentation. They did not think to run a control experiment along with the main experiment, and so they did not properly control for any hidden variables that might give them the same results. It wasn't the Moonlight causing this effect, it was radiative cooling...a very well known and understood concept in physics. Here is an experiment done that DID think to include a control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLsZwp4RWWg&t=343s It's a very simple control, run the very same experiment on a night when the moon is not out (during a new moon phase), testing the same position, with all the other variables intact, minus the moon being out. If you receive the same results as in your previous experiment when the Moon was out, then you can not conclude that it is the moonlight causing this effect.
This is a perfect example of sloppy, poorly done experiments. Flat Earth only did enough experimentation to confirm their bias and then they stopped experimenting. That is BAD SCIENCE! That is exactly how you reach a false conclusion and it would be ripped apart if it were ever submitted for peer review in an actual science journal.
Flat Earth is currently displaying the pit falls of confirmation bias and why science was wise to include the peer review system into its framework. You are under educated people, reaching false conclusions, because you have NO IDEA how to conduct proper, unbiased, research. Then you go online and spread your bullshit as if its truth and fact....while using COMPUTERS and INTERNET and WIFI, to tell the rest of us that science has been wrong this whole time? It's just incredible how ignorant you people are.
It's fine to question things, it's perfectly logical in fact...but make sure your sources of information aren't just bullshitting you and make DAMN SURE you aren't just following bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, that’s not how science works. We do not reach sweeping conclusions on a single experiment alone. As much as people would prefer it be that simple, it will never and should never be that simple, because reality simply is NOT that simple. To help my point; your proposed experiment ignores (or is not aware of) how light actually behaves in atmospheric conditions over distances, namely refraction (bending) and diffraction (scattering). You’re assuming a laser would remain perfectly rigid and straight over great distances, but that’s not the reality, lasers actually refract and diffract by increasing margins, the further it has to travel through any medium, in this case atmosphere.
So it’s not actually a reliable tool to use here. Any physicist, engineer, or surveyor could tell you that, but you’d never know that without their knowledge and experience, so you’d continue to assume your experiment is without flaws….and you’d reach a false conclusion because of that. The only way we combat such errors, is through REPEATED experimentation, through rigorous peer review, from countless other experts of varying fields, with various scopes of knowledge. That’s how science operates, and that’s it should absolutely operate. No single person can reach a scientific conclusion on their own, so they shouldn’t be allowed too. Peer review is vital too reaching actual scientific conclusions, much more than most layman realize.
It actually took great effort to conclude Earth is spherical, thousands of years in fact, we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater from a single erroneous experiment, that you can be assured of.
1
-
1
-
@TEOS_UK Of course not, most people don’t trust governments, it’s pretty standard, but governments lying sometimes, does not automatically equate to Earth is flat…especially when I can verify that it isn’t flat, with just a few simple observations. Been looking at this mess for about 5 years now, I’ve talked to hundreds of flat Earthers, I’ve seen their “evidence” I’ve heard their arguments, and the most apparent thing I’ve learned is that Flat Earth is a hoax perpetuated by the paranoid and scientifically illiterate. It seems to me like you don’t form opinions from evidence, you form them from how much trust you have in something, so purely psychological. I think some people need to screw their heads back on, and look again…without the bias of distrust in all authority. Because nothing is that black and white, thinking in absolutes is a fallacy of logic…like it or not, nothing lies to you absolutely, they have to tell the truth sometimes.
I tried searching for that Neil clip (despite it being your burden of proof), I didn’t find anything. This is why it’s your burden of proof, because I can’t know for certain what clip you’re directly referring too…and Neil has thousands of various clips, so it would take me forever to find it. It’s just much quicker and easier if the person making the claim, provides their evidence, so that’s the standard. On top of that, huxters, liars, and conmen use that move a lot, “oh it’s there, you’re just lazy”…then I’m on a wild goose chase to find something that doesn’t exist. Not gonna extend that effort. Your burden of proof, so you find it, or I have no reason to believe it actually exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember back in school when some kids used to ask “what am I ever going to need physics knowledge for?”, this...this right here, so you have the knowledge and understandings required to debunk misinformation and con men like Eric Dubay. These are good questions you have, but they are basic physics questions. People like Dubay use what’s called gish gallop (many weak arguments and speculations dumped all at once in rapid fire, to make their main argument appear stronger than it really is), and they exploit most peoples general lack of experience and knowledge in science, to get you doubting. All they have to do is get you doubting, then they gain your trust while at the same time eroding the trust in the systems they’re targeting, it’s brainwashing 101...tell someone they’ve been lied too, then offer the “real” answers. You can pretty much feed someone any ol’ bullshit once you’ve gained their trust and turned them against something they used to trust.
But, these are great questions, the thing is they’re not new questions. They’re the very same questions science once asked and has since solved...but if you didn’t pay attention when this stuff was first being taught to you, then it becomes pretty easy to think these questions have simply never been asked before, because YOU’VE never asked them before.
Anyway, let’s see if I can give you some information that might help answer your questions, because again, these are great physics questions. I’ll start with your ocean vs the bird analogy. It’s a three part problem, cause you’re misunderstanding the physics of motion (namely inertia), gravity and centripetal force, all at once.
Your first question is a question of Centripetal force vs. Gravity. The trouble I feel you’re having, is in assuming the Centripetal force would be greater than the gravity force, if the Earth is moving as fast as it is. This however misunderstands how Centripetal force is increased. First off, the 1000 mph is a linear velocity...but we’re not moving in a linear motion, we’re in an angular motion, which is actually, much much slower. Flat Earth uses bigger numbers though, cause it shocks people easier...which stops you from really thinking about things deeper.
Anyway, centripetal force is increased by many different variables working in tandem, but the biggest variable is the rate of angular velocity change per second, or revolutions per minute (RPM’s). For example, a gravitron ride rotates at the rate of roughly 24 revolutions per minute, which creates a centripetal force that is about 3x’s stronger than the force of gravity. Now, in comparison to the Earth, our Earth completes ONE complete rotation roughly every 24 hours, which is two times slower than the hour hand of a clock. This generates a centripetal force that’s about 0.3% the force of gravity, which means, gravity easily wins here and nothing will go flying off Earth, gravity is much stronger than Earths centripetal force output, in fact it barely registers.
The centripetal force is even smaller in our other motions, because it takes 365 days to orbit the Sun and roughly 260 million years to orbit galactic center...so in these motions, the rate of angular velocity change per second, is almost immeasurably small...we might as well be travelling in a straight line.
I can give you a simple thought experiment to help understand this better. Picture yourself driving a race car, at a top speed of 200 mph. Now, which scenario do you think the driver will experience the most centripetal force from? Driving at top speed around a perfect circle track that’s 1000 meters in circumference, or 1000 miles in circumference? The answer is obviously the first one, but why? The car is moving at the same exact linear speed, 200 mph, so why don’t they both experience the same centripetal inertia? Because the smaller track is completing more revolutions per minute, while the other would take hours to complete even just one rotation. This drastically changes the rate of angular velocity change per second, which drastically changes the inertial output...see, it’s not so much the mph speed you should be focusing on...but flat Earth wants you focusing on the larger number, cause it’s easier to play it against your assumptions.
So that’s your first misunderstanding, you assumed centripetal force on Earth would be greater than it actually is. Analyzing the science closer, reveals that it’s not.
1
-
Your second problem is with gravity and the relation it has with mass vs energy.
First of all, water is not alive, it has no means of burning carbs to generate energy, that it can then use to create movement. So it’s not actively trying to resist gravity, it’s dead matter, so it conforms to whatever force is being applied to it or attracting it. A bird is alive, it burns energy to generate movement in its wings, so it can create another form of energy, kinetic energy. It uses that energy, to resist the force of gravity for short bursts of time, but what happens when a bird stops flapping its wings? It falls, just like all things do. So I hope I shouldn’t need to further point out the difference between water and living creatures. One generates energy it uses to resist the force of gravity, the other does not.
The other factor, is that mass plays an important role here as well. Gravity effects all matter equally, but if something has more mass, then it has more particles of matter being effected by gravity all at once, means it becomes heavier. Objects on Earth don’t always have weight you see, what they always have is mass, weight is created by gravity+mass+the surface, without these three things, you don’t have weight, you just have mass. Weight is an inertia you feel, from gravity squeezing your mass against the surface, that’s all weight really is.
Why’s this important? Because the more mass something has, the more energy is needed to resist gravity. A bird has very little mass, so it requires less energy to overcome gravity. So basically, smaller things actually have a much easier time resisting gravity. Gravity still effects it the same, but it doesn’t take as much energy to move less mass, so it will have an easier time.
See the tricky part here is from pinning down exactly what it is you’re misunderstanding about gravity. I think many people have this misconception, that because things weigh differently, it must mean they’re effected by gravity differently...but then they hear that gravity effects all matter the same, and this clashes with their understanding. I think what you’re missing is mass and energy. More mass, means more gravity applying to every piece of mass creating that matter, which means it’s heavier, which means more energy is going to be required to move it.
Anyway, the simplest thing to remember, is that oceans don’t have wings (obviously), they’re not alive (obviously), so they don’t create energy they use to resist forces such as gravity. Even if they did, they’d require a LOT of energy to move their mass.
Hope that helps.
You’re last problem is with the physics of motion in general, you’re assuming we should feel Earths motions somehow...but no, this again is misunderstanding some physics. I won’t bog you down any more, I’ll just point you in a direction. Do some reading on the Laws of Motion and Relative Motion. Understanding the physics of motion is extremely helpful for answering this question.
1
-
Archus88: How much actual research have you done to make these claims? Did ya do any experiments? Have you studied DNA and genes under the microscope yourself over many years? How much data have you collected? You said there is no new genetic information added from generation to generation...do a little bit of online research even, and you'd know this isn't true. DNA often does make random duplication's in the chain, and then that new chain can often times mutate forming new genetic information. Scientists know this happens, because it has been observed to happen. It never does this to the entire chain of DNA, but only in small chunks, which is why a cat will never give birth to a dog or fish at random. But it will give birth to a cat with better hearing, slightly better eye sight, maybe a thicker or thinner fur, little minute differences like this, that will add up over enough time, to eventually create a completely new species. Takes a very long time, but it is possible for something new to arise from something else.
So most Creationists as far as I can tell, just don't believe in Macro Evolution...a term I'm pretty sure they made up themselves, but alright. But why can't you fathom the possibility that given enough evolutionary changes over thousands or millions of years, you could end up with a creature so vastly different from what it originally was, that is could no longer be considered of that species anymore? Birds share a very similar skeletal structure to Dinosaurs. Mammals share very few traits, so it can be safe to assume that birds share a more recent common ancestor to Dinos then we do. Mice and Rodents share many characteristics to a Bat, but none of them can fly. Go back a few millions years in evolution, and neither could the Bat...at some point, it's environment pushed it on a separate evolutionary path from its non flying cousins...it boggles me that you can't see the connections. What about mudskippers? Are they fish, or Salamander, or something inbetween?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Can facts be wrong?”
I suppose some would say that something technically is not a fact, if it is wrong, though we should really never assume any fact can not be wrong, because then we’re assuming ourselves to be infallible…and nobody is infallible. So yes, I’d say facts can be wrong, happens a lot I’m sure.
“…why can’t we use science for proving whatever we want to prove.”
I don’t think you should ever use science to prove whatever you want, because then you’re more likely to follow your bias, which can lead you to false conclusions. It’s better in scientific practice to falsify, not prove. Science should take every effort to falsify a concept, then the information that holds up upon all attempts to falsify it, is the most likely conclusion. That’s a far better way to avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias I feel, and most scientists today agree with that methodology I would say.
“Science is available to everyone to use isn’t that the idea?”
Sure, anyone can use the scientific method…but that doesn’t automatically imply that they’re doing it correctly. Lots of quacks and pseudoscientists out there selling their grifts under the guise of “true science”…but just because they call it science, doesn’t mean it is.
“Why does this video have nothing but famous people?”
This video does, but Big Think interviews lots of different people, from the famous to the obscure. Just check out a few more of their videos sometime, you’ll see a pretty good mix. But, I’d be willing to bet the views on videos shoot up with every famous person they have on, for obvious reasons…and when you’re on a platform which earns you money for viewer counts (YouTube), then it’s pretty smart to have people on who can bring in more viewers…wouldn’t you say?
But it’s a bit of an odd question really, because why does it matter? 🤷♂️ You could ask that question with any video featuring just famous people…and the only answer really would be “because it does”, so what does it matter?
“Do they think there followers will aid them in the the journey of proving something?”
No, I think they just know that the more famous the expert, the more views they’ll get. As mentioned above, it’s pretty smart to do that, when your whole channel relies on views.
“Why don’t more people go to Antarctica? Can we even go?”
Antarctica has at least a hundred thousand annual visitors, so lots of people go. There’s plenty of photos and video taken from many of these trips, you can search for them at anytime, there’s plenty of them. So I’m inclined to believe they’re a reality. When I was travelling the Southern Island of New Zealand, I was given plenty of pamphlets and brochures to book trips to Antarctica, even stayed in a town called Dunedin, which was very close to the port where these trips typically left from. They left pretty regularly. Again, it’s a bit of an odd question though, because it makes a lot of assumptions. We could speculate endlessly on whether people really go or not, but it’s kinda pointless, until you actually go, or try to go.
“Why did people back then think the Earth was flat?”
Seems like a pretty obvious question to me, it’s because they didn’t have the knowledge we have today and from our tiny perspective, it appears flat. So if you have no other information to go off of, that’s very likely gonna be your first assumption. We don’t instantly know everything all at once, knowledge is obtained over time, so our understanding of the world changes as we learn more…this should be pretty common sense.
“…I Believe Jesus/God made the earth to be a very special place for us why couldn’t he make it look different too?”
Look different to what? 🤷♂️ That’s a relative question needing a bit more context…relative to what exactly? Aside from that though, your beliefs don’t effect what we measure and observe in reality, reality really doesn’t care about what we choose to believe, it just is what it is. It makes it pretty pointless to attempt at a rational discussion with anyone, who just concludes everything from the foundation of a belief…because then anything’s possible and no evidence matters, speculation rules, free to argue from ignorance endlessly. Welp…a lot of good that method of thinking does, for a ship captain who requires accurate knowledge of the Earth’s surface, if he wants any hope of getting from point A to point B, without getting lost. I don’t think he really cares about what conclusion someone else has fabricated from whatever fictional reality they believe…can he use that information to do his job? If not…then it’s pretty useless.
The whole point of science is to learn more about physical reality, to obtain accurate knowledge about how it works, so that we can then apply that knowledge for our benefit. So if you’re conclusions provide no working applications…then it’s very likely made up bullshit. That’s how you spot pseudoscience, it reveals itself by being absolutely useless. So you’re not really doing science, if you’re just reaching whatever conclusions you want…if it brings no working applications, then it’s not reality, it’s just nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, but you can't just conclude things are fake, without looking into it and analyzing whether that speculation is true or not...that's the problem. People are jumping to rushed conclusions, on misinformation, misunderstandings and paranoia, before they've even verified anything. Yes things can be photoshopped today, but that doesn't mean they were. Real photos are also taken, is it really that hard to believe that people have been to space now and have taken real photos of Earth? Besides that you don't require a photograph to verify the Earth is a Globe for yourself, just spend some time thinking about how a sunset works...how would that even be possible on a Flat Earth, with a Sun that circles above? Wouldn't you expect to be able to see it all the time? Yes, you would. That's far from the only observation you can make, there are many more that don't require much effort.
There is a very good reason why there is no working Flat Earth model still today, there's a very good reason why we abandoned that concept, and there is a very good reason why EVERY industry around the world today uses a Globe Earth model for navigation, communication and infrastructure...because it's true. Don't let con men on the internet make you paranoid and rob you of your better reasoning. I get that it's harder to trust authority lately, but you do not require their words or photos, to deduce the true shape of Earth...they did it 2000 years ago, with just a few simple observations and some critical, objective thinking. You can too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Allstarsga “Yet gravity doesn’t affect a butterfly” Wow....just wow. It’s stuff like this, that just makes it all worth it. 😂 It’s incredible you actually don’t get how this works, it’s fascinating actually. I’m sure any explanation would likely just go straight through your ears, but here goes anyway.
Gravity effects everything...it’s never not effecting you and everything else on Earth, it is a constant, it’s not selective and it does not turn off. But it can be resisted, with enough counter force, it’s not a particularly strong force it’s just always there pulling on you, while the energy required for you to counter it, is not. A butterfly burns energy, to create motion, which it uses to resist gravity...and it has an easier time doing this, because it has less mass. The more mass something has, the more energy is required to move it...pretty simple. Gravity doesn’t change, but the mass does in objects...more mass, means more energy needed to move it. A Butterfly doesn’t need much energy, because it has very little mass...are you getting this correlation yet?
Just to add, our oceans aren’t spun off, because there isn’t enough centrifugal force created, by a rotation that takes 24 hours to complete, to resist the force of gravity. It’s basic physics of rotational velocity vs gravity...gravity easily wins here, because centrifugal force is dependent on rotational velocity...not linear velocity (the 1000 mph surface speed that flatties think is the biggest factor to centrifugal force increase). If Earth completed more rotations in a single minute or even hour, then ya, centrifugal force would then be great enough to trump gravity....but it’s not doing that is it, a full day is 24 hours, so that’s ONE complete rotation every 24 hours...so almost no Centrifugal force generated. So easily gravity wins the tug o war here.
We have no trouble questioning what we’re told by systems of authority...but when we’re face palming so hard from your attempts, which reveal your clear misunderstandings of the science, it becomes pretty clear who we really need to be questioning. This is easy stuff for the rest of us...it’s just incredible that some can’t seem to get it, despite our best efforts.
I think YOU should really start questioning the con men on YouTube who have taught you your current brand of pseudoscience...they’re robbing you of your critical thinking.
1
-
That’s perfectly fine, nobody is saying they can’t...but like it or not, people are prone to confirmation bias, so peer review is important to weed out human error and bias. Flat Earth fails peer review upon every reproduction (which is why they avoid it, by skipping it completely), then it’s confirmed, every time we take a closer look, what’s really going on...it’s just paranoid layman, doing what paranoid layman do best. Conducting bias research, jumping to conclusions, overreacting and grossly over estimating themselves. This isn’t new, general public does this a lot...in worse cases it’s known as mob mentality.
Whether you like it or not, peer review is important...that’s all we’re doing here in the comments and in these videos, is providing the peer review Flat Earth ignores. We’re finding errors in flat Earths conclusions, so we’re going to point those errors out. Maybe instead of just reacting and assuming you’re right all the time, listen and consider the possibility that the error is not the model, but your understanding of that model. You’re arguing a position that goes against all of modern science and common knowledge, it’s reasonable to me that you should at the very least, not be so quick with your conclusion, especially if your information was fed to you by strangers online, who clearly have no experience with the topics they argue against. It’s not hard for con men to lie and exploit the gaps in your knowledge, so don’t just listen to these people blindly.
1
-
Ok, so first you have to understand that level does not necessarily mean flat. Level is one of those words in the English language that can take on new meaning given the context and in mathematics and geometry, it can be used on geometric shapes to be defined as "level perpendicular to center of object", meaning perfectly 90 degrees to center. On a sphere, that level changes a lot as you curve along the surface.
So elevation isn't measured from sea level really, sea level is a bench mark, but in reality elevation is always measured from center of Earth. We use sea level, because the elevation of the sea is always roughly the same distance from center of Earth, all around the entire sphere, because of how water works, always seeking lowest potential elevation, which makes it a great benchmark.
Now here's how elevation really works on the Globe Earth. The closer to center you are, the lower in elevation, the further you are from center, the higher you are in elevation. A good way to understand this, take a bunch 2 inch match sticks and poke them into a styrofoam ball, poke them down 1 inch exactly into the surface. Now the surface of that ball, represents sea level, the entire surface is exactly the same distance from center all around the ball...that's why it's a sphere. Which is exactly how water also works, seeking the same distance from center of Earth, the lowest potential elevation. Everything above sea level is at a higher elevation. So if those match sticks are 1 inch deep and they're regularly 2 inches long, then they are now all 1 inch elevation from surface, they are at 1 inch elevation from sea level. But if you stuck a bunch of them all around the ball, you'll notice that they're heights don't match, cause they're curving away from each other...but doesn't matter, they are all still 1 inch from that surface, so they are all 1 inch elevation from the surface, we use sea level as our surface benchmark, because it's the lowest potential elevation of water, and so the top of the ocean will always be the same distance from center of Earth (with some wiggle room, there are still tides occurring all over the Earth, but it only makes a difference of a few meters, so we take the average of the tides to represent sea level)
Now gravity works like this, each one of those sticks in your styrofoam ball pointing towards center represents a gravity vector. Gravity ALWAYS points to center, pulling you to direct center of mass. So when we level something here on Earth, we're actually leveling to the center of gravity, NOT TO SURFACE. I'm sure you've heard that term before, center of gravity, it's how we balance everything. A bubble level works through buoyancy, which is caused by gravity, so a spirit level is not really leveling flat to surface, it is leveling perpendicular to center of gravity...the same way water does.
Water works the same way, it has what is known as an equipotential force being applied to it from all directions, all towards center, causing it's elevation from center of Earth to always be the same. You notice the same thing occur in a water droplet, or a soap bubble...the skin of that bubble having the exact same equal distance (equipotential) from center of the bubble or water droplet, hence why it forms a sphere....it's the only shape it can form with an equipotential force being applied to it in all directions towards a center.
Here's a great diagram that helps explain a little more why water curves on the surface of a sphere, explaining equiopotential distance a bit more. https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/equipotential-768x768.jpg Like your match sticks in that ball, which are at the same elevation from center, water does the same thing thanks to gravity.
I hope that helps, I know it's a lot to read, but there is a reason we don't bat an eye at Flat Earthers when they use the argument "water finds it's level"...ya, it does...level perpendicular to center of gravity. They fail here because they assume level always means flat...and it doesn't. They're committing a logical fallacy here known as appeal to definition...and that's where they go wrong here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
For the same reason you don't fall on your ass or get sucked to your seat while in an airplane during cruising altitudes, which is moving roughly 500 mph. Because of the physics of motion, most notably conservation of momentum and relative motion. What this science teaches us, is that so long as you are moving at the same rate, within an inertial reference frame that's moving at a constant, steady forward velocity with no sudden or drastic changes in speed or direction, then you are moving relative to that inertial reference frame, conserving its moment at all times, moving with it. This creates an environment that will operate as though stationary, everything moving in that same inertial reference frame, operating under that same rule of thumb.
It's physics of motion 101 and very easy to demonstrate, you demonstrate it every time you get into a moving vehicle of any kind in fact. Next time you're in a car, toss something up in the air and let it fall back into your hand. From your perspective, it went up, it went down...but if you're moving forward, to an observer watching you from the outside, then it actually formed a parabolic path...arcing like an arch. But hold on, if you're traveling at 100 mph lets say...why didn't it smash you in the face when it left your hand? Because of conservation of momentum...it conserves the momentum of the environment it is moving relative too. We are no different, we move relative to the Earth at all times.
Truth is, we are not actually well tuned to detect motion itself. What we pick up on is CHANGE in motion, felt in our body as inertia. Or we see it and hear it and the brain interprets that as motion. But if you could block out all your senses while on a flight, where you couldn't feel the hum of the engines or hear them, if you weren't looking outside to see the clouds go by...how would you ever notice you were moving? You wouldn't...it would likely feel as though you weren't moving at all, as though you were stationary. That's how motion really works, it's relative...and there are hundreds of different ways we have tested and verified that now.
Also, 1019 mph is a linear speed, and Centrifugal forces are not measured in linear speeds, they are measured in angular velocity change. Why is this important? Because the only force generating an inertia on us, would be that angular velocity change per second...the linear speed, pretty much irrelevant, it can play a small role in the math, but it's RPM's that are more important here. So how fast is that change per second on our Earth and how can you best picture it? Picture yourself in a NASCAR at it's top speed (about 200 mph), going around a perfectly circular track, that's only about 1000 meters in circumference. With a track that small, the rate of angular velocity change per second, is super high...that driver would feel the inertia of the Centrifugal forces here, his body sucked to the door, it would be very hard to keep on that track...and likely impossible. But now increase the circumference of that track, to about 4800 miles...how much Centrifugal force do you think that driver would feel now, on a circular track that long? As he steadily goes around the track, completing one complete circuit every 24 hours. None...he wouldn't feel any at this rate of angular velocity change, there is a tiny amount, but his body can't measure a force that small. The course might as well be a straight line to him now, the car turning so incredibly gradual. The Earth is no different...it takes 24 hours to complete a single rotation, it's RPM's (rotations per minute) that really effect Centrifugal forces...not linear speed. Flat Earth focuses on the big numbers...but not the physics very much, that's for a good reason, can spin a narrative with the physics...but you can sure dazzle people with big numbers, like clever misdirection.
So if you don't feel motion itself, and if the Centrifugal force on Earth during its rotation is pretty much non existent, generating pretty much zero inertia on your body, then what's left? What motion are you going to feel?
So if you have to ask, I go with science, every time. Science has answers, you just have to know where to look. If you have any more questions feel free to ask, I don't mind sharing more information. If you have anything to add that you feel I missed, feel free to point it out to me as well, I don't mind taking a look and challenging what I think I know. I don't claim to know everything, but the physics of motion does account for the planets motion and it's simple science to learn and understand and verify for ones self.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vovindequasahi Sure, they lean towards the mainstream consensus and so will state that the Earth is a Globe, but the goal here wasn't focused on that statement, the goal here is to ask some questions along the lines of "what is true knowledge and how do we discern it" and "why are so many people today turning away from the mainstream and towards fringe ideas". It's delving into the logic of our thought processes...not the physics, not the math, not the mechanics...but the root logic and reasoning. And no, they're not the same I feel. A hypothesis asks and experimentation verifies...that's all under science. Philosophy doesn't aim to prove or disprove anything, and it's not the job of philosophy to ask on matters of the mechanics of things and how they operate physically...such as "is the Earth round", that's not a problem for philosophy, that's a problem for geometry and physics....not philosophy. But delving into WHY so many people begin to follow fringe movements and begin to distrust experts, that's a problem philosophy can peel the layers back on. Philosophy doesn't care what the shape of the planet is...though yes, Wisecrack does lean towards the mainstream consensus, and so that is where they will frame their perspective from, but I'm just pointing out that science is not their focus here.
Anyway, apologies if I misread your intent, and I get that you were also making a philosophical point in asking "how do you know for sure, if you haven't done the experiments yourself". That's quite logical and a good question to ask, so sorry if I misread it initially as "show me the science!". So apologies on my overreaction, just a lot of people commenting below asking for Wisecrack to back up "claims" with some experiments...and that's not the purpose of this channel, so it's dumb to ask them to provide proofs here. But then I'm subbed to this channel, so I know what they do here...I get that people seeing this as their first Wisecrack video would have no idea.
1
-
Very interesting take on the whole situation and I agree, it’s definitely a sign of the current disconnect between modern science and the general public. The deeper and more complex the science gets...the harder it becomes to communicate that knowledge to everyone else, who are not actively spending their day’s smashing particles into each other, or sifting through gravitational wave data. I think we need to find a better approach to teaching kids the scientific method...this forced memorization method in western educational systems is just not working, it’s just causing kids to grow up resenting science...and then we get Flat Earthers, fighting against science as if it’s a villain that needs to be defeated.
I would disagree with you though that the science community take Flat Earth more seriously. I don’t think science should further legitimize this movement, by giving them the attention they crave. We’re not dealing with rational people here, these are damaged minds, who are fuelled by fear and hate...we’re dealing with paranoid delusion here, you can’t reason with that, so it’s foolish to give them platforms where the delusion will only spread further. Only thing we should really take seriously is improving our educational systems. There is a root cause here and I think it begins with people not fully understanding the method of science and how to keep bias in check.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christobalgonzalez3529 The people involved in the production are known conmen, some I’ve even chatted with directly, like David Weiss for example. So not a lot of credibility to go around. Anyone can create a long video of just talk, endless speculation without evidence, and flash imagery without context…it’s called gish gallop, and it’s a tactic used in suggestive brainwashing, and propaganda, to overload your mental capacities to tackle each point one at a time. Basically repeat lies often enough and pile them all on at once, eventually some people just give in…never realizing nothing said was actually evidence, just empty claims and speculations.
It’s nothing new…Flat Earth and other science denying movements pushing misinformation online have been creating propaganda like this for years now. Sadly it works……don’t be another sucker please.
But if you want me to address some of the points made, I don’t mind. So feel free to point out a section you find most compelling and I’ll take a look.
1
-
@christobalgonzalez3529 The black sun…you mean an eclipse? They make a bunch of claims in the video, that eclipse isn’t caused by the Moon, but they sure don’t provide any evidence to suggest it’s not. Meanwhile, anyone can get the equipment required, and go to the path of shadow totality, to take a long exposure shot of the next total eclipse, and you will clearly see it is the Moon passing in front of the Sun. Plenty of images to be found online of this, do an image search for ‘Moon Earthshine total eclipse’, you’ll get a bunch of photos from various people who have done this…even links to articles explaining how you can photograph this for yourself.
They’re all straight up lying too you in that documentary…telling you the Moon has never been seen during eclipse, when it absolutely has and anyone can verify it for themselves with a little effort. These are conmen, selling a grift…this documentary was sold for $7 before it was eventually released…god knows how much they earned in donations leading up to release. They are scamming you people.
1
-
We don't think we're insignificant, where'd you get that idea from? We look at the world a little differently sure, we don't put ourselves at the center of it all, but we don't think we're insignificant...far from it. We're just a bit more humble in our approach, not as self centered and narcissistic about it, we've learned to accept the possibility that our superstitions may in fact be just bullshit. But even if they are, of course you're significant you dumbass...you're conscious, you're alive, we don't just ignore that. Life is very important no matter how big or small it is. And science isn't working to destroy the concept of a God...it just doesn't give a fuck whether that's true or not, it just cares about what is actually true. If God doesn't exist, then some of us are ready and prepared to accept that...while you would rather hold onto a bias belief that you have and ignore any evidence that refutes it...simply because you have a hard time coping with the possibility that there is no life after death. Science doesn't really care about what you want to believe, it just cares about what is.
But again, science doesn't know everything and it likely never will, so God will always have a place in the framework...in fact most scientists today and throughout history were actually theists, not atheists. I'm actually more humbled by the possibility that I'm not the center of the universe, that the cosmos are vast and I'm just a small part of it all...but I'm still a part of it all, I still do matter. But come on, would you rather live in a small terrarium where you're just...what exactly? A slave, a pet...what the heck are we to God in that world? You really think that makes you more special? Or would you rather be in a universe that is vast, where anything is possible, where you are free to explore it and conquer it...if you can. This gives us purpose really, I look at the universe as something with endless possibilities...while religious people look at life as pain and suffering and they can't wait for it to end...for some reason. Always focused on the end...never focused on the now. Heaven is right here, right now...not later, not tomorrow, here and now and happening right in front of you. Why would anyone want this to end so quickly? Life excites me, the endless possibilities of this universe excites me, always something new to discover and learn about and master. And to me, that's a sign of a truly powerful creator, having created a vast universe that we can NEVER hope to fully understand, see, or explore. While yours created...a small terrarium? You really think that's better? That to me is much more bleak...a small world, with nothing new to explore...that's quite boring to me.
I don't think I'm small or insignificant, I'm alive, and the universe needs life, or it technically doesn't exist at all. Your 5 senses create the universe, just as much as the universe created you, that makes you VERY important. That in itself is all I need...and I much prefer being my own master, rather then being a slave to something else.
So we don't think we're insignificant, some people might reach that conclusion sure, they are called nihilists, but I'd agree that's a poor way to look at life. You matter, you're alive, there is nothing in the cosmos more incredible than life.
Idk, I'm more humbled by these things, they don't scare me...I think anyone who is put off by this notion, should really consider that perhaps they're a bit self centered, maybe struggling with their own mortality. Personally I think it's beautiful and I'm enjoying every second of it and I'm not as worried about what happens after. I'm not going to speculate about things that I can't verify, I'm just going to enjoy the heaven I have right here and now.
Either way, I think it's a bit bias to conclude the Earth is flat...in spite of all the evidence that says otherwise, simply because you prefer that outcome. That's not thinking objectively...it's denying reality in favor of something you'd prefer. Though I do prefer a vast cosmos that is possibly endless in scale, I'm more then happy to accept the alternative...but none of the evidence points to that conclusion, so I'm not going to ignore that evidence just to bolster a bias.
It's sad how you look at atheists I think, I myself am not atheist (not religious either, but I do believe in a God), but I understand them a lot better...most of them do not look at reality with such a depressing lens as you seem to think. Nihilists are a bit more what you're thinking of, but they do not represent every atheist, most atheists are quite humbled by an immense universe where they are not the center of it all, but just a small part of it.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble, I just feel you're not quite understanding how we actually look at things. We don't look at things quite as bleak as you think, we're excited by the endless possibilities of a vast universe. Personally I find the alternative to be much more bleak and boring, I don't seek to be special, I know I already am just by the simple fact that I'm alive, conscious and gifted with the intelligence to understand the cosmos more in depth. What more could you want? I think it's a bit greedy to want even more then what you already have....be a bit more grateful I say, what you have already is incredibly gracious of a creator to give you.
1
-
@VRVVNDR-Y I disagree, I think I appreciate Gods creation even more, by looking at how incredible the vastness of the universe is and how lucky I am to be here experiencing it. I'm happy to be here and I appreciate everything around me knowing that I have such a short time with it all. Where's the cop out exactly? Because I look at the science and then agree with it? Am I not allowed to agree with something that I feel is pretty conclusive and undeniably true? Why exactly? You're really not making a whole lot of sense...I think YOU are the one looking for a cop out, just looking for any reason you can to help you ignore modern science rather then take the time to look at it objectively.
Of course scientists are all saying the same thing...they're stating facts and facts don't change, they just are what they are...so ya, when you state facts, you're going to get a lot of people stating the same facts...that's quite normal to happen. What do you want them to say instead? Do you really just want them to state the opposite of the facts, just to be contrarian and hip? That's not how science works...they're all saying the same things, because they agree that this science is settled...so they're going to repeat that knowledge to pass it down to us...cause that's what their job is, to find objective truths and then pass that knowledge down to us. Like fuck me...I can't believe I have to explain that to an adult today. So If I was an expert fisherman and we all used boats, because it's a known fact that boats are what you need to get out to the fish, would you then complain that fishermen are all indoctrinated because they all agree that boats are useful? No...of course you wouldn't...the fuck kind of logic is that? You're doing the same thing with scientists...complaining about them saying the same things, as if this proves they're lying? It's a dumb argument...of course they agree on things, of course they're all saying the same things, I'm glad they're more certain about a lot of things...it would be fucking chaos if they didn't agree as often as they do...it would be the internet then and this place is fucked, misinformation and pseudo intellectuals running rampant.
But do you REALLY think scientists are just toeing the line about everything? Scientists are in direct competition all the time. Yes they agree on a lot of things, but the key to science is falsification, not verification, so scientists are CONSTANTLY trying to think outside the box to become the next Einstein. Do you really think Einstein got famous for agreeing with people? Fuck no...he's famous today because he challenged established science and he succeeded. He was questioning the works of Newton...which took some balls, cause yes, the community of science is still only human at the end of the day and we humans have a very hard time with change, but he succeeded and so science had no choice but to change, because the science could not be ignored. And the process continues today, they've been trying for years to falsify Einsteins theories...but all they've done so far is verified it further, which is not a bad thing. If ANYONE could falsify Einstein today, they would be famous over night...so that's what scientists have been trying to do, and that's what they're constantly trying to do with each others work. It is a never ending process.
But scientists repeat the same things, because they agree with each other on certain facts...just because people agree with each other after looking at the facts, does not mean they're indoctrinated. To conclude that right out of the gate, is the real cop out here. You're not even bothering to look at the science objectively, you're just using some bullshit logic to justify not listening to them, so you can continue to be as ignorant as you are. That's the real cop out that I'm seeing here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardhislop9928 Just think about a bit here…if the less dense matter (the air bubble), is being pushed by the more dense matter (the water), as the downward acceleration pulls it down, don’t ya think the more dense matter is gonna occupy lowest position first? It has more inertia, so the less dense matter can’t remain at the bottom, if more dense matter is being forced towards that same spot. So what’s gonna happen to the less dense matter, as more dense matter with more inertia, is forced down to lower position? It’s gonna be pushed up…even you already agree to this. But don’t you get it, if matter is not being pulled down, then that displacement wouldn’t occur. With nothing to put matter into the downward motion, then what reason does the less dense matter have to get out of the way? Nothing is then putting any matter into motion in any direction, so nothing is actively pushing against it…so it won’t rise. Without the downward motion, displacement will not occur. So it’s pretty simple…gravity causes displacement, it’s the reason that bubble rises. No downward motion, no buoyancy.
This is basic physics of buoyancy, understood by every engineer and scientist around the world. Think about it awhile, maybe it’ll click eventually. And while you’re at it, just look up the many experiments for buoyancy physics that confirms this further. It’s a very well tested phenomenon.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Simulation has a very different implication in mathematics. It doesn’t always mean a 3D rendering in a program on a computer, most simulations are ran in numbers on a white board my dude. Fact is, mathematical models never require every variable of physical reality…because it takes too long to include everything, which slows down production, so simplifications are required…which is an entire field of work in mathematics, to simplify math, by identifying redundant variables, and removing them, to speed up production. When you do this in a mathematical model, you have to state very clearly what variables are not being included in the math to follow…It doesn’t mean the Earth is flat, they’re not making literal statements about reality, they’re just simplifying equations….they are models, not complete representations of reality. :/
Just be real man….are you a mathematician? Have you ever written a mathematical model before? Do you really know anything about this stuff? It’s really frustrating explaining this kind of thing, to people who clearly don’t really know much about mathematics…..I try not to be dick, but it’s a little irritating, when non experts misinterpret the actual context of something like this, and then don’t even consider the possibility they could be misinterpreting things.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Alright, I’ll give you an example. A large part of flight simulation is understanding the vehicles wind resistance capabilities…do I need to factor the Earth’s shape and motion, into equations to determine a vehicle’s air flow? No, you don’t…so those variables can be omitted in a simulation for that specific purpose…because they will have essentially zero effect on what I’m trying to determine. Of course the end goal of a simulation is to acquire information we can then apply in the real world…but a simulation itself does not require every variable of reality, to determine singular effects or parts of it. And often times, mathematicians will just run complete hypotheticals, just to see what could be possible under various conditions not necessarily possible in reality. A great example of that is the model for the warp drive engine, which was largely running hypothetical simulations…I’m sure if a layperson came across that model, they’d assume the government is building warp drive technology, but the paper in actuality is just a hypothetical simulation with assumed variables.
In this case, with that flight dynamics model, thanks to conservation of momentum physics and Earth’s massive scale, Earth’s motion and its shape won’t have much or any effect on most flight dynamics, so those variables can be ignored in these simulations. If it was a paper on Coriolis effect, or the Magnus effect, or the lesser known Eotvos effect…it would be different, but that’s not what that model is for.
If you read it closely, it also assumes a perfectly rigid vehicle of constant mass…it says those exact words right before it says “a flat non rotating Earth”. Both of those variables are impossible for a vehicle with moving parts (so not perfectly rigid) and fuel that depletes over time (so doesn’t maintain constant mass). They are assumed variables…simplifications, just like the rest of the variables are. They’re not making a literal statement about the Earth, it is a math simplification, for a simulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 You have a real problem with understanding the little details or nuance of things it seems.
Einstein was referring to an optical experiment, using interferometers. At the time, he believed nobody could detect Earth rotation with that method of observation…he was of course proven wrong, just a few years later, with the Michelson Gale experiment, that used a Sagnac interferometer to not only detect Earth rotation, but measure it as well. The same physics is used today in ring laser gyros on most modern aircraft, to help them detect pitch, yaw and roll…they’re very accurate at detecting rotational motions. Einstein was not infallible, a genius can still be wrong. But he was not wrong about Earth’s rotation, it was already detected through other experiments, like the Foucault Pendulum and Gyroscope experiments…the latter is knowledge used in the gyrocompass today, which is a navigation device used on modern sea vessels, that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function.
So if you think Earth rotation has never been detected…you’ve been watching a bit too much bullshit on YouTube my man.
Both Earth’s curvature and its rotation are scientifically proven facts today, they’ve both actually passed the scientific method, you’ve just been misled. Lotta false information circling around online, you’re currently falling victim to that bad information. If you’d like some examples of experiments done verifying curvature or rotation, I don’t mind sharing…but currently you’ve been misinformed.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Oh boy…you’re all scrambled up aren’t you. Modern social media has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for. 😔
Gyros work just fine on our Earth…they also do detect Earth rotation, look up the Foucault Gyroscope experiment sometime, it’s a classic physics experiment repeated many times over the past 200 years.
8 inches per mile squared is a basic parabola equation…not very accurate for a sphere, and it does not represent line of sight. So it’s the wrong math…use the wrong math, and there’s really no wonder why your figures won’t match observations. It’s pretty key in mathematics and science, to double check your math, to make sure it’s accurate…but none of you in FE bothered to check, so you were easy victims for what basically amounts to a sleight of hand trick. The trick was simple, they provided you the wrong math…knowing full well the mathematical literacy of the average person is quite low, so they knew you wouldn’t check it…heck you wouldn’t even know where to start. So it was an easy con to run.
Here’s the correct math, using trigonometric functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= radius of Earth
d= distance to object
h= height of the observer
Math is a language, built on the knowledge of axioms and dimensions and perimeters, that define physical reality…it’s basically the language of the universe. So there’s really no better way to prove something, than through mathematics…2+2 will always equal 4, there is no arguing with that. But if you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion…it’s really that simple. That’s why it’s always the first thing scientists double check, when observations don’t match their pre calculated figures.
A scientific theory is very different from a regular theory in the layman usage of the word. In science, hypothesis takes the role of a theory in the regular usage, while theory is a collection of facts and verified science, that describes HOW a phenomena of nature works at its fundamental level. Nothing graduates to a theory until it’s been verified in experimentation, and nothing really goes beyond a theory in science, it is the pinnacle of all research that works to describe HOW something works. So gravity will always be a theory, magnetism will always be a theory, that’s just the word they use for their conclusions. Not to be confused with a scientific law, that only describes WHAT is occurring, but makes no attempt to explain HOW it works. In that way, scientific theories could actually be argued as higher than laws, because you will always have more power and control over a system when you understand HOW it works rather than just WHAT it does. Facts are just tiny bits of information that make up the foundations of both theories and laws of science, so they don’t go higher than either of them.
See…the problem here is you don’t even understand the basics of science…yet you’re gonna argue with me that your scientific understanding is somehow superior? 🤷♂️ Like damn dude…..it’s really no wonder you fell for the dumbest hoax on the internet today. 🤦♂️
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 You’re thinking of the Michelson Morley experiment, which was attempting to find the hypothesized Aether, that physicists of the time thought was the medium light propagated through, and no…that experiment didn’t prove anything, it was inconclusive, that’s always been its conclusion. Inconclusive means the experiment essentially failed to verify or falsify its hypothesis, it means more testing is required. You can’t form a conclusion from an inconclusive experiment…..if you do, then you are doing so out of ignorance of the experiment, and more than likely because of bias.
The Michelson Gale experiment came much later, and successfully detected the Earth’s rotation…they are two separate experiments. The first one failed to verify its hypothesis, the second was successful. Earth is rotating, that’s the conclusion it verified.
If you think either of these experiments were to verify the stars rotated around Earth…then you are just making that shit up, because that is not what either of them were even testing. At that point…if you’re just gonna make shit up and conclude whatever you want, then you are not a rational person, and so there’s no point continuing this conversation, because you are either very dumb, insane, or both.
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Both Dark Matter and Dark Energy may be falsified someday, just like the Aether has been currently, both are at the current frontier of physics, just like the Aether once was roughly 100 years ago…acquiring knowledge is a process, it takes time. But while we may not fully understand how our galaxy remains in gravitational equilibrium (which is what dark matter is hypothesized to be the cause for), it doesn’t change the fact that pilots and sailors around the world are successfully navigating the Earth every single day…using the knowledge that Earth is spherical to help them do it. :/ That’s applied science today…meaning it’s more than proven, it’s now working knowledge. The limitations of current physics do not change that….nor does it change the fact that you fell for an online hoax, that twisted information, to feed you bullshit.
The Earth is not flat, I’m sorry, but you seriously need to start questioning the sources that made you believe it was.
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 Jesus fuck, take another bong rip bud. 🙄 The hypothesis for the Michelson Morley experiment, was that light propagates through a medium, much like sound waves propagate through air. This medium physics called the Aether, and that experiment was trying to verify the existence of that medium. The set up for the experiment used Earth rotation as part of its function, but no delay in light propagation was detected, no matter how the interferometer was arranged…so nothing was verified or falsified by that experiment, so it was inconclusive…meaning it didn’t conclude anything, it was basically a failure. Since Earth rotation was already verified by multiple experiments at this point (and many more after), it meant that the Aether was more than likely not a reality. But we don’t stop at single experiments in physics, so more experimentation was done….but none of it successfully found the Aether. Experiment after experiment, came up with absolutely nothing…and that’s still the case today. The Aether has never been successfully detected….that’s the reality.
I’m sorry bud, but you’ve spent too much time listening blindly to pseudo intellectuals feed you bullshit. Gravity is fact, it’s applied science today, in pretty much every field of science. You’re currently using technology that makes use of that knowledge, from the tiny gravitational gyroscopes that flip your phone screen for you, to the GPS that use on your phone….you have no idea how fucking lost you are in your understandings of basic physics.
1
-
1
-
@zReNAgAdE504 It’s like talking to a wall. 🤦♂️No, it did not. Michelson Morley is inconclusive, full stop! Meaning it doesn’t verify or falsify any conclusion…that’s what inconclusive means. Michelson Gale verified Earth rotation…anyone can look this up, that’s the official conclusion. You can even repeat the experiment…and it’s currently science that’s used in ring laser gyros to detect physical rotations, from a body in a rotational motion. It can not detect rotation from something else revolving around it…that’s not how it works. 🤦♂️ Sagnac effect detects rotational motion from the object that is in a rotational motion…everything outside of that object, it can not detect…this isn’t difficult to understand. You’re trying very hard to ram a square peg into a round hole here…and you’re just looking like an idiot while doing it.
Gravity is one of the easiest forces to verify…drop something, did it fall at an accelerated rate towards surface? Yes, it did. Falling is a motion, all change in state of motion requires a force to cause it…it doesn’t just occur on its own. That’s physics 101. So a force is present putting that matter into motion.
The experiment that verified our current understanding further was the Cavendish experiment, and it’s very easy to repeat. So you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m sorry dude, but you learned a bunch of bullshit from huxters…who also have no idea what they’re talking about. You need to peel your face away from your phone, and go back to school…so you can actually learn something.
1
-
1
-
Learn the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, they are not the same thing. Here’s a great video that could help you out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0H-amOti_o
Theories of science are built from facts, so science is trying to demonstrate those facts to people...the trouble is, theories are quite expansive and there’s no way to teach a theory to someone completely, without them dedicating a large amount of time towards that task. Most people don’t have that kind of time...and they don’t want hard, they want quick and easy to digest answers. 50 years ago they took several pictures of Earth though...and at the time, this was good enough, this was easy to digest information. But, now with CGI the way that it is, and a growing lack of trust in systems of authority, doesn’t matter what science shows them, if they’re just going to find excuses to ignore it all. At this point, for some people, they’ve lost so much trust, that until they see the Earth for themselves, it no longer really matters what science provides for them, they’re not listening to sources they no longer trust. So if they’re not listening, if they’re just going to ignore it...then there’s not much science can do, doesn’t really matter what facts are provided, it’s not about facts really...it’s about psychology, it’s about who they trust and who they don’t.
There are simple ways to verify Earths shape though, like observing a simple sunset. How exactly does the sun rise and set, if it occupies the same visual sky for everywhere, at the same time? Just one of many simple ways you can verify the Earths true geometry.
1
-
@bisonchief304 Classic response from a person with no real argument, “do your own research”. Maybe you’ve heard of the burden of proof? You make a claim, it’s then YOUR job to back it up with evidence…that’s how this works. If you actually knew what you were talking about, if YOU actually had some real evidence, it would be easy to share…but you don’t, you just assumed everything, you made it all up, and now expect the rest of us to believe your assumptions without question or proof. This whole “do your own research” bullshit needs to end, it gets tossed around like everybody thinks they’re an expert because they read an article once, or saw a YouTube video, when the truth is, you’re just using it as an excuse….because you have no idea what you’re talking about, and deep down even you know it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK Ya, and it would on a Globe, because there would be TWO polar regions, that are never blocked by the Sun...these are the circumpolar stars, the stars locked to BOTH polar axis. The stars along the ecliptic though, the seasonal stars, change periodically throughout a year, because they’re blocked by the Sun...as they would, on a globe orbiting the Sun.
It’s pretty basic astronomy knowledge. So if you’re an astronomer, how about you go out on any clear night and try to find some seasonal constellations that are out of season currently? Not hard to find a list of seasonal stars online, so go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@COLUMBUSISBACK So do a test for me sometime, pretty simple test. Get in a vehicle at night, on a good smoothly paved road, prop a camera up at a single star, like Polaris, through a window or on the vehicle, doesn’t matter really, just as long as the camera and its angle never move. Now drive perfectly straight for a good while. Review the footage, watch as the stars never deviate from starting position, they’ll appear as though perfectly stationary in your camera. Now drive again, situated on the same star, but this time, rotate the camera in a perfect circle around the axis of the star you’re zeroed in on. Then review it and notice the perfect circle rotation.
You’re ASSUMING the different motions don’t work, before actually testing it. You’re ignoring simple variables like parallax...which fits in explanation, and in every observation. Stellar parallax is something astronomers test very regularly, a simple observational experiment that verifies we’re moving around the Sun AND helps us determine how far away the stars are. You can look up stellar parallax at any time...you can test what effect parallax has on apparent motions any tome you want. It’s simple geometry and perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure, many of the questions they ask are reasonable, some are even great physics and general science questions...the problem is, they’re approaching the questions with a strong bias of their own, so certain that they’re being screwed over by a shadowy “they”, that they feel compelled to defeat at all costs. Makes it very hard for most to remain objective here. So in my experience, having chatted with hundreds of Flat Earthers over several years now, I’ve noticed they’re generally going through research hastily, with blinders on, seeking only the details that confirm their particular bias...doing anything they can, to expose “them”, whoever “they” might be.
It’s great people are asking questions, in fact it’s perfectly logical...but if they think they’re not approaching things with biases of their own, they should be more honest with themselves. We all have bias, it’s actually very difficult to operate without it, taking a lot of patience and practice. So best to be cautious and not jump to conclusions to hastily.
A general distrust of authority, coupled with a desire to defeat them, is a strong bias. Can lead down some dark rabbit holes of nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimygod Ok, it’s incredible I have to explain basic geometry to an adult, but here it goes anyway. Horizon is directly caused by curvature. It is the point where your line of sight is now blocked by a surface, due to its own curvature rendering it no longer visible, blocking itself from further sight. That’s why there is a horizon line here on this sphere I showed you earlier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Vz9r2yWO8&t. Pay attention to the first frame, even though this object is later revealed to be a sphere, the horizon line is flat while the camera is closest to its surface. The higher the camera goes, the further the horizon extends. This is basic spherical geometry.
Horizon distance depends entirely on viewing height and rate of surface curvature, so both variables are important in any math you use to calculate what’s going to end up hidden by curvature. That is why the 8 inches per mile squared math is flawed, because it does not include a variable for height of the observer. It’s also a parabola equation, which doesn’t represent a sphere, so there’s that as well.
Earth is huge...you know that, your senses tell you that, so don’t play dumb. Your core argument is just the classic “horizon always rises to eye level” argument, just a little more padded and convoluted, but it’s basically the exact same thing. You’re not factoring the scale of the Earth, the rate at which horizon drops from eye level, will change depending on the size of the object. On Earth at its known scale, even at 45,000 feet, the drop is only about 0.37 degrees...which your naked eye will never detect. Here’s a quick video measuring that drop with a theodolite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTgP-KpyRc Your argument is pretending as if the Earth is far smaller than it is, it’s not quite grasping what occurs on a massive sphere if you’re really close to its surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very scientific of you, have you taken measurements or recorded any data that backs up these claims? Have you modeled that data to scale to see how the eclipse would look over a flat plane? Well here is somebody who did, they modeled the 2017 American eclipse to scale over the AE Flat Earth projection, take a look at the results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NppyjcSBUvA&t=177s
Just saying these things are so...without actually doing any work to verify them, without taking any scientific measurements or data, is not how you reach conclusive results in science. You're gonna have to do a LOT more then that, or else why should anyone believe a single word you're saying. This guy also modeled that same eclipse for the Globe, have a look sometime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgj--6EX-RE&t=917s
Eclipses are predicted YEARS in advance...they don't use flat Earth geometry or cosmology to do that...they use the heliocentric model, to predict these events down to the second of occurrence and square mile location. That is a fact...not an opinion. Here is a great website that displays the next solar and lunar eclipses for the next 10 years. http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/solar.html Included here is also every bit of detail you require, in order to recreate these calculations for yourself.
So go ahead, ignore all this scientific research, measurement, math and data...it's what Flat Earth is best at, shoving their fingers in their ears and ignoring reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, this video wasn't trying to share evidence for either position really, his focus here was more on the discussion of WHY people believe the Earth is flat. It was a psychological discussion on that issue, not a science lecture sharing evidence for either conclusion. He shared those two examples (level on a plane and the Bedford level experiment), to basically mock Flat Earth, because both of those are a perfect example of poor research done by Flat Earthers, that helps explain how people fall for this scam.
Allow me to explain better. The level on a plane is an inconclusive experiment and it actually doesn't prove anything, for either position. Because if gravity is real and works the way we believe it does on the sphere...then the level is not leveling to the surface, it is leveling perpendicular to center of gravity (because a bubble level works due to buoyancy, which is a force caused directly by gravity), which means it will keep tilting with the curvature of the Earth as you travel into different gravity vectors. And if gravity works how Flat Earth believes it does, just pointing down towards a flat surface...then same thing, it'll just stay level either way. Which means it's an inconclusive experiment, it does not verify or falsify either conclusion....but if you don't realize that, then it will successfully con you into believing the Earth is flat. You have to have an understanding of gravity, an understanding of how that level works in the first place, in order to understand how this experiment can fool you.
Basically, it's sloppy research to reach a conclusion from an inconclusive experiment. In science, we have to be a LOT more diligent and remain objective, we can't lean on bias...especially on inconclusive experiments like the level on a plane experiment, which ignores gravity in the flat Earth conclusion.
He shared the Bedford level experiment as well, because it's the perfect example of a sloppy experiment, done only to confirm a bias. This experiment is taught to undergraduates of science, because it's a perfect example of an experiment that was rushed along, that ignored many variables, just so it could confirm a bias. This is important for scientists to learn, because it helps to illustrate the dangers of conducting poor experiments.
What Robotham did was he only paid attention to ONE variable, he assumed that his math was accurate first of all (it wasn't) and then only focused on whether or not he could still see the flag marker after a certain distance. Then he reached a conclusion from just that alone....ONE variable, one data set, one observation....this is wrong. That's not how you conduct a proper experiment, that is how you confirm bias. So he reached a false conclusion, from conducting a poor experiment, that ignored many variables and didn't collect enough data to make his conclusion more conclusive.
His experiment is a good one however (unlike the level on a plane which will always render an inconclusive result), he just needed to do more and he needed to consider more variables, like refraction for example. If you don't think refraction can make things rise up from horizon, I urge you to watch this quick demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Refraction is very real, and it is absolutely a variable that can not be ignored in an experiment such as this, it has to be accounted for. Rowbotham didn't account for this variable, and he didn't collect enough data sets to make his observation more conclusive. Upon peer review and recreation of his experiment, it was found that he ignored variables and conducted a quick sloppy experiment, that was only designed to confirm a bias. Upon peer review, his work was falsified...which is why we repeat experiments and conduct peer review, to weed out errors, bias, and potential lying.
Now, here is a recreation of the Bedford level experiment, this time done over 10 km of a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is how you conduct a proper experiment, by accounting for EVERY known variable and doing all that you can to account for any hidden variables. Upon all recreation of the Bedford level experiment, it is found that the Earth is indeed curving and it is curving at the rate that it should given our Earths projected size and shape.
So he shared those two experiments for a reason, because they help to illustrate WHY and HOW people are suckered into believing in Flat Earth. One of the many ways, is through sloppy experiments like these, designed only to confirm a bias and nothing more. They're quick, easy to digest and many people only have time for quick and easy...they don't have time for what it actually takes to reach a conclusive result. REAL science takes time and patience...time that most people don't have. So these two experiments are the perfect example of the kind of quick and easy to digest content, that works to fool people that the Earth is flat.
That's why he shared those....it wasn't to ignore their conclusions, it was to demonstrate how Flat Earthers use quick demonstrations like these, to fall deeper into the rabbit hole of this conspiracy, which is what the topic of this video was all about. I compare these types of experiments, to slight of hand tricks, fooling the mind into thinking they're legit...but it's just clever misdirection that keeps you from REALLY thinking about things further. See enough of these quick parlor trick experiments, and then it becomes quite convincing the Earth is flat...but that's why peer review is so damn crucial to the process of science. Humans have a hard time going back and re-evaluating their own work...our peers on the other hand, can't wait to tear our work apart and review it. Our peers have no problem pointing out our errors, which is why peer review works.
Anyway, so I hope that helps you understand a bit better why he shared those two experiments in particular. They fit quite well into the theme of this video, which was to figure out how and why people are roped in by Flat Earth. I hope you take the time to consider what I've shared here, and take the time to re-evaluate these two experiments. There is a reason why many of us don't bat an eye at Flat Earth claims and experiments....it's not because we don't have an open mind, we are listening, we just see the errors and we can't so easily ignore those errors.
1
-
1
-
@samwakefield15 No, it's not just an equation, equipotential distance is just a term meaning a surface that maintains an equal distance from center of mass. A bubble has a surface that maintains equipotential distance from center, forming a sphere. A rain drop has a surface that maintains an equipotential distance from center, forming a sphere....getting it yet? A sphere is the most rigid shape found in nature, equipotential surfaces are quite common. With gravity pulling all things to a center point, forming a mass around that center, the surface of Earth would do the exact same thing...which is how topography works, it's measured from center of mass in all directions. A bubble for example has a topographic surface that has equipotential distance from center, in the context of topography then, you could say that bubbles surface is level perpendicular to center of mass all the way around...which is what they also say in regards to the topography of Earths surface. It's topographically level in some areas of Earth, meaning that surface maintains equipotential distance from center, spanning for miles...getting it yet?
So in one sentence you shun math when it disagrees with you, then in the next sentence you praise math for when it agrees with you? Seeing a pattern yet? You ignore anything that refutes your arguments....which means you are bias. Math is bullshit when it disagrees with you, but then you accept it with open arms when it agrees with you...it's incredible you can't see how bias that makes you.
Let me guess, you use the 8 inches per mile squared equation in your math for long distance observations, am I right? If you do, then there's your problem...cause that's not the correct math to use for long distance observations. It is a basic parabolic equation, that only derives a drop from a tangent line, which does not represent line of sight, it does not tell you where horizon is, or what is hidden by that horizon...it is simply the wrong math. Use the wrong math for the wrong job, and you will reach a false conclusion, it's pretty simple. So let me know what math you're using for long distance observations, because it does matter. Flat Earth reaches a lot of false conclusions, from using the wrong math...what's funny to me is that you never think to check your math to make sure the error wasn't your own. As soon as your bias is confirmed, you just chalk up another win and move on.
This is how Flat Earth cons people...they know most people have no idea how to control bias, so they encourage it. They get you to start with a conclusion and then cherry pick the evidence that supports it, instead of building your conclusion from ALL of the evidence, doing everything you can to falsify anything you find. Science is all about falsification, you never just stop looking once your bias is confirmed, you do everything you can to falsify your evidence. It's when you can't falsify it anymore, that you're left with the truest conclusion. I'm just pointing out some information you have overlooked....you're not helping your position by ignoring that information, you're just shining more of a light on how bias you are.
1
-
I had a similar sort of revelation while responding to a comment on a Flat Earth video rather recently. Sorry to bring that mess here, but I assure you I won't waste your time with the details of that particular argument, just here to point out my revelation on the Polarization of certain groups, allowing misinformation to spread.
The Flat Earth supporter I responded to was mocking the creator of the video debunking them, by pointing out his number of subscribers in comparison to the person he was debunking...it was significantly lower. And it is kind of a trend when you go across the board of Flat Earth proponents compared to Globe Earth proponents, on YouTube at least....the Flat Earthers have far more subscribers. At first look it seems that their viewpoint must have something going for it, if so many people are subscribed too it...until you really think about what you're dealing with and analyze things a little closer. You're dealing with a group that is heavily invested in what they believe compared to a group that isn't. To a Flat Earther (and to other growing groups thriving on confirmation bias) this movement makes up a HUGE part of their identity, their chips are pushed all in essentially. Meanwhile, the average Globe Earther, doesn't really care...it doesn't make up a part of their identity, they weren't aware this was even a debate to begin with and so they're less likely to subscribe to something they don't feel rules over their every waking day. Which sadly means they won't subscribe to the people on the front lines, doing their best to try and keep this misinformation from doing any more harm.
So the 2 groups you're dealing with in this case are very different. Globe Earthers do make up the majority of human society but yet the Flat Earthers do appear to be growing and even outnumbering us in some places, just because it means so much more to them....it's their arena, not ours. What's bad about this, is that I think those numbers do play a factor in sucking some people in, I think it does help to spread the misinformation. Because even I looked at the numbers and thought that maybe there was something to be had here....but after 2 years of doing my own research, not only am I still a Globe Earther (or Globtard as they like to call us)....I believe it now more then I ever did, because now I know a lot more about the science, the how and why we came to that discovery. But...some people do get swept away in these communities, especially people who are already poorly educated, paranoid, treated poorly in society, etc. It actually does take a lot of time and effort to disprove a lot of the misinformation that is now being spread these days...and most people just do not have that kind of time or patience. Most people prefer quick easy, digestible answers....it's just human nature.
So it is a problem that I think does need addressing, I hope this video does some good in getting that message out there and shedding some light on this problem a little further. Tweaking the Algorithms is a very good suggestion actually, it is at least a start....because you have to be careful as well, at the same time, you don't want to strip away people's freedoms to share information and speak on open forums without prosecution. So it's a very fine line we have to walk and it will be challenging indeed, but I also don't think it is impossible. If nothing is done now though, I do fear that the progresses we've made in the last couple hundred years will begin to unravel, the more we are divided even further.
1
-
@motheyes818 Well, seeing as the entire surface of Earth is mapped today, the circumference is now physically measured. The fact that pilots and sailors accurately plot courses around the Earth every single day is proof of that. But a clever Greek mathematician known as Eratosthenes, came up with a clever way to measure Earth’s circumference over 2000 years ago, using just a stick to measure the Suns shadow angle, and a well 500 miles away, that he knew was at sub solar point during summer solstice every year at noon. From there it’s just some basic trig and geometry. Here’s more detail into how he did it https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/big-history-project/solar-system-and-earth/knowing-solar-system-earth/a/eratosthenes-of-cyrene.
One of many ways we can calculate Earth’s circumference, using basic geometry and trigonometry. From there we can get a radius, and from that we can figure out even more, such as the distance to celestial objects.
Odd that this guy Joseph seems to think he’s the only person with an education, or access to an internet connection.
I hope he’s aware that real people recreate this experiment pretty regularly, even refining it, making it more accurate and conclusive.
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=905
1
-
1
-
@motheyes818 He measured shadow angles, soooo...he very much took a measurement. But yes, for his calculation he had to use a spherical geometry, though like I said, he didn’t just assume this, he knew it was a sphere from other evidence gathered. By his time, most Greek scholars agreed the Earth was spherical, because the evidence was already overwhelming for that conclusion.
Now here’s the part FE doesn’t tell you though, take anymore than two measurements, and then plot them on any flat Earth map or model proposed so far...and you will not get all three angles to converge. Take more than 3 and it becomes pretty clear the Flat Earth does not fit reality https://youtu.be/7nzEhDX-xzg. Plot the same data on the Globe with our known size and dimensions, suddenly the angles do work...they work perfectly. Gee...I wonder why?
Even if I were to agree Eratosthenes had no prior evidence for a globe and was just assuming a globe, doesn’t really matter today, because we don’t assume anything anymore, Earth’s surface is mapped and measured...navigation has long since verified the Earth’s geometry.
If you’d just bothered to watch the first experiment I shared, you’d learn this. You can be as stubborn and ignorant as you want to be about it...but you’re just fooling yourself really. Take a look at the experiment, see how the data very clearly does not fit a flat Earth geometry, learn how FE has conned you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sadly, having spent a lot of time chatting with Flat Earthers now (roughly 3 years), I have found out their reasoning behind much of their conclusions...those 2 in particular I hate to say, actually do have some logical answers to them. I do hate saying that, because Flat Earth is still the most illogical position to hold today, but Globe Earthers I feel should be aware of a few of their arguments that do render a few of our arguments...just as illogical, at least from their perspective.
In their world, the entire cosmology of our universe is a made up lie, so the reason they don't hold the argument "all other planets are round" to be a good observation or a good argument, is because they don't consider Earth to be a planet. At least not in the same sense as the other planets. Earth, is the universe basically...so the planet we stand on, is not like the planets we observe in the sky, so it can't be compared to them. Earth in their world view is basically the fabric of reality itself and is far more important and different from the "wondering stars" above, that they claim are just small dots of light. Many of them don't even consider the planets to be planets...just more lights in the sky we'll never know the truth of. Which I know...how can I say our argument is illogical when their position is so clearly bat shit insane...but, I've spent a lot of time trying to get inside the minds of these people, and if you want to argue against them, you have to understand where they are arguing from. Earth is not a planet like all the others, so this is why they feel that argument is illogical...and from their perspective, they'd be right. If that were the case, then ya, saying all other planets are round is a bad argument to make...so you see, they're not looking at the problem from the same cosmology as you and me, they're looking at it from a completely different perspective.
But...they have to ignore a LOT to make that argument work for them, such as all the laws of planetary motion, all the years of studying and photographing the cosmos, all the data, pictures and video sent back to us from probes, satellites and space craft...basically all the science for our cosmology, that has been gathered by millions of people, for thousands of years. Not a problem for them though, they're very good at ignoring all this evidence. Many of them don't even believe space is real...try arguing with people who don't believe space is real. What sux though, is that none of us have been to space...so they're right about one thing, how do we know for certain then if we've never been there ourselves? Which as much as it pisses me off to admit, they'll have us by the balls on that one for quite some time until we're finally all space explorers...which can't come quick enough. However, any amateur astronomer can confirm much of the cosmology of the heliocentric model as true, only requires a little time, understanding and investment in some relatively cheap equipment...so their position is still nothing more then an argument from ignorance, that's important to note.
As for why the conspiracy...the best argument I have heard so far, is that they're doing all of it to hide the existence of God. I do see the logic in that argument, because we really didn't begin becoming more and more atheist, until we started seeing the universe as much larger and the world much rounder then we once believed it to be. So ya, if Satan were real, and if he wanted to devise a scheme that would turn us away from God and harvest the most amount of souls...best way to do that would be to create a system that makes us believe God doesn't exist. So sadly...I do see the strategy in that...but that's where it ends for me. This explanation still has to ignore a LOT to become even remotely possible. There is just too much evidence supporting the heliocentric model and much of it is not hard to confirm for ones self. Not to mention, there are thousands of other religions today, many of them older then the Christian faith, who don't believe in the battle between Heaven and Hell. So it's a cute story...but again, it's just another paranoid, delusional theory, bred from ignorance and scientific illiteracy...and life times worth of indoctrination into a single belief, that most of the world doesn't even share...and not because they're atheist. The only logic is in the strategy...but just because the strategy makes sense to me, does not stand as evidence for the existence of these evil forces working against us, it's VERY flimsy stuff...but I can see how it would be appealing to somebody of a hardcore Christian faith.
Anyway, sorry for the long ramble, just felt like sharing some info regarding these arguments. It's important to know your enemy I suppose, so that's why I try to learn their positions as best I can and then pass that information on. In the end however, these are nothing more then arguments from ignorance and that's important to remember. Even if they have some logic buried in there somewhere, it's all about evidence...and they still have none to support these claims...only empty paranoia, ignorance and superstition. Sadly, they do work on the very religious...hence why most Flat Earthers are religious...and I feel confident in saying that, because I've talked to many of them...the numbers of them that start throwing bible quotes at me eventually is staggering! Not to say that only the very religious buy into this madness...you also have to be a little crazy and stupid, so faith isn't everything...what I mean is, I can see how having a religious foundation would make these arguments above seem more appealing and logical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@szekelysandor9530 Ok, but there’s no real defining line between 2 molecules in atmosphere, it’s not perfectly layered in sections, it’s a mixed gradient...which makes for a gradient in the volume density of molecules in atmosphere, meaning volume is a huge factor in refraction index. It’s many factors, but it’s almost like you’re intentionally trying to find a way to ignore or twist how some of these variables are, so you can force refraction to work for you, rather than against you. Bias tends to do that, but I won’t fault you for it, we all have bias and these are still good and valid attempts at falsification.
The horizon being apparent is not really that much of a problem, because science understands refraction now well enough to include it as a variable in calculation. And so they do http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Strong+Refraction+Simulation+and+Reality+for+2+Oil+Platforms. Here’s another great example http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. Just scroll down to the section on refraction, you’ll find they’ve accounted for refraction index in their calculations. It’s only a problem in so much as it adds to a level of difficulty in these observations, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still try.
It does make observations a little more complicated, but it’s not impossible to factor these variables. On much cooler days, these observations do come closer to the geometric. Now you can say that’s expected, due to refraction in the inverse on colder days, so you think this means you can argue horizon is apparent, so we can’t get an R value from something that’s constantly shifting, but that argument ignores that we get an R value from many different methods...all giving us the same value, it’s not just from these observations. Conclusions like the globe are not reached on single pieces of evidence or data, it’s when everything else points to the same conclusion, then we can conclude it’s accurate. Even if you could successfully make long distance observations inconclusive due to refraction, you’d still have quite a long ways to go. But it’s a valid scientific attempt, I just worry it’s more driven by a desire to win something (ego and bias), than it is to find out what’s actually objectively true.
1
-
1
-
@szekelysandor9530 R value is measured in many different ways, all giving the same value. So it’s not a coincidence that can just be ignored. Simply stating it’s a hoax, does nothing. You’d have to successfully falsify every method, from seismic waves, to Eratosthenes shadow experiments, to the consistent rate at which stars drop to horizon by latitude, and that’s just a short list from off the top of my head.
Your observation is a great one, thank you for sharing, but I wonder what effect the tide would have on that rising and falling. It certainly adds quite a bit to the elevation of the water, which would effect the refraction. This is why I prefer the Rainy Lake observation by Walter Bislin, it was made over frozen ice, so no chance of the water swelling, it better isolates the effect of refraction, leaving no other variables that could be responsible for the rising and falling of the distant markers and horizon.
1
-
1
-
@szekelysandor9530 I’ve done many similar experiments to the one Mick produced, it’s a very simple experiment to reproduce. Just cause I chose a second hand demonstration, doesn’t really refute easily reproducible science, so please save your excuses. Did a lot of these kinds of experiments way back in my school days as well, it’s basic refraction physics, which is a topic touched on and experimented on in pretty much every entry level physics class.
That’s great you’re writing your own articles and making your own observations, but the fact you’re posting in an FE blog, demonstrates a bias. Do you see real scientists publishing articles in a globe Earth journal? No, they typically publish within a broader field, like simply physics or biology. They are reaching conclusions from the research and data, while you’re starting with a conclusion and then seeking the evidence that supports it. You see the problem there? It’s confirmation bias. It’s why people are hesitant to take you and FE seriously.
1
-
@szekelysandor9530 Who said I was interested in a debate? I was just correcting something I felt you were in error of, and now I’m pointing out my hesitations towards entering any further conversation. Your bias is quite clear, I’m well aware of FECore and what they do, if you’re affiliated with them, it’s clear to me your motivations are not sincere and your reasoning is not objective in the slightest, so there’s not much point in a debate. I’ve seen enough fraudulent and dishonest activity from them to reach the conclusion, they’re not to be taken seriously or respected.
Even your laser experiment you shared has been reviewed by many and found to be lacking in important data and evidence, required for its conclusion...yet it makes its conclusion anyway. So I don’t really see any reason to continue wasting anymore time with a potential con artist, who supports a fraudulent organization, could really care less if that annoys you.
I’m all for people conducting their own research and experiments, but the credibility of the group you’ve chosen to associate with, has long been tarnished. So no need to continue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
This 12 hours of day would only be true if you ignore the 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth. Yes, the Globe is still half in the light, half in darkness (though technically the Earth is slightly more lit than in darkness, because of light bouncing and reflecting through our atmosphere), but the tilt of our axis has a huge effect on how much sunlight each region sees in a given day. You can test this pretty easily, with a model Globe of the Earth, or even with just any old ball you got kicking around. If you use a ball, choose a point where North Pole and South Pole should be (shouldn't be hard, most balls have a point where you fill it with air), now find a flashlight or a lamp or anything you can use to simulate a Sun. Now draw a few lateral lines around your ball and place a marker somewhere on each lateral line (a dot, or piece of clay, or something to indicate where an observer would be standing). Now simulate the heliocentric model, put your light source on one side of the room, with your Globe or ball on the other so that one half of the sphere is lit up. Now, tilt your North pole towards the light source roughly 23.5 degrees (which a model of the Globe should already do for you). Now, rotate the ball or Globe and notice that the closer to the North you get, the longer an observer is exposed to daylight, even while rotating the ball. Especially if you're at the North pole, you'll notice that as you rotate the Globe...the North pole never leaves the light...meaning an observer on the ground would see 24 hours of daylight. If you go to the South pole now and observe it while you rotate the Globe, it is now in 24 hours of darkness...which is what we observe happening in reality, there is 24 hours of light in the North during their summer and vice versa 24 hours of night at the opposite pole during the same period. The tilt of our axis explains why this occurs...it's simple 3D geometry.
So you're observation is sound, and your question is a good one, except it ignores the fact that our Earth is tilted slightly...which is what causes us to receive hours of daylight that are different. Hope this helps to make this more clear. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What about the NASA employee admitting HE photoshopped the 'Green Marble' view of Earth from space?
"
Ya, so what? Do you know what a composite image is? It is essentially a bunch of smaller chunks of photos of a larger image, stitched together to form a complete image. In the case with our Earth, many of the satellites in orbit are not far enough away to snap a complete image of Earth, so instead they take several images of Earth and form a composite image out of these many photos...you require a photo editing software like photoshop to do this. This is what that guy was referring too when he said "it is photoshopped, but it has to be". He wasn't talking about every single photo of Earth, he was only talking about the low Earth orbit composite images. So Flat Earth took his words out of context and blew them out of proportion.
There are plenty of full images of Earth that are not composites, here is a video with 200 full images of Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz5DTCQlGwE These are non composite images, taken long before the days of CGI and digital photo editing software.
So it's important to know the difference between composite images and full images of Earth. Flat Earth tends to only show you composites...and hides the details, taking that same quote out of context to help sell their point...which is basically a lie. So knowing this information now, can the people who make these Flat Earth conspiracy videos really be trusted, if they're going to straight up lie and deceive people like that? No...they aren't, and it's not the only example of them taking things out of context to sell their narrative to people. In my experience, these people are con artists...so don't just listen to them blindly and without question.
1
-
@delery2524 You are very welcome, glad I could help. Yes, if Flat Earth is good at one thing, it's twisting information to fit their narrative. They can sound convincing on the surface, but if you do take the time to dig a little deeper you can always find where they twisted the facts....it's just that sometimes it's not easy and most people do not have the time.
If you'd like a couple really good channels that have taken the time to dissect the Flat Earth arguments a lot more in depth, check out a channel called Cool Hard Logic and Voysofreason. They both have created a series of videos that goes through pretty much every argument and brings the actual facts to light. And they present their information in a more entertaining way...which, I find helps, just cause it can be really boring sifting through information sometimes, so they're a lot more interesting to watch.
If you want some good channels that conduct a lot of their own observations and experiments, Sly Sparkane and Wolfie6020 are the best that I have come across so far. There isn't much they haven't covered on the subject so far, with their own experiments and observations. Sly does some really great renderings in 3D which really helps visualize the geometry better, and Wolfie is a commercial air pilot and amateur astronomer who is really knowledgeable on anything that has to do with aviation, navigation and astronomy. Soundly is another great content creator you can find on YouTube and he has some of the best observations of curvature, much of which you can find here on YouTube and at this blog. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Several things to factor. First, 1000 mph is a linear speed, not a rotational velocity. Earths rotation is a rotational velocity, not a linear one, we measure rotations in revolutions per minute (RPM's). The Earth completes one rotation every 24 hours, which is 2x's slower than the hour hand of a clock...so in all actuality, we're not rotating very fast at all. You can simulate how fast we rotate, by spinning in place so that your body completes one complete rotation in 24 hours, that is more accurate to displaying a rotational velocity of the Earth.
Another thing to keep in mind, is parallax. The further an object is from you, the less it appears to move. A plane in the sky for instance travels at 500 mph while at cruising altitude...but do they appear to be moving that fast to you the observer watching them from the ground? No, but if you were closer, it sure would. That's also why when driving down the highway at 60 mph, everything on the side of the road whizzes by really fast, but everything in the distance like trees, houses, hills, clouds, all appear to be barely moving at all. The further something is away, the less it appears to move, the Sun is very far away, so even if we did move at a 1000 mph linear rate, it would still appear to barely be moving thanks to parallax.
But either way, we measure rotational velocities in RPM's, not linear rates. And so you should think of this in terms of circular degrees. With an Earth that rotates at the rate of 1 revolution every 24 hours, that means objects in the sky should arc across the sky at 15 degrees change every hour (divide 365 degrees by 24, you get 15 degrees per hour). When we observe and track the movement of the Sun using what's called an equatorial telescope mount, it is in fact observed to arc at 15 degrees every hour, never deviating from that rate of travel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD0ygI4ggnc&t This correlates with the Globe model, that's exactly how fast it should trace across the sky, if our Earth is rotating at 1 revolution every 24 hours.
So observation actually matches with the Globe model, not a Flat Earth. It's a great question though, so I hope I was able to help shed some light on things. 1000 mph is a linear speed, but rotations are not measured in linear rates, so that's what's key here.
When you really start looking at the Sun, there are a lot more anomalies that the Flat Earth has trouble answering, than there is for the Globe. A simple sunset for example, how exactly does that work on a Flat Earth? Where does the Sun go during a sunset? If it occupy's the same visual sky everywhere on Earth...shouldn't it be visible from everywhere on Earth, at all hours of the day? Common sense says yes, and so does the math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM Just one example of things the Flat Earth model has trouble answering, so don't forget to turn that skeptical lens around on the Flat Earth model sometime...there is a lot this model can not account for, so it should not be ignored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arthurmack7026 No, you haven’t been rhetorically persuaded, there’s a difference. I’ve answered your question empirically, but you either don’t understand or don’t want to understand, so the explanation went over your head. But, just because you don’t understand, does not mean what I said is wrong, just means you were incapable of understanding. We put our own satellites in orbit around Earth today, using the knowledge I just explained to you above, so this is far beyond a hypothesis, it’s an applied science now, which means it’s accurate.
It matters very little if you understand or not, science continues onward full knowing most people won’t ever grasp how most things work. Doesn’t really matter in the end though, so long as some people can grasp the knowledge enough to continue using it for mankind’s advancement. Point being, you’re not achieving much in these comments, you’re just sharing with us all how incapable you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arthurmack7026 Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim...that used to be seen as pretty standard and also quite reasonable. Whenever I make a claim, I do my best to remember to share a source or citation, it’s just faster, easier and makes your position stronger....it used to just be common sense, but these are truly dark times it seems.
In short, I’m not going to do your work for you. If you can’t share a source that supports your claims, then I will just conclude you’re lying, because you’ve given me no reason to believe otherwise. The other reason being that I risk finding the wrong sources if I’m completing YOUR arguments for you, and then I risk reaching false assumptions and conclusions for YOUR arguments. It’s a waste of time. Either share your evidence, or you have no argument, it’s pretty simple.
The truth has nothing to fear from closer analysis, so sharing sources shouldn’t be a problem if you’re telling the truth. Not providing evidence for your claims, just makes it appear like your making up bullshit as you go.
1
-
@arthurmack7026 Well why can’t you just share it? Why rattle on and waste time? Would take you 2 seconds, then it’s done, yet you just whine and whine. You wanna prove your points, then do the work required to do so. I’m fine with questioning authority, I’m just not doing YOUR job for you to prove YOUR arguments. You made the claim, so your job to prove it, not mine. Pretty basic stuff. When I make a claim, you can bet I’ll share as much information that supports it as I can, cause that’s how arguing your own position works.
So is your computer science fiction? Is the electricity that powers it also just fiction? What about the wifi connection, that uses precise wave frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum to send and receive these messages, guess scientists didn’t have to discover these invisible wavelengths, then deduce how they work, so they could put them to practical use? You really take everything around you for granted...it’s really sad. Such arrogant ignorance.
You’re an idiot, who doesn’t know how to prove a point or argue with evidence, so I’m questioning YOU for obvious reasons, because you don’t actually know anything, you just pretend to. I’ll question authority when YOU actually make any valid points, that YOU can actually prove. Until then, I will question YOU, because you are the one making up the bullshit. See how this works yet? You wanna “wake people up”, then do a better fucking job of it, instead of acting like a whiny crazy person, with nothing but empty claims and clear delusions of grandeur. :/
We’re hearing you just fine idiot, but we’re not just going to listen to you blindly and without question, why would you ever think we should? You either have actual arguments with solid evidence, or you don’t, and so far you don’t...just endless arguments from ignorance and incredulity. So we’re not convinced for obvious reasons, cause so far you have nothing. Do better, or you’re just another delusional layman, who’s been successfully suckered by con men online. Pretty simple.
1
-
1
-
Alright, here's a great site that has archived many of the old photos taken during the various Apollo missions. Apollo 13 and 16 have some of the best images I've found, so I've linked those.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657289512883
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
These are all non composite, full images of Earth. Only some of the photos NASA produces are composites, don't let Flat Earth lie to you and say they're all composites, because that's very far from true. There are also currently multiple satellites in orbit right now, that take images of Earth on a regular basis. Look up Himawari 8, DSCOVRY, GOES 15-17, just a little sample of some satellites in geostationary orbit right now that photograph the Earth. Here's a group of hobbyists who have built their own radio telescope, that they use to pull data from these satellites in orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=86s
The continents look different because of distance and perspective. Here's a quick visual demonstrating what's happening. https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg You can test this for yourself with a Globe and a camera. Distance allows you to see more of the surface of a ball, this distorts the apparent size of things on that surface, it's a trick of perspective. Flat Earth doesn't share this detail to you, because they're trying to mislead you...it should be a red flag for you now, that they're lying to you when they make that claim. Don't listen to these people blindly, they will take you for a ride of their design.
1
-
1
-
@oliviamiller7434 You are welcome, just doing what I can to help. Nothing wrong with asking questions. Yes, the land masses will vary, did you notice this link I also shared that demonstrates why the land masses vary in apparent size from picture to picture? I'll share it again here https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg. Distance plays a huge part in what you are able to see, it's a trick of perspective. The further back you are from a 3D object like a sphere, the more of it you will be able to see.
The reason you don't see stars in a photo of Earth is because of a cameras exposure setting. They have to lower the exposure of the camera when photographing Earth from space, or they'll just get a big white blur in frame. When they do this, what they're doing is lowering the amount of light that comes into the shutter and hits the film, this means that anything that's not bright enough to shine through the exposure setting, won't be visible in the film. Stars really are not all that bright, it takes a lot of exposure to capture them on film, but when they lower the exposure of the camera so they can get a clear image of Earth, the stars will be lost in the photo, drowned out by the much more intense light of Earth. So it's basic photography, most people just don't know much about how cameras work, so they assume things.
Here's a great video explaining exposure on a camera a little more, explaining over exposure and what it does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ELpzIR3aY You'll notice his first picture you can't see any clouds, then when he pulls the exposure back, the clouds then become visible. A similar thing occurs in space, except when you over expose the Earth, it becomes a big white blur, where you can MAYBE then see some stars, but people want to see the Earth, not a big white blur, so they have to lower exposure to capture the Earth. When they pull the exposure back down to get a clear image of the Earth, the stars are lost in the photo, because they're simply not bright enough to cut through that level of exposure required to see the Earth in a clear photo.
That's why you don't see stars in a photo of Earth, because of the limitations of photography and film. But if the Sun is blocked and they're on the night side of Earth, THEN they can crank up the exposure and capture the stars in frame. Here's a great video of the ISS taking photos during their pass of the night side of Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9oPUNaqXE Lots of stars here and since the exposure is also cranked up, they can also capture cities and the auroras.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful for you. I know Flat Earth can sound convincing on the surface, but they thrive on peoples general lack of expanded knowledge. It's impossible for any one person to know EVERYTHING, and you kind of have to be a small expert at every little thing to catch how they're conning you. From photography, to physics, to math, to perspective and opitcs, to astronomy, etc....they just bombard you with a gish gallop of things most people are not experts in and don't know much about, then they fill the gaps in your knowledge with lies and doubt...and then most people just don't have enough time in their day to research where they've conned you. It's sick really...and a lot of them know they're doing it, and they do it anyway.
If there's anything else you'd like to know more about, I don't mind taking the time to give some further insight. I've been looking at this mess for a little over 3 years at this point, I have taken the time to learn the information they don't give you. So I'm more then happy to share what I have learned, so feel free any time. I don't claim to know everything, but at this point I have concluded they are conning people, so just doing what I can to off set that if I can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@motheyes818 Well our atmosphere is contained by the downward force that draws everything with mass to surface, we call it gravity. A physical container is required in gas pressure laws, but these laws and equations that use volume as a variable are limited to small containers, and are pretty much useless when discussing atmospheric pressure, where a volume can not be determined. So gravity replaces volume in these equations.
So no, a container is not required for atmospheric pressure. Gas pressure yes, atmospheric pressure no, there is a difference. The confusion comes from the word 'Gas'. Of course the atmosphere is comprised of various gases, so I see the confusion. But please research it a little further, atmospheric pressure deals with gravity as the variable that creates the pressure, it's very different from gas pressure equations, which are used for smaller volumes of gas under pressure due to the constraints of a physical container. The gas pressure laws, like Boyles Law, are very careful to make it pretty clear, that these laws are limited to small containers with known volumes, and are not very useful when discussing gases with no discernable volume, like our atmosphere.
I've heard this all before, the physics from Flat Earthers...an extremely biased group that loves to butcher physics to create confusion and sow seeds of doubt, as a replacement for an actual argument, which requires evidence. In any case, butchered physics doesn't mean much. Do they have tangible evidence of this container they believe is containing our atmosphere? Has it been observed or interacted with in any way shape or form? Not from what I've seen so far, and that's what matters...because currently, they have barely enough for a hypothesis, let alone a conclusion, yet they've made their conclusion anyway.
Meanwhile, we measure a decrease in pressure the higher you go, which is exactly what we'd expect to measure, with a downward force pushing the gas above down upon the gas below, creating more pressure at the bottom...just like stacking anything would. Even the vacuum of space is measured...we do have satellites in orbit, the vacuum is more than confirmed, while this dome still has no evidence.
Even Flat Earth has accidently verified the vacuum of space without realizing it. They've sent up their own weather balloons time and again...you might notice in every one of these videos they eventually pop, as they're designed to do, once reaching near vacuum conditions. You know what they've never found though? A container...no surprise, because neither has the scientific community.
It's fine if people disagree, and asking questions and challenging established science is also perfectly fine. I just get slightly annoyed by the lack of tangible evidence, yet a conclusion is reached regardless. What FE has is a misunderstanding of both gas pressure and entropy, and a denial of gravity physics, that's all I'm seeing from them currently, which hardly makes for a sound argument.
1
-
1
-
@allentremper8243 Ok, but you’d agree that this rising and falling is a motion, correct? Matter is moving, the question is how and why is it always oriented down towards surface? You are aware that when you remove all the air to create a vacuum environment, that anything dropped inside this vacuum will fall, correct? Doesn’t matter what it is, lighter gases that normally would rise due to buoyancy force, instead fall inside a vacuum, tested and proven time and again all the time in almost every basic physics class, the gas falls to the bottom, always towards Earth. Again, the question is how? Your answer of density does nothing to explain what puts that matter into motion and why it’s always towards Earth.
It’s the motion you’re intentionally ignoring. The first law of motion states that nothing is put into motion without a force. Density is not a force, it’s just a property of matter, how much matter occupies a given space. It has absolutely no means of putting itself into motion on its own and yet, everything falls in a vacuum, in the same direction, at the same rate, every time. Buoyancy technically is a force, but it is not a force that exists on its own. It is the byproduct of the downward acceleration that occurs first, which causes the buoyancy displacement. Without that downward motion of matter, buoyancy does not occur, also proven time and again in density columns put into zero G environments.
So what’s causing that motion? Why down? Your conclusion does nothing to answer these glaring questions, it stops at “it just does”. Maybe you’re happy with “it just does”, but we wouldn’t get very far in science with that kind of lazy bias answer, so I’m for one glad that science didn’t stop there.
You’re also very wrong about gravity being impossible to measure, it’s measured in many different ways, from simple drop testing to measure the rate of acceleration (a constant 9.8 m/s squared), the Cavendish experiment detects and measures the force directly, and even a simple scale that measures your weight, which is measuring mass plus gravity acceleration to give you a weight value.
Point is, you’re really being ignorant if you think you’re actually falsifying the science of gravity by simply ignoring the science and denying it exists. Your conclusion of density and buoyancy just leaves questions unanswered, and as far as I’m concerned it’s just confirmation bias.
You know what I think? I think Flat Earth intentionality ignores and denies the science of gravity, because they realize how inconvenient it is for their main argument of a flat surface. Best way to solve that problem, deny it exists. Well I’m afraid it’s been measured, something is definitely causing matter to fall to Earth...more than that though, gravity explains a lot more. It explains how planets form, how they maintain orbits, why they’re all spherical, how stars burn...you don’t seem to understand how pivotal this discovery was for mankind. When gravity was realized, thousands of mysteries of science and astronomy began to fall like dominos. It explains so much about what we observe in reality, not just why things fall. Do we know everything about it? No, still much we don’t understand...but at least science didn’t stop at “it just does”, all so they could continue to support a bias they have...which as near as I can tell is all Flat Earth is doing, ignoring any science they don’t like and keeping the parts they do, confirmation bias in a nutshell.
It’s also an applied science now, gravity measurements are used in equations for everything from parabolic trajectory equations, to orbital mechanics, to flight aeronautics, to material stress testing, and so on, so that science helps us build the modern world. Flat Earthers are being very naive, if they honestly think denial is how you falsify science.
That being said, it is somewhat a valiant effort, science is all about falsification, so I’m glad that somebody is still out there challenging even the most established science, nothing should ever be off the table for discussion. But you’re a few hundred years behind, because you’re not really arguing anything new is the real trouble. This is all the same stuff they argued back in the day when Newton was first proposing his theory...the conclusion is the same, density and buoyancy do not explain why and how things fall, they don’t explain the motion and what causes it, gravity makes the attempt to delve into those questions. At some point you have to ask yourself, are you really onto something groundbreaking...or are you just being ignorant so you can keep a bias fantasy alive?
1
-
@allentremper8243 You can’t have lift without a medium such as air, you also can’t have a combustion without an oxidizer...like air, so a hot AIR balloon won’t do anything in a vacuum, it won’t work at all. It’s air that causes a hot AIR balloon to rise...so what do you think will happen if you remove the key ingredient it requires to function at all?
Buoyancy is caused by displacement, it’s denser matter forcing less dense matter out of its way, essentially...but what direction does denser matter desire moving in? Towards Earth, everything does, take away all other matter and leave only helium for instance, helium will now occupy the lowest point...because there’s nothing else there to force it upwards. With nothing there to displace it upwards and start buoyancy, buoyancy will not occur at all...but gravity sure will, the downward acceleration will still occur, helium will fall to surface, because that helium is still attracting to Earth.
That’s the part that’s lacking in the density and buoyancy explanation from flat Earth...that downward motion. It completely ignores it...which to me is just not being objective about this. Things fall, it’s observed. That is a directional motion you have no control over, so what causes it? That’s all science is trying to figure out...who cares what they chose to call it, it still happens, so it shouldn’t be ignored.
I think you’re a bit confused as to what weight is, you’re twisting things around a bit. An object always has mass, it’s weight is just the inertia we measure when that mass is pulled down to a surface and squeezed against it. The equation for calculating weight is a very simple one it’s F=mg, where F is the inertial force (weight), m is your mass multiplied by g which is the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8 m/s squared. You don’t have weight, without that acceleration and a surface to stop you...that’s why you’re considered weightless while in free fall. You always have mass, that’s what is always constant...not weight.
Look, I’m glad that people are taking an interest in attempting to falsify established science, I really am...but mankind has always had a really big flaw that gets in the way of being objective and honest sometimes, it’s ego. Ego drives us, it motivates us in many cases, so it’s not all bad...but it also forms bias and often without us realizing. You don’t trust science and authority anymore, I get that, you’re not wrong to either. People and organizations have agendas, they will often lie and twist information to sell that agenda...but whether you want to admit it or not, just because someone lies sometimes, does not by default mean they lie all the time. It’s thinking in absolutes like that, that’s where bias forms, it keeps you from staying objective...it makes your brain work on auto pilot, filtering information in accordance with your bias, putting more value on the source of information rather than the information itself.
Scientists train themselves to remain objective, to control their ego and bias as best they can....the rest of society doesn’t practice this at all, most are blissfully unaware of their bias and have no idea how much it can really lead their lives. And it’s their ego that keeps them from seeing it...the moment you tell yourself you have no bias, is the moment you’ve stop being objective. We all have bias, because we all have ego. Science is an attempt at countering this flaw of man, scientists practice removing bias...the general public do not. That’s where flat Earth fails I feel....it’s great that you’re questioning things, but this movement is starting over and it’s making the same mistakes the scholars of old made, before they realized how damaging bias was to obtaining truth.
Anyway, I don’t mean to lecture or patronize you, you’re actually quite reasonable and intelligent, so I’m sure you’re well aware of these things. I’m just a bit worried for people lately is all, I dislike the divide these debates create...scientists aren’t bad people, they’re your neighbours. I get that we all have our fears and anxieties for the current system and you’re right, something is wrong and we should be investigating further...but the nice thing about science is that it’s repeatable. People will lie to you, but reality does not, so consult with reality and don’t lie to yourself while you do. Junk science simply does not work...that’s kind of the nice thing about it, it’s revealed false the moment something doesn’t work. You wanna know the best way to verify the Earths true shape? Learn the art and science of old sailor navigation, like really...if this movement truly interests you, take a class and learn how to navigate the old fashioned way. I’m talkin sextants, stars, horizon, longitudes and latitudes and geodetic conversions...it’s all built on the understanding that Earth is a sphere and the fact that it works, is a great proof of Earths true geometry.
1
-
@allentremper8243
As for the Apollo missions, now see that’s trickier and I’ll tell you why. I can understand the physics, I can debunk the claims made against these missions and run the figures and make reasonable counter arguments, but at the end of the day...all I can really do is speculate here and same goes for anyone arguing they were faked. Unless you’re one of the few astronauts who actually took the trip and stepped on the Moon, all you can do is speculate. I do not like speculating, so it’s not an argument I like getting involved in. I used too...but it’s just endless speculation, on both sides and I hate that. Flat Earth is different, because I live here...I can go out and test the Earths geometry at any time and reach definite conclusions...I really can’t do the same with the Moon conspiracy, so I don’t spend much time discussing it anymore. My bias puts faith in scientists, and the physics does check out, so I believe they happened but I’m also willing to admit that is a bias conclusion and it weighs heavily on my trust in my fellow man. Even if they were faked, doesn’t mean the Earth is flat, that is important to note.
I will mention this though, there is one other group that can verify these missions and that’s anyone who has access to long range radio telescope transmitters or powerful laser transmitter/receivers. You are aware that they left reflectors on the Moon, correct? Well, both of these technologies can bounce signals off of these reflectors, so out of all the evidence, this would be some of the strongest in favour of these missions actually occurring. But...not many people have access to this kind of tech, so again, we can really only speculate.
Anyway, apologies for the long rambles. You do not have to agree, but I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Thank you for being civil, not easy to find in this debate sadly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KangenAlec How does a person know it’s not just pseudoscience? Because the nice thing about science, is that it’s repeatable, so at any time, anyone can verify much of the science for themselves, you don’t have to just take peoples word for it, you can learn this stuff directly. If you are reaching speculative conclusions before you’ve bothered to test things for yourself however, then you are arguing from ignorance and thus are not making a logical argument.
Also, the nice thing about junk science...is that it doesn’t work, so it’s quickly discarded for that reason. Can’t do anything with science that doesn’t work or fit with reality. :) Sooooo...you can be certain the science is good, when it’s actually USEFUL for applied purposes, and it WORKS! it’s not a complicated thing. The Globe works...that’s for a very good reason.
1
-
1
-
The thing is, it's not irrefutable...at all...Flat Earths error is often how quick they jump to conclusions and assume there is nothing more to review or research, they tend to just do enough to confirm their bias and then stop looking, Rowbotham was no different, the Zhetetic method handbook, is practically a how to manual on confirmation bias.
Here's what you'll find when you actually look at the Bedford level experiment. Rowbotham did a sloppy experiment, that only took a single data collection, that didn't account for refraction and many other variables. Even this guy pointed that out, briefly admittedly, but it's not hard to deduce upon reviewing the entire experiment, that Rowbotham's Bedford level experiment was a perfect example of a sloppy, poorly done experiment, that only did as much research required to confirm his bias. It now stands as a perfect example of bad science and the pitfalls of confirmation bias.
The purpose of this video above is not to prove anything, it was to talk about WHY and HOW people fall for the con of Flat Earth. So it's not trying to present any arguments for either position really. This video is more for those of us who have already looked at Flat Earth, have figured out how it's flawed and now want to discuss it further to analysis the broader effect it's having on society as a whole. So that's why it's quite short with it's explanations, most of us already know where these experiments go wrong...we don't require more info. So this video is not for Flat Earthers, that's not its target audience.
1
-
1
-
"Why dont they ask the astronaughts on live t.v. if its flat?"
Why would they, everybody else knows it's a Globe, especially astronauts, it's a stupid question to ask at this point.
"Why does water find its level?"
Water seeks the lowest point it can physical obtain before other more dense matter stops it. Lowest point is towards center of mass, that's where gravity pulls all mass, towards center. So water, just all like all matter on Earth, is pulled down toward that center...the only shape matter can obtain if it's stacking upon itself around a central point, is a sphere. Level does not mean flat in geometry, it means perpendicular to center of object. Learn some physics and some math.
"Why are there only composites of earth from space?"
There isn't, here's an archive where you can find several full photos of Earth taken during the various Apollo missions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums - These are all non composite photos, they are full images. Stop listening blindly to con men feeding you bad information and taking words from others out of context to help sell you lies and confirmation bias.
"He mentioned all this truth that the earth is a globe, show us..at least we show you why its flat."
Read the title of the video, sharing evidence is not the point of this video. This video is targeted towards those of us who have already looked at the science and have concluded that Flat Earth is a scam, now we'd like to discuss WHY and HOW people fall for this scam online. This is a discussion video about the psychological heart of the issue that some people have, that leads them to follow con men online. So no shit he didn't share any data or evidence here, that wasn't the point of the video and it's clear right from the title.
"What's up with all the plane flights in the lower hemisphere?"
I can only assume you mean the Southern Hemisphere, South is not down, so saying it's lower is a common error Flat Earthers make. It's not actually lower, there is no top or bottom to Earth in reality. But I agree, what is up with the Southern flights? Did you know there are several direct flights from places like Australia to South Africa or South America...that are a LOT shorter then they would be if the Earth were actually flat, did you know that? Flat Earth cons a lot people with flight paths by showing you only half the information and then lying about the other half or hiding it entirely. Here's a great channel from an ACTUAL commercial air pilot, who has made it his hobby explaining and debunking Flat Earth claims made about flight paths. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020 Give it a look sometime, he can help answer most of your questions about flights and navigation in the South...he's from Australia as well.
"Why do they leave radar tracking until just before they land?"
Radar can only reach so far...because of the curvature of the Earth. So instead they use GPS to track most flights en route, GPS provided by satellites in orbit. Radar is typically just for the control towers to help them manage and direct flight...but its range is limited. And do you know WHY its range is limited? Because the Earths curvature eventually blocks that signal. Pretty simple. If Earth were flat, then radar would be able to reach MUCH further.
"...this host is doing nothing but regurgitating what he was told,"
You people REALLY need to stop and consider the very real possibility that maybe YOU'RE the ones being told some bullshit, that you now repeat verbatim like they're own insights. This is an ignorant argument to make. Are you a scientist? Are you an expert in ANY field of research or development? No? Then WHAT makes you think you know anything about what these people do for a living? You wouldn't tell a heart surgeon these sorts of things, or an electrician, or a pilot. You don't tell them these things, because it's common sense that they know a lot more about something YOU do not...guess what, scientists are no different. Your computer, the internet and the wifi that connects you, didn't get there by itself. Do you know how it all works? Enough to be able to recreate that science down to the last microchip and line of binary code and wifi reciever? No? Then shut the fuck up and accept that some people know more then you do about a LOT of things. :/
You know why you're falling for the scam of Flat Earth...because you don't really know much about much. You're ignorant to the world around you and how it actually works. Nobody else made you that way, that was YOUR choice and if you continue to be this ignorant, scams on the internet are going to continue to take you on a ride. It's fine to question what you're told, even logical in fact, but if you think we could have achieved all of what you see around you...without knowing something as trivial as the shape of the planet, then you're not thinking rationally.
1
-
@karhammer Kids are always gonna learn things the hard way. It’s nothing new really, the youth of every new generation is generally trying to shake things up, usually through believing they’re infallible, often realizing they’re not after the damage is already done, but the majority eventually do grow up, eventually realizing how dumb they once were. Just takes a bit of life experience, they’ll get there someday.
The only thing that really troubles me today is social media platforms, that seem to give the loudest and dumbest voices the most attention and consideration...it’s unlike anything else we’ve ever had before and an argument could certainly be made that kids probably should not have that kind of power at their fingertips. But it’s a slippery slope, fine line between censorship and regulation. There’s pros and cons to social networking at this scale, I’m confident we’ll figure it out eventually...but it’s gonna be a tumultuous time before we do.
Point is, every generation stumbles at first, it’s really nothing new, so I wouldn’t worry too much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MasterFeiFongWong Should have just said they were tangent to each other, much easier to explain things when you use the proper words. But yes, if you could ensure that all three pendulums were on the same tangent to each other, then only one would be plum and the others would be slightly off. You'd have to go pretty far though to notice that difference with the naked eye. Takes about 70 miles to arc even 1 degree of difference on an Earth 24,000 miles in circumference, so good luck finding a "board" that's 140 miles long. I'll save you the trouble, none exist...you'd have to build that surface piece by piece, all for an experiment that is not required. Even if you made it only a few miles long, with more sensitive equipment. Sure it would work, but it'd be a pretty pricey experiment to build that surface and not at all easy, I should hope you are aware of that. We have much easier ways to verify the Earths curvature and gravity. Really don't need to go to all that trouble. Here's a far easier experiment for gravity, just requires a scale, some weights, a little bit of travel and some pre calculation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=554s
That being said, I'll help you out a bit, there are 2 places on Earth I am aware of that have already built such a surface for you, and they are the LIGO laser facilities (one in Hanford Washington, the other in Livingston Louisiana) built to test for gravitational waves. They both have about 4 miles of a perfect tangent corridor. Fun fact, one end of each corridor was built several inches higher to keep it tangent with the starting point...which right there already verifies Earth curvature, because they wouldn't have had to do that if Earth were flat. But if you wanted a tangent surface to run your experiment on, at a smaller scale, that's the only place I'm aware of that has that kind of surface. 4 miles won't do much though, not as far as angle is concerned...and that's what you're measuring. I don't think it'll be long enough, not if you're just eyeballing those pendulums, but it's a start. Perhaps they've even done such a test there already, who knows, maybe check it out sometime.
Point is, this is not as easy of an experiment as you'd think. The trouble is creating that tangent surface...which is actually one hell of a task.
1
-
1
-
@MultiBrad777 That's fine and all, and you should keep doing that, but I'll say it again, do you ever consider the possibility, that maybe you reached a different conclusion, because YOU made some errors? Why do you immediately assume the error is with science, rather then considering the possibility that it might be your observation/experiment/math/data that was in error? That's why we have peer review, it happens all the time in science, people make errors all the time. People reach a lot of false conclusions unknowingly, because they missed something, overlooked something, were bias about something, or at worst LIED about something. Which is what I see a lot in Flat Earth, which is why I review them and point out their errors as best I can.
All I'm saying is, I feel you do yourself a disservice if you just ignore us and shrug us off with over confidence. Nobody is above making errors, so nobody is above peer review, it's a very important step in the process of science for a good reason, but Flat Earth tends to skip that step, as does the general public not trained in the full method of science. I understand most people here are just dicks who would rather troll you, but some of us would rather help. I have my fun with things, and take my jabs too, but in all honestly I'd rather just help where I can and offer a little peer review and share some information. I don't claim to know everything, but I have spotted a LOT of errors in Flat Earth. So feel free to discuss what you've learned or what you've observed, and then maybe I can help give an alternate perspective. Up to you really, I do enjoy the discussion, and I'm all for keeping things civil.
1
-
Just because somebody lies, does not mean they lie all the time. You don't just throw the baby out with the bath water, that's a logical fallacy in thinking, it's called a black and white fallacy, thinking in absolutes rather then realizing that NOTHING is as black and white as you think.
It's not difficult to verify the Earth is a sphere for yourself, it wasn't the government that figured out the shape of the planet and you don't require them to tell you everything. Little hard to lie about the shape of the Earth...to many very intelligent people you'd have to fool, the government can barely keep scandals in their ranks under wraps, you really think they're savvy enough to hide the shape of the Earth? If you honestly believe every technological wonder you enjoy today is possible...yet we don't know something as trivial as the shape of our planet, then YOU are not thinking rationally. It's fine to question what you're told...but do not let paranoia rob you of your better reasoning.
If you'd like some help with some resources that can help you verify the shape of the planet for yourself, just ask, I can point you towards many experiments you can do yourself, to help answer pretty much any question you may have. I can also point you to some resources online of people who have collected the data and done many more advanced experiments. So feel free, I don't mind sharing.
1
-
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 If you don’t care, then why dump so much gish gallop on me? 🧐 Fact is, you didn’t have all the facts of that debate, so you reached a false conclusion...you were wrong. So now that you’ve been proven wrong there, are you gonna take your own advice and see if maybe you’ve been wrong about everything else? Probably not. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you just ignored it, then buried me in mountains of other unrelated points....typical.
I’m not new to this discussion....I’m one of those debunkers, I’ve been doing it for years, I know this argument inside and out, I can probably guarantee I know it better than you do at this point. There’s a REASON we can debunk these claims, because they’re very flimsy claims. Most of it is just mountains of speculation that you think somehow counts as evidence, the rest of it is misunderstandings and cherry picked words pulled out of context and misinterpreted. Take a moment to research things beyond what some YouTuber told you, you find out pretty quickly they were lying and twisting the facts....like you did, when tried claiming Tyson agreed to debate Dubay. You claim you’re looking at both sides objectively...then why did you not research that a little closer? Why are you now deflecting from the fact you were wrong? Seems ignorant to me...and if you’re ignorant on that one thing, what makes you so confident you’re not ignorant on most things? Didn’t take much for me to falsify your claim there...just had to start with questioning it objectively. You tried strong arming me into believing you blindly, I chose not too, then dug a little deeper...doesn’t take much to remain objective.
You fell for an online hoax...that’s the reality. I’ve looked at all the arguments from FE and space deniers, it’s all confirmation bias...you want it to be true, you don’t really care if it is. At the very least, you should consider that very real possibility. If you’d like, I can go through every point with you and point out the errors, I don’t mind...but only if you’re interested in a civil discussion, where information is just shared, no ridicule or patronizing. Leave the superiority complex at the door, and I don’t mind doing the same, then we can share info. Up to you...I’m just saying, we have more reason to question FE than you seem to believe we do. If you claim to be objective, then feel free to chat sometime.
1
-
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 Alright, then I can shift gears into a more civil tone, and just share information without ridicule or disrespect. I’ve always agreed it’s perfectly fine to question things, in fact it’s perfectly logical....I just feel bias tends to lead us more than we realize. Talking with an opposition, with an open ear and respect, that’s the best way to see if we are perhaps being biased. I don’t want to convince you, my main intention it just to share some information....I have an ego, just like we all do, but it has its purpose, helps weed out trolls...and there are plenty on both sides. Anyway, sure, feel free to ask me anything or share anything. I’ll address only the information from here on.
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 Ok, but you’re kind of romanticizing ancient cultures and speculating heavily on a culture we can’t confirm much for. I just find it odd why anyone would focus on the past so heavily, while ignoring the modern world right in front of you today. Pilots and sailors today use the Globe model to navigate...how exactly do they plot courses and find their destinations with absolute precision, if they’re using a geometry that’s completely wrong? Why ignore that simple geometric fact? It doesn’t add up. You have your head in the past, while completely ignoring the present. You don’t think this is a bias?
And how much do you really know about ancient structures or cultures? Are you an archeologist? Do you read glyphs and decipher language for a living? The Greeks and Mesopotamians are also considered ancient cultures, they both deduced the Earth was a sphere thousands of years ago. Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion today, about 3000 years, and they teach the Earth is a sphere and always have, it’s even carved into their ancient structures. Why ignore these cultures?
Also, why pick and choose what to believe from these ancient cultures? If you believe the Egyptians were right about everything, then do you also believe in Ra and Anubis and worship the Nile river god Sobek? Likely not...but yet you choose to believe they were right about Earth’s shape? Even though we’ve more than proven today that it’s not flat? Why do you so easily ignore modern science, that currently uses the Globe model in pretty much every applied science? You don’t think you’re being a tad biased and willfully ignorant of more than a few things yourself?
Point is, why is it so hard to consider that ancient cultures were likely wrong about a great many things? Either way, you can really only speculate...and that’s the problem. Seems you’d rather follow speculations, over verifiable evidence. You don’t really know how or what the pyramids are built for, you’ve likely just watched a bit to much ancient alien on TV, who romanticized the culture, and now you have a strong appreciation that’s formed into a bias...but it seems like a selective bias, cause as I pointed out, you’re not about to sacrifice a ram to Sobek to increase your fertility, now are you? Just saying.
All any of us can really do is speculate about ancient cultures, they’re fascinating sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re right about everything...simply because they’re old.
The reality is that Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science today...that shouldn’t be ignored so easily, especially over speculations. I prefer to stick to things I can verify for certain right here in the present time. Much of ancient culture is largely embellished and romanticized, lies to sell tourists. Why should I chase ancient speculations, when I could instead learn to navigate...and test Earth’s geometry for myself? And I have, sextant navigation isn’t difficult to learn. You wanna know Earth’s shape, no better way than learning navigation. I’ll trust what I’m able to confirm myself, over romanticized old cultures, any day.
1
-
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 I didn’t say they weren’t an advanced culture, only that this alone doesn’t mean we just assume they’re right about everything. You’re committing what’s known as an appeal to antiquity fallacy, it’s a lot like an appeal to authority fallacy, just assuming a culture is right because of the legends that surround them. Point is, I’m not going to ignore my own first hand knowledge and observation and basic geometry, because an ancient culture stacked some rocks once. And you’re not going to strong arm me with your speculations and assumptions either.
Evidence is what matters to me, empirical scientific evidence, things I can verify for certain myself, in the present day. The pyramids existing, doesn’t change the fact that pilots and sailors navigate the Earth with the knowledge of a spherical geometry, lines of latitude that are equal for two hemispheres. I don’t really care what an ancient culture may have believed, if they are easily proven to be wrong, by just simple observation alone, then I’m not going to ignore that, simply because some people don’t want to believe they were wrong. As another simple example, the Southern rotation of stars doesn’t just go away, because you don’t trust the mainstream.
I thought you wanted to discuss some hard science, but it seems you’re only interested in speculative and unfalsifiable opinions.
1
-
@Thought_Criminal_13 And no, I wasn’t assuming you believe everything the Egyptians do, I was asking you why you pick and choose what they believed, there’s a difference. It’s a good question I feel, because a big part of your argument relies on me agreeing that I should ignore modern science, in favour of what an ancient culture believed. I’m simply pointing out that they clearly weren’t right about everything...so what makes you so certain they were right about the Earth’s shape? My argument is simple, I don’t care what they believed, if it’s objectively proven wrong today...then I’m not going to ignore that, simply because they’re old and were great at stacking some rocks.
You’re making an argument that the Earth is flat, because an ancient culture believed it was and we should believe them on that without question, simply because they built stuff like an advanced civilization would. So what? We built castles, colosseums, temples, bridges, skyscrapers, whole cities, for centuries with and without knowing the true shape of things...for most structures you really don’t require that knowledge. It’s not hard to align a few stars to a point on a pyramid, even without the knowledge of Earth’s true geometry. I’m not kidding, it’s really not as hard as you’re assuming it is. Just pay attention to the annual positions of the stars, measure their angles to the horizon, plot the centre position, and work from there. You don’t need to know the Earth is spherical to plot out a few thousand square meters, just like you don’t require that knowledge to build a skyscraper today. That geometry will have basically no effect on our buildings, because of how large the Earth is.
That knowledge would not be required in building the pyramids, so the Egyptians could easily align their structures to the stars, without knowing for certain. It would change effectively nothing. Your argument is just based from pure assumptions, basically, it’s an argument from ignorance...and THAT is why people are questioning you. :/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jordanemede But you are claiming the Earth is flat, so you do have your own burden of proof, so don’t pretend like you don’t. Claiming the Earth is flat is a claim of its own, so you have your own burden here. You can personally conclude whatever you want, that’s fine, but you don’t change scientific consensus by doing essentially nothing. You have a conclusion, it’s then your job to prove it, otherwise that conclusion will just be ignored.
I find Flat Earthers have this weird sense of entitlement, as if science really cares if a small group of people are convinced or not. There’s always going to be a minority that’s unconvinced, that goes for any conclusion, so we need only convince a majority. The majority are convinced, so the debate is essentially over, but it’s more than that, it’s also applied science. We currently use the globe model for applied sciences like navigation, it works every time that model is applied for that purpose (and many others), so it’s a working scientific model. Are we about to toss out a working model of Earth, because a few people online were successfully conned to believe that it’s false, by inexperienced layman with zero scientific accomplishments? No…it doesn’t work that way…and certainly not when you refuse to provide an alternative model either.
You can be sure your conclusions are accurate, when the knowledge obtained can be applied and it works every time it’s applied. That’s how you spot the difference between science and pseudoscience…real science works. Does the globe model work? Yes, it does…so for that reason, I’m not really all that interested in convincing you. Your opinion does not matter, when millions of pilots and sailors prove the Earth is spherical every single day, with every successful voyage. You want to be convinced? Learn to navigate, then go out and apply that knowledge…I mean if you were really that interested in this topic, and really wanted to know for certain, then this would be a no brainer.
It’s no secret why you refuse to provide a model, because it’s much easier to argue from ignorance. The moment you’ve settled on the details for a model, then it can be picked apart. So avoiding a model, is how you avoid the questions being spun around on you, creates this illusion that you’re winning arguments. It seems to me Flat Earthers are more just addicted to arguing, and arguing from ignorance is the easiest way to avoid being proven wrong, so that’s why you choose not to settle on a model. I get it…it’s just kind of….pointless. The whole point of science is to acquire knowledge, that we can then build into working scientific models, for applied purposes. If you’re not interested in deriving working scientific models, then you might as well not even bother…because you’re skipping over the end goal of science.
In any case, whilst you may not have a full model fleshed out…it’s still a flat surface you claim, so that’s enough. We can still pick that apart, because that surface structure comes with a specific geometry, one that simply does not fit with what we observe and measure in reality.
I’m sorry a few conmen online, with zero scientific accomplishments or credentials, successfully made you believe they were more knowledgeable than actual experienced scientists, with actual real world achievements. Flat Earth has a lot of poisoned minds to atone for.
Anyway, perhaps I’ll address your science questions a little more in depth later, just wanted to dispel this methodology these FE conmen have convinced you is somehow more logical. The whole point of science is to eventually create working scientific models from knowledge obtained. We can’t accomplish much of anything through ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, science is a load of crap eh....well gee, I guess you should stop using your computer then, your phone, your car, stop using the electricity that comes direct to your home, heck just move out to the bush and pretend everything is magic then. Hate to tell you this bud, but your bible didn't create these things...man did, using science as his best tool for discerning how to do it. Let us know when your bible helps anyone invent, innovate, engineer, discover, or navigate anything...until then, you're clinging to one hell of a dead horse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
But existing IS the reason you're here. Think about it, if you could not see, hear, touch, taste, or smell anything...would the universe exist? If you had never seen it before, if no life was here to experience any of it...it technically wouldn't exist at all. In a way, through your 5 senses, through your consciousness, YOU create the universe, just as much as it created you. I personally find that very humbling.
What purpose were you hoping for though? You shouldn't wait for an eternal reward...that may never come, you should find your purpose here and now and seek it out, make your OWN purpose, in the time that you have. I myself am an artist and musician, I can't claim I'm great at either of these things, but they bring me purpose and joy, and I don't need an afterlife for that...this place is incredible enough and I much prefer making my own purpose! I think waiting for a God to take you into his kingdom...is a bit of a waste of time, but to each their own I suppose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nspeedtheone No, that's exactly what you're saying, he disagrees with you, so he's not a scientist in your opinion. You even said it, he's a "globe Earther", so not at scientist according to you...well the very large majority of scientists agree that the Earth is a Globe...sooooo, by your understanding, they are not scientists either then, simply because they agree the Earth is a Globe? So that's exactly what you're saying, he disagrees with you, so he's not a scientist. I just find it odd that you on one hand say "A scientist will consider everything and then put it to the test" and then say "...not a scientist. He was a globe Earther". You're not giving him a choice...he has to be a Flat Earther by your rhetoric, or he's not a scientist, it's bullshit.
You're being pretty irrational. A person becomes a scientist, when they go through the process that is required of them to reach that job title. He has earned that title through his schooling and experience, so he is a scientist...you don't get to decide that I'm afraid. Scientists are allowed to align themselves with whatever position they agree with, they do not lose their title for simply making that choice, that's just absurd and irrational.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisque1171 I'm not sure, I know the Apollo the Moon missions took video footage as they were on route to the Moon, but other than that, I'm not aware of any personally. Again, it's more a matter of data and time. It takes hours to put these objects into an orbit that can break Earths gravity well and escape into space. What I mean is, nothing that is launched into space just flies straight up and out...that's not how it works. The only way we can escape Earths gravity, is by using Earths gravity to sling shot us out. So all spacecraft and satellites are put into an orbit around the Earth first...which takes hours to achieve the proper orbit and then once they're in a steady orbit, then they do controlled burns to get them into farther orbits and then farther orbits and again even farther orbits...until finally they can break free of Earth. It's a long process, that takes time, so the raw footage would be hours in length.
But, I'm sure there is some footage somewhere of this, but it's not likely a public thing, because they probably didn't think anybody would really care to see it...it's boring, it's long, and pictures from space do the exact same thing anyway. I'd say if you wanna find out for sure, maybe ask somebody from NASA directly, or anyone from the many other private companies that put rockets into space. Go on a forum, seek some people out, get in touch with real people who work in these industries. That would be likely the only way you'll find footage like this, if it does exist.
1
-
Agreed, that's the way it should be and I think in actual circles of science, that is how it operates. The trouble is non experts/layman (as most people are), are not trained to operate this way, they have never taken that sort of training and so they don't practice that sort of civil discussion on the daily, so most people they just fall back on what they generally do naturally, which is attack and ridicule anything that doesn't agree with them, cause that's just how the mind is wired to react at first, it's very normal human behavior and most don't work at controlling it. This is why science limits its input on scientific matters, with its own communities, that's why they publish their research in journals that you can only really gain access too, if you're an accredited member of that field. Because layman often over estimate what they think they know...and it leads them to false conclusions.
But yes, I don't think anyone should be mocked or ridiculed for having an opinion, it just causes them to double down on that opinion if you make them feel awful for trying, it then becomes their drive to prove you wrong...no matter how wrong they are. So we really should be doing less mocking and more listening...the trouble is, that has to go both ways...a civil discussion requires that BOTH sides are respecting each others positions and actively listening to what they have to say...and in conspiracy circles like Flat Earth, it's very rare to find that I feel.
I've talked with probably hundreds of Flat Earthers at this point...and only a small handful of those discussions have ever been civil and open. I'll take my jabs as well, I'm only human and no matter how well practiced you are at keeping your ego in check, it's going to desire coming out sometimes, but I do try my best to remain as civil as I can...it's just that, they make it really hard to do that most of the time. Some of them don't deserve anything less then mockery, they're just trolling, so not really worth the effort...sadly it's a very large majority, at least from those who actually comment, the more vocal ones. I'm sure there are lots of civil Flat Earthers out there...but they're not commenting as much, that's typically the way it goes, the dicks are the loudest and so they appear to be the most abundant for that reason.
I would be nice to have some civil discussions...I keep searching for them, cause I love learning new things from opposing viewpoints...but hard to do that, when I'm just labelled a shill right out of the gate.
Anyway, I'd be curious to know why your first reaction is to not trust science so easily. I'm not saying I disagree with you, of course you should always be skeptical at first, never conclude anything until it's been verified to you, though surely you still hold their opinions a bit higher then that of non experts? Personally I do, I'm going to listen to an expert over a non expert, because when you spend your days doing something for a living...it's logical that I can then assume, you're going to know something about that field that most don't and to a higher degree of wisdom and insight. That's how I treat it and how I think most people do, I'm not about to tell a brain surgeon how to do his job, or a mechanic, or an electrician...so why would I do that for a scientist? But I'm curious what you think on that, so let me know if there's perhaps a reason why you're maybe a bit more quick to question scientists. Is there a growing lack of trust occurring there? Or perhaps a slight hate for the way science is conducted today? Just curious is all, so feel free to let me know what you think.
If you made it this far, thanks for taking the time to read my rambles. Have a good one! :)
1
-
1
-
Dave isn't really in this argument full time, he's just an onlooker that felt like addressing some points...that's all. This videos goal is not to solve their problems for them...merely just point out some errors, it's just basic peer review...the rest is left to them. What's frustrating, is they won't listen...they'll likely just ignore these points. Flat Earth likes to claim they have more of an open mind then the rest of us...but they sure close those minds off pretty quickly when we try to share information that refutes their beliefs. So do they have a more open mind...or is more likely they just enjoy the feeling they get from going against the grain, even despite being wrong? I think that's the more likely case. On a psychological level, we all enjoy to varying degrees the feeling of being special or above others in some status...so to achieve this, some people invent a world where they are the avatars of truth and intelligence, it helps them feel superior, which helps feed those desires of feeling special. This makes it very hard to reason with some people...they just will not listen to anything that might take that feeling away from them, so they choose feelings over reason. In my experience so far, that seems to sum up Flat Earth very well. They're not being very reasonable most of the time...it's fine to question reality and it's awesome that people are trying to think outside the box...but there is a fine line between thinking outside the box and chasing bias to keep a delusion alive.
1
-
Alright, it's not gravity that keeps a helicopter moving with the rotation of Earth, it's conservation of momentum that keeps a helicopter moving. Here's a pretty clear demonstration of conservation of momentum in action. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Notice how this guy keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though it is being pulled out from under him while in the air? This is the first Law of motion in action, everything in motion STAYS IN MOTION, until acted upon by an opposing force or mass. Conservation of momentum is very easily confirmed physics, and science knows a lot about it. A helicopter is pulled down to Earth by gravity, but it's conservation of momentum and relative motion that keeps it moving with the surface of Earth as it rotates.
You're kidding yourself if you think scientists could build all of the worlds modern technology, THAT YOU USE YOURSELF (and take for granted), but they can't figure out something as trivial as the shape of the planet. Have you EVER considered the very real possibility...that YOU are the one who doesn't understand how things work? Does that thought ever cross your mind? You are reaching conclusions from ignorance, a lack of knowledge and incredulity. That is why you think these things are impossible...not because they actually are, but because you really don't know shit, but you think you do. If you just pulled your head out of your Bible for 2 seconds to learn some basic physics, you'd maybe understand things a lot better then you currently do. It's not hard to verify the science to yourself, that answers your questions...learn some physics.
Also, you pretty much forfeit yourself from conversation the moment you say something is "just a theory". It tells the rest of us that you don't really know much about science and how it operates. Learn the language of science, and understand why calling something "just a theory", is a very stupid comment to make.
1
-
@thefallenslavesusall1857 It’s fine to keep an open mind, but what’s not fine is ignoring obvious bullshit under the guise of “free thinking”. Just cause something is fringe or goes against consensus, does not make it right by default…you’re just a hipster of knowledge at that point if you think it does. And nothing is ever 100%, you’re thinking in absolutes, which is a black and white fallacy. Sure, grants do add a level of capitalism to science, which does cause some fuckers to fudge data in favour of the dollar…but not all science is funded by government grants, not all scientists are just lying, immoral, plebs (I would say not even a majority are) and junk science simply does not work. It’s of no use to anyone to be wrong about the core sciences, the foundations like physics or chemistry, or the core tenants of mathematics like geometry. Pilots and sailors can’t successfully plot accurate long distance navigation routes, without knowing the true shape of the Earth…that’s a fact, not an opinion. Engineers simply can’t design the technology YOU use everyday, if the physics is wrong…that’s a fact, not an opinion.
Junk science simply doesn’t work…that’s how you spot bullshit science, it reveals itself by being absolutely useless. So if you honestly think the Earth is flat, okay, then try plotting a navigation route across a large ocean, without using the current system of navigation built on the globe model, to help you do it…go ahead fucker, see how far you get. :/
You people need to stop falling for this shit…Flat Earth is a hoax, that hides in your desire to spite the mainstream science and put some dirt in its eye. You think you’re so open minded…but then you sure shut those minds pretty quick the moment anyone questions or points out the obvious holes in your logic, or your science…if you even have any. Get a better bullshit filter, stop thinking in absolutes…it’s a great way to get conned.
1
-
1
-
If a rocket hit a dome at that velocity…wouldn’t you expect it to be completely destroyed by the impact? 🧐 Ya…you would…that’s pretty common sense I would think.
I think you should look up the yo-yo despin mechanism sometime, it makes use of conservation of angular momentum to counter the rockets spin. They put the rocket into a controlled spin, because its the easiest way to stabilize a rockets trajectory, it turns it into a sort of gyro, which keeps it flying straight. Perfect for any unmanned rocket. But eventually, you’re gonna want to stop that rotation…especially if you have cameras on the outside of the rocket. So a despin mechanism is included, to stop the rotation…and there’s plenty of information out there on how these devices work, with demonstrations. Even in that video, you can see the despin cable firing out, at about the 1 minute 38 second mark.
So maybe don’t jump to conclusions without doing a bit more research first. If you’re not a rocket scientist, or not very well versed in physics, then maybe don’t assume so much. I’m starting to think Flat Earth was a litmus test for spotting the scientifically illiterate.
Your second point is pure speculation, and doesn’t really mean much. Should never reach conclusions from speculations alone, it’s just confirmation bias.
1
-
1
-
@timgreat3409 That’s actually a great question biologists have pondered and studied for centuries, since first realizing the evolutionary process. Perhaps this video can help shed a little light on the evolution of sexual reproduction https://youtu.be/qsn4z7bNb14.
To summarize, sexual reproduction has one big advantage over asexual reproduction, in that more unique genes are shared between two organisms, rather than near exact copies from a single organism. Essentially, evolution gets a speed boost, and so organisms can then adjust to a changing environment quicker. So it’s believed that an ancient species of sponge or coral or algae — nobody really knows which organism did it first — evolved the ability for both asexual and sexual reproduction, which helped them survive better in an environment that was always changing. It likely was a crude start, it probably started as just a simple exchange of DNA between two organisms, rather than one just duplicating what it had. So they basically evolved a simple form of gene sharing, that slowly got better over time by evolving a more secure way of exchanging those genes, developing two separate carrier cells, the seed and egg.
We actually have a few organisms today that can still do this, both asexual and sexual reproduction. They mention one in the video, the Hydra. They also mention an ancient sea animal, that has fossil evidence of both asexual and sexual reproduction.
So who came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, it’s not that simple, neither would be the best answer, because neither came first in the chain of evolution, but I suppose if you had to choose, the egg would have come before a chicken. Chickens didn’t exist until long after the egg was evolved from other species, so I suppose you could say the egg. Asexual species evolved a form of gene sharing that proved advantageous in changing environments, that gene sharing refined itself over time until the best possible form of gene sharing finally evolved, with the seed and the egg.
Anyway, I hope you find that information at the very least interesting. It’s actually a pretty good question, though the intent from religious people is not very productive I feel. A form of over simplifying the topic to make it appear ridiculous, just stops people from exploring the possibilities, never thinking outside the box.
1
-
1
-
I wouldn't be so quick to conclude things just yet. There is a reason most of us don't bat an eye at this experiment, and it's because we understand a few more details that don't make things that simple I'm afraid.
Here's what we understand to be happening here. A spirit level works thanks to gravity, which creates the buoyancy displacement within the tube to occur at all. If this is the case (and we know it is if what know about gravity is true), then the bubble is leveling to center of gravity, perpendicular to center at all times, that's how they work. I'm sure you've heard of this term before, center of gravity, but maybe you weren't aware it has a vector...that vector is always down, towards center of Earth. That's what all things balance too...center of gravity, by being perpendicular to that center of gravity. A spirit level is basically a balanced buoyancy effect, the center of the level being level to center of gravity.
Since gravity always points to center of Earth everywhere on the Globe, then the gravity vector shifts with the curvature of the Earth so that it's always pointing to center, which mean a spirit level, that is leveling to the center of these gravity vectors, actually shifts to level to center of gravity at all times...which means it's going to follow curvature, leveling perpendicular to center of gravity at all times...not surface.
What this means is, it will read level the entire time it travels around the Globe, which renders the experiment inconclusive...which means it actually doesn't prove anything.
Even if you disagree with the Globe model, this still does mean this experiment is inconclusive. It presupposes a flat Earth and ignores what we know and understand today about gravity. If gravity works the way that we understand it to work today, pulling all mass to center, then this does mean this experiment does not disprove a Globe with gravity, it is actually inconclusive.
So it's not that simple I'm afraid. He didn't go into detail here...cause this video isn't really for that. The goal of this video wasn't to analyze the arguments, it was more to analyze the mind of a Flat Earther and figure out WHY and HOW they fall for these sorts of arguments. This video is more for those of us who have already concluded that Flat Earth is false and now we'd like to discuss the psychology of the movement. It's also focused more on mild entertainment, than actual education, so I wouldn't take it all to seriously...but that's why he doesn't go into further details...he assumed this was common knowledge.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Flat Earth does ask some great questions at times, but they need to be more diligent and take more time to understand the model they argue against, or you will risk compiling a lot of evidence out of inconclusive tests such as this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dc95811 Ok, but Elon was just posing a possibility...he wasn’t stating it as fact, he was just starting a discussion that could eventually become a hypothesis. He wasn’t being factual, that’s not how the scientific method works, it’s a long process...Elon knows this very well, he’s a pretty smart dude. You don’t just get to make claims and then assert it as fact, that’s not how we should ever reach conclusions such as this. Evidence, experimentation, data collection, peer reviewed research...that’s how we do it in reality. This used to be seen as the most logical path, the most reasonable...but now people like Dubay want to create a world where the best bullshitter gets the last say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dc95811 And I have, as I might have mentioned, in my experience I’ve caught him lying on nearly every sentence and he spends more time speculating and making empty claims, than he does providing evidence. It gets to the point where I start to feel he doesn’t know the difference between speculation and evidence...or his followers for that matter. Any actual evidence he does share, is always heavily edited or taken out of context, not giving the whole truth, but a half truth edited to support his bias. I’ve been able to falsify his claims, not just some of them but all of what I’ve seen, besides information I myself can only speculate on as well, such as NASA fakery and similar topics outside of personal experience. Which is why I focus on flat Earth, because I can test the Earth for myself, I can gather evidence and avoid speculation.
I’ve also noted the quantity in which he lies and his delivery. Always monotone, in rapid fire (gish gallop), and with absolute confidence...all of which are harmless on their own (minus gish gallop, which is a dishonest debate tactic), but all of which together are common in basic hypnotic suggestion methods. It is easy to get lost in his rants and not stop long enough to question them, I feel it’s his method and I think it’s very intentional. It’s the confidence as well that’s troubling, as a person who can lie that often, usually begins to show noticeable signs of guilt in their speech and body language. The only known type of individuals who don’t, are psychopaths, who have no problem lying continuously with absolute confidence. Though most of this is only speculative, I have caught him lying but I can’t be certain on his intentions, just some mannerisms and methods that raise red flags for me.
And after hearing about his treatment of former partners (abuse and violence in each), his Nazi sympathizing, and seeing his melt down where he called out other Flat Earth youtubers for stealing his spotlight...it became pretty clear that he’s a clear narcissist with some pretty twisted ideals. Those last three points are not speculation, they are well documented and can be found with some easy searching.
Point is, I have looked into his work quite thoroughly, I’ve seen enough from Dubay to reach my own conclusion on him and his work. In my opinion he is a lying con man, with strong self centred, narcissistic desires of leading an army of flat Earth cultists, to spread his bias beliefs and gain more attention. In my opinion, he’s not to be trusted and is possibly even dangerous. But, that’s what I see, I kept a very open mind but in 4 years since learning of his work, this is my conclusion of him.
So now I do what I can to warn others of Dubay, but I understand if others see him differently. It’s fine really, I can’t force anyone to agree, it’s just my opinion so far.
1
-
@dc95811 You’re getting my comments confused with another. It wasn’t me who mentioned plate tectonics, I merely asked if you had evidence for your claim, that’s all. I don’t just agree to blind claims, you say the continent shifted, great...but why do you think we should believe you?
As for Dubay, I’ve successfully falsified his claims...so why would I offer any further time towards someone who I have determined is clearly lying? I understand the ramifications if he’s correct...doesn’t mean I’m just going to listen to his claims blindly, that goes for anyone who makes a claim, evidence is all I care about. I get that a broken clock can still be right twice a day, so the information should matter more than the source, but still doesn’t change the fact that evidence matters more than speculation and blind claims. So far he’s failed and his credibility is shot now because of his wanton lying and his actions, which point to his true character and reason for doing what he does. He is a con man...I’m not in the habit of listening to huxters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solofourohsixgaming They only appear bigger, but they actually are not, it’s called the Ebinghaus illusion aka relative size illusion…it’s just an optical illusion. It works like this, when the Sun or Moon is high in the sky, it’s in a big empty open space which makes it appear smaller, while at horizon it’s close to objects your brain recognizes, like trees, buildings, houses, cliffs…so it can now make comparisons, causing it to appear larger than it actually is. But it’s just an optical illusion, it actually hasn’t changed size at all, and you can verify that pretty simply, by filming it throughout a day, with a solar filter lens and locked exposure to remove all glare and extreme brightness, which reveals the Suns true shape.
The Sun and Moon do not actually change size throughout a day, you’re brain and naked eye are just not very great measuring tools. It’s just an optical illusion…I’m sure you’re aware of optical illusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 Oh boy, more gish gallop eh. You set em up, we’ll keep knocking em down.
Both Airy’s failure and Michelson Morley experiments, were an attempt to find the Aether…and that’s what they both failed at, which helped confirm that Aether does not exist. They were not testing Earth’s motion, they were both using Earth’s motion as a variable.
Airy’s base premise for its experiment relied on the knowledge that Earth is orbiting the Sun, it used the same stellar aberration principle as observed in annual observation of stars in 6 months periods. Stars shift every 6 months, as they would if we were orbiting the Sun, which confirms that we’re moving around the Sun. He was trying to detect the same aberration in different materials, on a shorter time scale, water and then air within a telescope, which would confirm a premise of the Aether. There was none, so he failed to detect the Aether that was believed to be the medium that light propagates through…that’s why it’s called Airy’s failure.
Michelson and Morley were attempting the same thing, from a different means. Their experiment was found to be inconclusive. Meaning, it did not verify or falsify anything….so it can not be used to reach a conclusion for either the hypothesis or the null hypothesis, which was Earth motion. If you use an inconclusive experiment to reach a definite conclusion, then you are doing so out of bias. You can’t reach a definite conclusion from the experiment, but what you can do is use it to consider the possibility if the premise was wrong. It was supposed to be a simple experiment to find the Aether…it didn’t succeed, so physics had to consider the possibility that Aether did not actually exist. The reason they didn’t consider the same for Earth’s motion, is because there was already tons of evidence supporting Earth’s motion. Foucault Pendulums, Coriolis effect, stellar parallax, North aligning gyros that use Earth’s rotation and gyroscopic precession, just to name a few. Aether on the other hand had no tangible evidence supporting it…so you see why Aether had to go back to the drawing board?
And Sagnac effect was successful, but it wasn’t testing Aether drag, it was just testing if light put into a rotation could cause a delay. It does…and a measurable one at that. This confirms the speed of light and relativity. It’s currently used in ring laser gyros on planes, to detect rotational motions of pitch, yaw and roll…they’re also used in detecting Earths rotation.
So no, you’re just dumping more butchered science, repackaged to con idiots online.
1
-
@SuperMic00 No, I agree with that conclusion, because it’s a proven, verifiable fact of our reality, that I’ve verified for myself, through my own observations and experience. Let’s be honest, you listened blindly to con men on some Flat Earth channels feed you bullshit, and you just agreed to all of it without question…so you’re one to talk about blindly believing what you were told. You don’t have a working model, yet you believe it without question anyway…can you say hypocrite? How about gullible? How about sucker?
It’s no coincidence that NOBODY in Flat Earth has ever contributed to any applied science…it’s because they can’t, because they don’t know anything, they’re just making it all up as they go. You’re too far gone to help, but we can still point out your errors anyway, it’s a good exorcise and it keeps misinformation in check.
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 Neil has made a lot of erroneous comments, but he’s not lying. There’s a difference between flat out lying and just not knowing, or speaking in nuance. Truth is, you can begin to see curvature from a plane at just 30,000 feet, but it’s so very slight, it’s very difficult to spot with the naked eye. Bringing a tool to help you measure it however, and it becomes much easier. Like a theodolite, that can measure the horizon drop https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc. You can even start to see the curve from this view, it’s slight, but it’s there. I’ve made these observations from planes as well.
What Neil is trying to say, is that it’s not easy to see curvature at 30,000 or even 100,000 feet, because the Earth is huge…you’ve still barely left the surface. He’s not wrong, it is difficult, hence why so many claim to never see it, even at great heights. But you can see it, it is there, you just have to look closer. So he is wrong to say you can’t see curvature, but I don’t think that’s what he was implying. His argument is basically that with the naked eye, it’s difficult. He’s commenting on the common pop cultural misconception, that you can see curvature easily from a plane or weather balloon. You can see it…it’s just not as pronounced as most people believe.
Then there’s the weather balloon footage. Here’s someone analyzing the Flat Earthers favourite, the dog cam footage, this time just drawing a line shows it’s clearly curving https://youtu.be/edsUrLXrlLg?t=72. No fish eye lens here, this is footage that even flatties accept.
Then there’s making observations on the z axis. Here’s several.
https://youtu.be/ybkgOD_4CTg
https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Then there’s physically measuring the curvature. Here’s a couple methods.
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3177
https://youtu.be/J9w4KtHxZ68?t=905
All of these observations are easy to recreate for one’s self. Curvature is observed and measured everywhere, you just need to start paying attention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 The natural physics of water is to conform to whatever force is acting upon it. Here’s an example of water put under a consistent centrifugal force https://youtu.be/cTCwhicKKwU. Damn…would you look how curved that surface is. Water is inert, it doesn’t “seek” anything, it conforms to forces…like gravity.
Level does not mean flat in every context, learn the English language please, single words have many different definitions depending on the context. You think level only means flat, but nope, it can also mean a surface with all points at equal distance from a centre, also known as an equipotential surface. Don’t believe me, then just check the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level. Read under adjectives.
I feel like I’ve already explained this too you, so now we’re just going in circles. You fell for a con bud, time to accept that.
1
-
@SuperMic00 You do know there is a major difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, right? In science, hypothesis takes the form of a theory in the regular layman use of the word. While a scientific theory is the pinnacle of all research, proven concepts that have graduated far past hypothesis, tested and reviewed rigorously, nothing graduates to the level of theory until it has mountains of evidence supporting it, and nothing goes beyond a theory in science.
Gravity is also a law of science as well, just look up Newton’s law of universal gravitation sometime. But it’s a common misconception that laws of science are higher status than theories. Laws are just simpler, a lot more rigid and basic in form, so they’re far less likely to be changed or refined once they’re worked out, but they only describe WHAT is happening, they make no attempt to explain or describe HOW or WHY something works the way it does. For that we have theory, scientific theories attempt to explain HOW a phenomenon of nature operates at the mechanical level.
Since knowing HOW something operates gives you far more power and control over that system, than simply just knowing WHAT it does, for that reason, theory is actually higher than laws within science.
So no, Gravity is not “just a theory”, all you’re doing is further displaying your own scientific illiteracy and misunderstandings…in any real scientific arena, you would be forfeited from the conversation the moment you said something was “just a theory”. It’s really no wonder why you think the Earth is flat…you don’t really know much about much. That’s how these conmen were able to fool you…by exploiting your lack of knowledge and understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 So you know how a scale works I hope. You press DOWN upon a scale to apply a FORCE, which creates pressure that is then calculated as a weight value. So ask yourself this, if there’s no downward force we call gravity, then how exactly is a mass resting on the scale, still pressing down upon the scale to create pressure? Even in vacuum this will happen. Falling is a motion…and nothing is put into motion without a force, that’s one of the most fundamental basics of physics.
Helium and hydrogen rise due to buoyancy, the same counter force that keeps the Seawise Giant a float. It actually uses gravity to work…buoyancy does not exist without gravity. The downward force of gravity, is what causes the displacement of matter by density, creating buoyancy effect. Without gravity, buoyancy does not exist. Proven time and again within simple drop tests like this https://youtu.be/YDXQ-VBjW7Q?t=188, and in density columns put in zero G environments like we see here https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=167.
Here is the formula for buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Translates as; buoyancy force is equal to fluid volume, times fluid density, times acceleration of gravity. Remove any one of those variables, and you will not be able to calculate an objects buoyancy…gravity is a variable, it helps create buoyancy. So buoyancy does not exist without it…basic physics of buoyancy, agreed upon by every engineer and scientist in the world.
That equation I shared above, is the equation that engineers do use, when designing the ballast tanks, for ships like the Seawise Giant. Applied science in action…they were only able to design ships like that, thanks to our understanding of gravity physics and its relationship to buoyancy. If science was wrong about gravity and its relationship with buoyancy, then we would not be able to design large ships or submarines.
Your version of things, is absolutely useless…go ahead and calculate for me an objects buoyancy rate, without gravity as a variable. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
While you’re at it, learn what weight is…it’s just another name for gravity. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics/forces-and-newtons-laws-of-motion/newtons-first-law-mass-and-inertia/a/what-is-weight Without gravity, then weight doesn’t exist either. Mass is what you always have, weight is a product of gravity times mass; W=mg.
1
-
@SuperMic00 No…Flat Earthers NEED gravity to go away, because it’s not very convenient for their arguments. So they’ve decided denial is how they make it go away. No science or counter explanations, no peer reviewed studies or replacements in mathematics, just denial and ignorance. Then you pat yourselves on the back and call it a day, pretending you’re superior, while at the same time achieving nothing.
Fraid that doesn’t cut it. The whole point of science is to produce mathematical models, that accurately describe physical reality, so that they are useful when applied. Applied science is the end goal of all scientific research…if we’re not honest and objective about our discoveries, then we are left with junk science that is absolutely useless.
Go ahead and derive me new equations, using your superior understanding of physics, that engineers can actually use. Go ahead…..but if you can’t, then it’s because your understandings are flawed somewhere.
That’s the nice thing about junk science…it reveals itself by how useless it is. You’re arguing against science that is beyond discussion anymore, it’s graduated to applied science…and when it’s applied, it works. That’s because it’s accurate. If it wasn’t, then none of it would work when applied.
It’s really that simple. You’re only fooling yourselves.
1
-
@SuperMic00 Denser matter will always occupy lowest potential energy first, so the basketball isn’t going to be able to go down, because the water is denser, it’s already occupying that space closer to centre of gravity…so gravity effectively causes water to push the ball up, by displacing it. Basic physics of buoyancy.
So the trouble is that Flatties are half right, you’ve essentially chopped up gravity physics and you’re half there…but you’re intentionally ignoring the downward force that starts it all. The basketball is pushed out of the way, because water is denser than the air inside, that denser matter will occupy a position closer to gravity, before less dense matter. A penny is more dense, so it pushes water up, displacing it, that displacement is equal to its volume density. Archimedes principle in a nutshell.
You’re just describing gravity physics, without gravity. Gravity causes buoyancy, that’s physics 101. Fb=Vpg, that’s how we calculate buoyancy, without gravity, it does not occur.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 All things with mass create gravity, even you do…everything with mass does. Proven in the Cavendish experiment and many other similar experiments, repeatable science. Here’s the simplest demonstration and explanation https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
The amount of gravitational attraction, depends on the mass of the object…so Earth is massive, hence why its gravity is as well. The Sun is even more massive, hence why everything in our solar system is able to orbit around it. We’re not orbiting Earth, because we are not moving faster than Earth, we are moving with it. A cannon ball shot at surface could potentially break into an orbit…if it wasn’t immediately being slowed by AIR RESISTANCE. Drag force is something projectiles on Earth have to deal with, our Earth does not, because space is a vacuum…so there is nothing there to cause drag.
First law of motion states that all things in motion STAY in motion, unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Drag creates that unbalanced force, so projectiles slow and then drop to Earth due to drag force first slowing it enough for gravity to do the rest. Which is why projectiles don’t break into orbits, they are moving at escape velocities, they just don’t maintain it, because they are affected by drag from the moment they leave the barrel.
A rocket on the other hand, has a way of maintaining velocity through atmospheric drag, by way of rocket propulsion, the engines and fuel that keep it maintaining velocity. Flatties wrongfully assume rockets can’t work in a vacuum, but it’s just more misunderstandings in basic physics. See you guys believe rockets push off of air, like a plane does, but nope, rockets propel themselves by way of the third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The gas essentially pushes off the container, and the container (the rocket) pushes off the gas. So they push off of each other, using each other’s inertia, action, reaction…like tossing a heavy medicine ball with a pair of skates on ice, would fling you backwards, very similar physics. Rockets actually work better in the vacuum of space actually, because there’s no drag.
Basic laws of motion make it all possible. Earth maintains velocity because of conservation of momentum, it’s moving faster forward than it is being pulled to the Sun, so it maintains orbit around it, essentially falling around it, like a coin in a funnel, except unlike the coin that is slowed by friction and drag, Earth doesn’t have that problem, so it orbits indefinitely, thanks to conservation of momentum. We use the exact same physics to put satellites and rockets into orbit around Earth. The same physics is why the Moon orbits us as well…basic orbital mechanics, a perfect balance between forward momentum and force of gravity, creates a stable orbit.
So gravity was a pivotal discovery, because it explains almost everything. When gravity was fully realized…the mysteries of the cosmos started falling like dominoes. It has made space travel and satellite technology possible. It makes sense of more than just why objects fall to Earth, it explains why everything we observe in space is spherical, it explains orbits, it explains how planets and stars are created, it even explains how the Sun burns, through nuclear fusion reactions sustained by its intense gravity fusing hydrogen molecules together. Which we’ve successfully recreated in fusion reactors by the way…with the help of our current knowledge of gravity.
Remind me again what Flat Earth science has achieved?
1
-
1
-
@SuperMic00 The globe can answer for the tides, down to a mathematical certainty….your model can’t even explain a lunar eclipse, or how the moon even stays in the sky, let alone tides. 😂 So don’t get too ahead of yourself. Flat Earth can’t answer anything. From gravity, to sunsets, to the orbits of planets, to the entire Southern Hemisphere, sun, moon, planets, tides…the Flat Earth model can’t explain any of it. While the globe answers for everything with relative ease and it can back it all up with evidence.
You can bury me in gish gallop all day, won’t change reality. Earth is a globe, always has been.
1
-
@FAMMCUZ Well I’d rather be where we are today, creating and living life to the fullest of my potential...than spending my days just struggling to survive like any other animal in the wild. Yes the world gives us everything we need, to survive...but do you want to simply just survive, or do you want reach for the stars and push our potential to its furthest possible reaches? Personally, I much prefer the latter.
I’m an artist for a living, an illustrator/concept designer, I spend my days creating and imagining vivid worlds and characters that I breath life into. I’m grateful for every day I get to do this...but it’s not something our ancestors had the privilege of experiencing. My life is something they could only dream of and it’s only possible because of the modern world they help build, that science and discovery has made possible.
I’m grateful for these individuals who studied and gathered the collective knowledge of mankind, to bring our society out of the wild and into all that we have today, you should be a bit more grateful as well. We’re going to survive a LOT longer having more of a knowledge of the world and universe around us, so it’s a HUGE advantage we have. What you’re basically asking for is that we cripple ourselves and become animals again...not likely to happen bud, discovery and curiosity are a deep part of human nature, we’ve been conducting science since the very first time we harnessed fire for warmth, or sharpened sticks for hunting advantages. You seem to think that just because we’re building skyscrapers, we’re somehow not apart of nature anymore. Every physical thing in reality is a part of nature and is natural...nothing we ever do will make us unnatural. So save the hippy bullshit rhetoric, it’s just an excuse to keep people ignorant to reality in my opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rick H Alright so you said in your last comment, you don’t believe there is any science that confirms the motions of the planet and the distance to the Sun. So those are 2 different topics, both with a lot of history and scientific backing. I don’t wanna write entire thesis papers here (though this will get long, science is a long process, it’s unavoidable really), so I’ll focus on one for now, I’ll focus on the motions since it’s more general physics related and much easier for anyone to verify for themselves with simple experiments. The other (measuring the AU or distance to the Sun) is more Astronomy and Astro Physics, which does require better equipment and more difficult experimentation, not as simple for the average joe to replicate. Not impossible, but in contrast I can teach anyone the physics of motion with just simple thought experiments, so it’s far easier science to replicate and understand.
Let’s start with an explanation for HOW those velocities are possible. This is covered in the physics of motion, notably the Laws of Motion. So first, the trouble I find people have is that a lot of people have a false assumption about motion. Many people seem to think that our bodies feel motion itself, and this is false. We do not feel motion, we feel inertia, inertia that is created by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. The understanding most people have, is that the faster we go, the greater the G force inertia. So when they hear “the Earth rotates at 1000 mph and fly’s around the Sun at 67,000 mph” naturally, those big numbers seem to contradict their understanding of speed. Surely, we should feel those motions they think. Nope, because that’s not really how G force inertia works, or motion in general. G force inertia is only felt during acceleration, deceleration and turning, all of these CHANGE your forward momentum. It’s that change in motion, that creates the inertia your body feels.
What this means is, if speed remains constant in one direction, then in reality it doesn’t matter how fast you’re moving, you will not feel that motion, because every atom and molecule in your body is moving at the same rate and in the same direction, so they’re not squashed against each other creating stress and friction, which is basically what inertia is, so there won’t be any inertia. No inertia, means your body feels nothing, meaning you won’t be able to notice how fast you’re really going...and so we can actually travel at pretty much any speed, there is no speed limit our body can’t handle, because we are not actually affected by motion itself, it is change in motion that we are affected by.
You verify this, pretty much anytime you get into a moving vehicle of any kind. When driving down the highway at 60 mph (100 kmph), when do you notice the speed inertia? It’s simple, anytime the car accelerates or comes to a quick stop. If you were to go from 0 -60 mph in 10 seconds, you’d probably be sucked to your seat the entire time, there’s a lot of acceleration inertia happening here. But now if you were to instead drive from 0-60 mph over the course of 1 hour, gradually increasing speed until you reached your top speed, never once would you be sucked to the seat. But why? It’s the same speed...shouldn’t you feel something once you got up to a certain speed? No, you don’t, in the second example there’s no inertia. Same exact speed, but no inertia...so this teaches us about G force inertia, it has nothing to do with the speed, everything to do with the rate of acceleration.
That’s why you can get up and walk around the cabin of an airplane, travelling at 500 mph, and never feel the G force. It’s the same physics, we called it conservation of momentum. It’s the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an opposing force or mass.
Now a common rebuttal I hear from flat Earthers here is “well put yourself outside the vehicle, and now you’ll feel the motion” Ok, but now you have introduced drag force inertia, the air around you is not moving at the same relative rate of motion you are, so now your motion is being pushed through stationary air, creating air resistance, friction, drag force. Why this isn’t a valid rebuttal, is because it’s a false comparison. There main argument is they claim you’re feeling motion itself...and we don’t, we feel inertia. Drag force creates inertia, so all this rebuttal does is deflects from the lesson of how motion works and what we feel and just confirms what I’m saying further, we don’t feel motion, we feel inertia.
Let’s say we put a person on the outside of a vehicle travelling at 500 mph, like flat Earthers ask, only now let’s pretend the air around us is also moving with us in the same direction at 500 mph, would there be any drag force now? No...so no drag force and no acceleration or deceleration, so is there any inertia now? No, so we feel nothing. See this is what’s happening with Earth. Yes it’s moving really fast, but all the air is moving WITH it, at the exact same rate, in the same directions. So we will not feel anything, and no air in space, so Earth isn’t experiencing any drag force, no stationary air smashing into it, so it’s a far more accurate comparison, to compare Earths motions to the INSIDE of a vehicle, not the outside. So think of Earth pretty much like a vehicle you travel in...that’s a far more accurate comparison. So that flat Earth rebuttal is just a straw man, a deflection argument to keep people from learning how conservation of momentum works.
So what this tells us, is that those speeds are possible, they won’t rip us to shreds like people seem to assume, that’s not how motion works. But the other problem they have is “well, why aren’t we left behind then? If we ever leave the surface, shouldn’t the Earth keep going and we be left behind?”, which was basically your helicopter analogy. No, you don’t just stop moving dead in your tracks the moment you leave the surface of something in motion, your body conserves that forward momentum at all times, until an apposing force or mass can stop or slow you. Air is a mass, it can slow you, but as we learned above, if that air is moving at the same rate as you are, drag force will not occur. When a helicopter lifts off the surface, it doesn’t just stop moving forward with the Earth and it’s rotation, it conserves that momentum of Earth’s rotation. The air around it is doing the same, so no drag force, so it can very easily move with Earths rotation, thanks to conservation of momentum.
Got a bit long, will finish this in a second comment.
1
-
Rick H Now that’s the explanation, but now we should prove this law of motion. So here’s a good experiment I like to share. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Now pay attention to this guy jumping on the trampoline here. The trampoline is in motion, and yet he manages to keep landing dead centre of the trampoline, keeping up with that motion. But how? If we applied your past understanding of motion, shouldn’t the trampoline be pulled out from under him after the first jump, leaving him landing on the road? And yet, here he is, moving with the trampoline upon each bounce, never deviating from centre. We call this relative motion, he’s moving relative to the motion of the trampoline, he is within that inertial reference frame of motion, conserving the forward momentum of the trampoline at all times, so he stays moving with it, even when he’s not physically attached to it. A helicopter or plane in flight, is doing the same.
There are many other experiments for conservation of momentum that one can try as well, it’s probably one of the easiest things in physics to test and verify at any given time. Here’s another good one, having more to do with your helicopter quandary. https://youtu.be/HIycHlAsDZk?t=151 So here, he’s testing to see if a drone will maintain forward flight while inside a moving vehicle. Once the van is up to a steady rate of motion, he begins hovering the drone, then giving it no further command, it hovers in place just fine with the vehicle, on conservation of momentum alone. Even more interesting is when the driver hits the brakes, the drone keeps going forward, hitting the wind shield.
This further confirms conservation of momentum. See there’s a whole lot of established physics people are either unaware of or that they are ignoring, when they assume the motions of the Earth are impossible, or that they don’t fit with what we experience in reality. It’s easy science to learn, understand and verify though, and it does help explain the motions of the heliocentric model. I just don’t think people should be reaching conclusions from incredulity, I know it seems impossible, but I hope here I was able to briefly explain and demonstrate how these motions are possible. I’d suggest learning more about the laws of motion, conservation of momentum and relative motion. If you’ve taken high school physics, which I assume you have being an educated man, then you have had this taught to you before. I know the word indoctrination gets tossed around a lot in this conspiracy...but that implies knowledge they just told you and didn’t verify with demonstrations and experiments. You can demonstrate this physics, that’s how I know it’s legit...that’s what I use reach conclusions with, science I can actually demonstrate.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Now none of that of course verifies that Earth is in motion, that is just the physics that explains how it is possible. My point here is that the motions of the planet are very much within the realm of real physics, so that’s important to learn first I feel, that it’s not impossible at all, the physics is there. Next I will share the experiments and technologies that exist that have been used to prove Earth is in motion. Because they do exist, we didn’t just reach that conclusion from nothing. I’m happy to share those experiments, if you’re not aware of them quite yet.
1
-
Rick H Ok but you have to do more then just say “it looks like it is, therefore it is” that’s another false equivalence fallacy and an argument from ignorance. That’s why experiments must be repeated, that’s why peer review is so crucial to the process of science. If you repeat this experiment exactly how it was here and it fails to achieve the same result, THEN you can say something fishy is going on here. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a valid observation to say “it looks cgi”, it just becomes a fallacy when you choose to reach a definite conclusion from just your proposal. That’s something note for later and attempt to prove or falsify, but the moment you conclude that is what’s happening, before actually isolating it as true, then you’ve committed a fallacy.
This experiment is very repeatable, it’s been done thousands of different ways, for hundreds of years now, so if you believe it’s CGI, then the next step is to repeat it to make sure you can at least get the same results or not. That is not the only version of this experiment, plenty of different and easier ways you can run it to test conservation of momentum yourself. Here’s another one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1URC2G2qnc and another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KacTRPL1MtE and another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fftar0rLi7Q. I can share many many more if you’d like. Conservation of momentum is one of the simplest experiments to repeat and verify, so give it a try sometime.
1
-
iq O No it does not, Flat Earth just does not understand basic physics very well. I’ve already explained your error of thermodynamics in great detail, so go back up and read it again if you wish. See indoctrination implies I did nothing to verify what I was taught, and my teachers gave no attempt to demonstrate the science they were speaking on. Maybe YOU didn’t pay attention very well in physics class, but very rarely were we just told what to believe...we then had these concepts demonstrated. It’s taken a step further in university labs where nobody is holding your hand, YOU have to recreate the experiments yourself and you’re encouraged to improve upon them.
So let’s just call your “indoctrination” argument out for what it is, an excuse, so you can go on believing bullshit and ignore what everyone else is trying to help you with. You wanna talk about indoctrination, look no further than Flat Earth...it’s basically a cult.
If you paid attention to my explanation of conservation of momentum and relative motion, you would know what the lesson is there with the balloon. So go back up and read that as well, ignorance is not an argument. It’s a pretty clear demonstration anyone can reproduce, that verifies conservation of momentum. Where as your spinning tennis ball of water, is a straw man argument, that misunderstands Centripetal forces and how they’re created and shows a false comparison experiment. I can break that physics down too if you’d like, I don’t mind pointing out your errors.
1
-
Rick H So not sure if you’re still interested, but I wasn’t quite finished sharing. Last time I talked about the science of conservation of momentum, which explains how the motions of the planet are possible. Now I wanted to share some experiments and technologies that verifies our Earth is in motion. Cause it bugs me when people say “there is no evidence for Earth’s motion” cause that’s not true at all...it bugs me that people actually seem to think that the scientific community reaches conclusions from nothing.
So I won’t go into great detail on each, feel like I’ve kinda lost you already and the videos I’ll share should explain things well enough. Point is, if you’re not aware of the science here...it’s because you’ve never really looked. Science doesn’t just reach conclusions without evidence, I understand it’s not always easy to find this knowledge, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So here are some examples I am currently aware of, that have helped to verify Earths rotational motion.
Ring Laser Gyros
https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t
Gyro Compass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvO4froSGSc
Foucault Pendulum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t
Measuring Centripetal force of Earths rotation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t
https://youtu.be/agQnj1q2Y08?t=383
Coriolis effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYAfHW0I8&t
This is just a short list of experiments and evidence that confirms Earth’s rotational motion. Much of this is easily repeatable science, so I shared the best examples of each that explain and demonstrate how you can repeat these for yourself to put each one to the test. Again, just because you’re not aware of the science, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Please don’t join the group that thinks arguments from ignorance are valid arguments...they’re not, it’s just plane ol’ ignorance. You won’t find any truth through ignorance, so keep that mind open and stay honest.
1
-
iq O Questions are not proofs...just because YOU don’t know the answers to something, doesn’t mean they don’t have answers.
“BTW, what makes helium balloon go up? Why your imaginary gravity doesn’t pull it down immediately?”
Well you’re the expert on density, I’m surprised you don’t know what BUOYANCY is. Helium rises up because it is less dense than the surrounding air, so it is displaced by the air and pushed upward. It’s exactly like a balloon filled with regular air, that you try to submerge in water. The water is more dense than the air, so it pushes it up...it’s buoyancy...helium rises because of buoyancy, I’m surprised you didn’t know that with your superior understanding of density. Now here’s what you’re missing, buoyancy doesn’t occur without gravity. Without the downward force of gravity telling dense matter which direction to begin falling and ordering by density, then density displacement can not occur, so buoyancy does not occur. This is proven time and again with simple density columns put in zero G environments, remove gravity from the equation, and buoyancy does not occur. Gravity is what directly causes the effect of buoyancy. Dead matter doesn’t just know where the direction of down is dumb ass...and it’s not just moving in that direction on it’s own. A FORCE is required to put matter into motion...density is not a force. But at the very least, I hope you finally learn how helium rises, it’s because of buoyancy, clouds do the same thing, so does hydrogen and other lighter gases, it’s not difficult to understand. Helium is not free from gravity, eventually it stops being displaced and then it stops rising...gravity keeping it in our atmosphere. So there you go, where once you had a question you felt had no answer, now it is answered. Do some research on buoyancy...learn some actual physics please.
“What shape is the Earth?”
It is classified as an oblate spheroid, which means slightly wider at the Equator. Neil even says that, in the very same interview you pull that “pear shaped” comment from. Even he understood pretty quickly that was a poor comparison to make, so he later redacted that pear comment and then explains it’s oblate...but Flat Earthers are cherry pickers of information, you don’t really care about any other details, except for what confirms your bias. So how oblate is it? About 14 miles wider at the equator, so to you and me, it would look perfectly spherical...cause 14 miles to the Earth, might as well not even be a millimetre of difference. Here’s a handy video that can help you see just how oblate our Earth really is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjx0KcDH7pQ It’s such a tiny difference, it will appear perfectly spherical to you...this is one of those times where your eyes, can be fooled...because they’re not precise measuring tools, in fact they’re quite bad at eyeballing most things.
“Can you see stars from space?”
Yes, but it really depends how much surrounding light is coming into your eye, cause your eye works a lot like a camera lens does, it’s much easier to see stars while in the shadow of something, like Earth, the intense light from the Sun is being blocked, so your eye will have an easier time seeing the much dimmer light from stars. You’re trouble is that you think in absolutes. When asked that question, the astronauts will think on a spectrum that each will answer differently, depending on what they believe was meant by the question...this is basic human psychology. We all interpret questions differently. I’d imagine, one astronaut would think “the question being asked is can we see stars at all?” he will answer yes to that, because yes, you can see a few stars. Another astronaut will think what’s being asked is really “while in space, can we see as many stars as we do at night time, while here on Earth?”, he will answer no, because generally line of sight to the Sun is greater, so there’s typically less stars seen than you’d expect. Are you understanding yet how different people will interpret a question, and then give different answers? You’re just cherry-picking information again bud and misunderstanding how different people interpret answer questions. Your mistake is thinking in absolutes and assuming that everyone thinks like you do...this is not true in the slightest, different people will interpret questions differently, because we all think differently.
“Why Bill Nye said we’re in a closed system and there’s nowhere we can go?”
Where exactly are you pulling that quote from? Would be great to know the full context, cause I’m sure he probably explains and you just didn’t listen. Probably the wrong choice of words is all, but he’s not wrong at all. Gravity keeps everything contained to our surface, which creates an atmospheric shell around us, which creates a closed off ecosystem that is safe from the harsh environment of space. It’s pretty simple. When he said we can’t go anywhere, he wasn’t speaking in absolutes...again, maybe not the best choice of words, but articulating clearly is not always easy. What he likely meant was, you and me and him can’t go anywhere at the moment, we don’t have the technology to do it just yet. So again, what you’re doing is conferring your own meaning upon his words, spinning your own bias upon them. I’m doing the same, but that’s why I don’t collect quotes as evidence for anything...because they’re not. It’s pointless to waste your time on quote mining, it’s a form of confirmation bias, which means it’s not real evidence.
“Why we don’t see even 1 satellite or piece of space junk out of millions that are supposedly orbiting Earth on NASA’s so called live-streams??”
Why would you think we should? The orbital area around Earth is millions of miles cubed, and most of the junk floating around is no bigger than a screw and at worst a baseball...it’s all pretty tiny. So you spread all that debris out over millions of miles...you really think you’ll see anything? I think you really have trouble understanding just how big the Earth is. Satellites as well, there’s only about 2000 in orbit right now, and they’re only about the size of a small car. When you see a plane in the sky that is 6 miles high, how big does it look? Pretty tiny right? Ok, now imagine satellites, that are HUNDREDS to THOUSANDS of miles apart from each other...you really think you’ll be able to spot them? When you’re flying in a plane at 6 miles high...do you see any cars below you? Any people? Any small screws? Like shit man...did you really even think this through at all? But, here’s the thing, they do see them, it’s just very rare. Here’s a video of a satellite that passed close to the ISS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPoisirIt1U So it does happen, just not very often.
There, all your questions answered. If you have more, I don’t mind continuing. Questions are not proofs...quotes taken out of context are not proofs...you’re focusing on the wrong evidence my friend.
1
-
1
-
NASA made no such claim, it’s flat Earth that makes this claim, repeating this lie enough times that they’ve made it a true statement in their minds. One guy who worked on creating composite images of Earth was explaining what he does at his job, flat Earth cherry-picks his words during an interview and takes them out of context, making the claim that he was talking about every photo NASA has taken is created on a computer. This is simply not true. The real truth is, composite images of Earth are just one of many different types of photos NASA takes of Earth, but even composites are technically real photos, taking hundreds of real photos and stitching them together to make one image, that’s all a composite is, your phone does the same thing with its panoramic feature. But still, many single frame photos of Earth exist, there’s many geostationary satellites in orbit right now taking full image photos around the clock.
CGI has only existed for a short time, it did not exist during the early days of space travel, so thousands of early photos exist that were shot on regular film. Here’s an archive showcasing many of those old photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums.
The pear comment (made by Neil Degrasse Tyson) was a poor comparison, that even Neil realized was a bad comparison in the very interview he made it. If you bothered to watch it all, you’ll notice he later redacts the comment and clarifies that Earth is classified as an oblate spheroid, slightly wider at the equator. This is true, but it doesn’t do much to tell you HOW oblate it is, and that’s where the misunderstanding arises. It’s a tiny difference, not noticeable to the naked eye, looking at a photo of Earth, it will look perfectly spherical to you, but here’s a helpful trick you can do to help you see the difference https://youtu.be/tjx0KcDH7pQ.
1
-
Well, you can never really prove anything in science with absolute 100% certainty, simply because we don't know everything and probably never will, so new information always has the potential to change old information. That's the stark reality of information gathering I'm afraid, so it's a fools errand to try and prove absolutes in science. But we can get pretty close yes, close enough anyway to get things to a point that a layman would consider it certain enough.
We do have plenty of experiments and observations though, that do help to further verify each concept of the Globe model. So I'll stop wasting your time and provide a few quick pieces of evidence for each of your questions here.
"can you prove it’s round ?"
We can and have measured and observed curvature, so yes. Here's a far more in depth and conclusive version of the Beford Level experiment, done this time over a frozen lake. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment The test confirms, the Earth is curving and it's curving at the rate we know it to be curving here on Earth
Another experiment done for measuring and confirming curvature, recreating and improving upon the Eratosthenes experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno&t=2s If you're pressed for time, skip to the 6 minute mark where he shares the results. Shadow angles from sunlight confirm, light is arriving parallel over a spherical surface that is curved at the rate we have measured it to be. Which also further verifies the conclusion of the first experiment shared, as the measured curvature matches in both experiments.
Now for the best evidence we have for this, photographic evidence. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 Just a small sample of the hundreds of photos taken during the various Apollo missions. These are very high resolution photos, so take some time to analyze them sometime if you'd like. If you feel these were faked, explain to me the method you feel they used to fake them and outline the method you used to verify they were faked. As an artist for a living, to my eye, I have personally not been able to catch a single error in detail that would suggest these are faked.
Aside from that, here's a great video of a group of hobbyists who build their own radio telescopes they use to track and pull data from the various weather satellites in orbit currently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t=351s
"can you prove gravity ?"
This will get a bit long, so I'll post in a separate comment.
"can you prove we a spinning at thousands of miles per hour ?"
Yes, here's a short list of some of the many technologies and experiments we currently use and have done that verify Earths rotation.
Ring Laser Gyros/Large Area Sagnac Interformeters - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t=51s
Gyro Compass - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t=8s
Foucault Pendulum experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t=137s
Measuring Earths Centrifugal force - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t=530s
Verifying Coriolis effect = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t=18s
Every experiment/tool done/used here helps to verify that Earth does rotate and they also measure all measure the same steady rate of rotation, 15 degrees per hour. On top of this there are also the photos and videos taken from orbit that verify rotation. As well as the deeper math equations used to track and make predictions of future celestial events, down the second and square mile. Lots of ways to verify rotation actually, so the claim that Flat Earth often makes that we can't or we haven't, is actually just a lie and it is false.
Anyway, apologies if this got long, I just like to be thorough. Question Flat Earth just as much as you now question the mainstream, only way to remain objective.
1
-
Continued from my last comment.
"Can you prove gravity"
Can you come up with any alternate explanation or theory, that can explain with greater accuracy HOW and WHY things fall when you drop them? Things fall when you drop them, the question is why down? Why that direction? From what we understand about motion, the first Law of motion states "nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it". When you drop something, it is put into motion...it falls. This is common knowledge of course, so if it's falling, and falling is motion and if motion requires a force, then what force has put that matter into motion? Flat Earth will say it's just Density and Buoyancy, but let's look closer at that argument for a moment.
Density is not a force, it is just a property of matter. It has no means or ability to put matter into any directional motion. So density can't cause this alone. Buoyancy is a force, but the trouble here is that it's not technically a REAL force, it's really just the left over effect of matter ordering by density due to a DOWNWARD accelerating force. So buoyancy can't exist at all, without there first being that downward force that begins the displacement of matter by density in the first place. Which is verified in simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI&t=167s When you remove that downward accelerating force from the equation...buoyancy disappears and matter does not displace, it blends together instead. So buoyancy can't explain this accurately, because buoyancy can't exist at all without that downward force first putting matter into its starting motions.
So as near as we can tell, there must be a downward force of some kind...which is what we all observe happening as well when we drop something. All we did was give that force a name, because there must be a downward accelerating force, to start that dropped motion and to start buoyancy.
Now there were other alternative explanations proposed at the start, such as Electromagnetism and static attraction, but these are falsified pretty quickly once you really get into the physics of both. As a quick example, both of these attractions effect all matter differently, attracting them at different rates. The trouble is, all matter has been observed to fall at the same rate in a vacuum, suggesting this downward force is a constant for all matter and does not attract matter differently. One of many examples that falsify's either theory as the reason for why things fall, I can share many more with you if you'd like more, but I'll leave it there for now.
Today we do have many experiments that measure this force of gravity and that help to verify it a little further. I'm sure you've heard of the Cavendish experiment that first measured it, but have you seen it in action? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6aFgQhM_A And are you aware that Cavendish didn't just observe gravity here, he also measured its constant? A measurement we now use today in equations in engineering, often represented as a big G in formulas. Rocket science and orbital mechanics use this measurement a lot, it's quite accurate.
There is now today also the experiments that verified General Relativity, that expands upon gravity. Those being the Eddington experiment, time dilation experiments in upper atmosphere, observing red shift in distant stars, detecting gravitational waves, just to name a few. So what would you prefer science concluded? Something is attracting all matter to the surface of Earth, all observation and experimentation confirms it is there...and this concept does go on to explain pretty much everything else we observe and measure. It explains how stars are able to burn, through nuclear fusion reactions, it explains why all objects in space are spheres, it explains how they are able to achieve orbits...heck it explains how the universe was able to form in the first place. I don't say this lightly, that gravity was probably the most important discovery of mankind's history. When we made this crucial discovery, thousands of other unexplained phenomenon began to fall like domino's...they finally all made sense.
So can we prove gravity? Yes, many times over at this point in fact, but even if we couldn't, what other conclusion is there? We do observe a downward acceleration of matter...always falling at the same rate, in the same direction. We didn't invent this force...but we do observe something happening, all we did was gave it a name, we called it gravity. So what's the alternative and what would you prefer science conclude instead? Would you rather it do nothing and ignore these observations? If so, why?
I feel the only reason Flat Earth believes gravity doesn't exist, is because they understand how inconvenient it is for their arguments. So I feel they choose to deny it, rather then actually prove it doesn't exist. I don't know about you, but denying something doesn't mean it isn't there. It's just pure denial then...and a lot of misunderstanding as well it seems, from what I've seen anyway. A common argument they'll make, is why can't we recreate it on a smaller scale and test it directly? It's a good question sure, but what they want is a demonstration of water clinging to a sphere...but this ignores what we understand about gravity. We can't scale down gravity like that...especially not while currently standing in a gravity well that is MANY times greater and will constantly be pulling any water from the surface of any scaled down test like that, that we perform. That argument is just being irrational and stubborn, and it ignores we understand about gravity.
We have the Cavendish experiment and all its variations...it is our scaled down experiment of gravity and we're lucky we could even do that much, while standing in a source of intense gravity that will interfere with our tests for gravity.
So in my opinion, it's a bit nonsensical to conclude gravity doesn't exist...when it's pretty clear that something is there and we have measured it. Yes, we do not know everything about, we're still learning...but does that mean we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater? I don't think so...and certainly not because some people think denial is an argument we should take seriously.
1
-
@iamnen1 Electromagnetism is also "just another theory" but you currently use it to send and receive your WiFi data. Question what you're told all you like, that's perfectly fine and logical, but you're reaching false conclusions because you really don't know much about how science operates. You make that very clear to people, the moment you say that something is "just a theory" which basically forfeits you from the conversation after that. Learn the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory...they are not the same thing. They chose that wording for a very good reason, because we do not know everything and we likely never will. So science isn't ridiculing you...people with fragile egos are mocking you, people who are not trained in how to control their emotions and their ego. But science doesn't care about ego, it cares about what it can verify, so it will listen to any hypothesis presented to it. But if all you have is ignorance and denial...then you're not going to last long, because science requires evidence...it doesn't just roll over and accept things blindly, you have to provide more then that, MUCH more.
If you want to change science, then you need to do better then make empty claims and you need to stop lying to yourself like this, "gravity cannot be measured in any form" that is an example of a lie you're telling yourself, it has been measured and those measurements are currently used in applied sciences today.
You're not asking me to keep an open mind, what you're really asking me to do is accept your world view blindly and without question. You're asking me to ignore things that we have verified and just deny all the evidence we have exists. I'm afraid we can't do that, that is not rational and we can't advance further with that sort of denial and ignorance. Flat Earth has to accept, that they will not change science with ignorance and denial...they HAVE to present a working model, and they HAVE to present actual evidence, that passes peer review. Until then the Globe model will remain the dominant model, until it can be successfully falsified. Good luck with that.
You just don't seem to realize, that you're mind is not really open...it has never been more shut. If it were open, then you would listen to us more as well. Some of us are listening to you, we have just reached a different conclusion, because we were able to successfully falsify Flat Earth. That's the camp I'm currently in, I am listening to Flat Earth, but all I'm seeing is ignorance, misunderstandings, denial and the most shut minds I've ever encountered. You won't change my mind with that sort of rhetoric, I require evidence. I have reviewed what Flat Earth classify's as their evidence so far and I have successfully falsified all of it so far. So I remain with the model that I haven't been able to falsify yet, which is the Globe. Science is just doing the same. Like science though, I don't claim to know everything, will listen to any hypothesis presented, but if I can easily falsify it then I will conclude it is wrong. It's that simple really.
1
-
1
-
@MrNo-ai_bs Except that’s not a fact, it’s just what Flat Earthers say...gee, I wonder why a group with Flat Earth in their title, would keep claiming there’s no curvature? No bias agenda there I bet. heavy sarcasm :/
Meanwhile, the actual scientific community (you know, the same people who ACTUALLY invent and innovate everything!) 100% agrees on the spherical geometry of Earth, as does every industry in the world that currently applies that knowledge, from navigation, communication, engineering and infrastructure. Ever think maybe that’s for a good reason? Ever consider that FE is just another online hoax...and you are being conned? Cause ya should at the very east consider that possibility.
It’s fine what people want to believe, but when you’re wrong, you’re wrong, it’s really that simple. And if you’re not an expert with experience in the topic, then maybe you should tread lightly and not assume too much...maybe don’t listen blindly to every nut job on social media making superficial claims. Physical reality doesn’t exactly care what people want to believe, and neither does science, cause it can’t do anything with belief. Junk science simply does not work...so we shouldn’t just allow it to fly by the radar unchecked or unchallenged. We didn’t get where we are today from belief, we got here with careful persistence and centuries of studying the natural world, until we had actual certainties...like the basic geometry of Earth.
We can think it’s all fine and dandy...until those beliefs start affecting policy and rewriting text books...even when they’re factually wrong. Then we have a real problem. Go ahead though, can’t force anyone to not believe these things...just don’t be surprised if science doesn’t just roll over and accept it. Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science today...that’s for a good reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@qwertyuiopas4285 So what would you prefer, that everyone regardless of background, experience, knowledge, or training get a say? Should we hire our local gas attendant to build nuclear reactors? Does that sound better to you?
Your comment is seething with resentment for the scientific community, it implies a bias. I’ll agree it’s not a perfect system, but you have to understand it never will be. Despite our best efforts, there will always be corruption, regardless of the system we implement, the best we can do is take steps to reduce it. What we do have currently brings results and it far out weighs the alternative, of a chaotic system where everyone gets a say.
I prefer to focus on the science. In my experience so far with Flat Earth, they don’t really have evidence, they have false conclusions they didn’t bother to review closer before submitting as their conclusion. What we have is an example of what it would be like if everyone had their say…a spherical Earth becomes flat, even though it’s not. I think your desire to overthrow a system you dislike and resent, is leading your mind off a cliff. More focused on defeating a system, than you are the actual science.
So you wanna focus on some science? I don’t mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marvel5671 Yes, Dave's equation he provided in the video was inaccurate, I believe he even stated that later in a separate video and corrected it. But, going back to your claim that the math supports a flat Earth, In my experience looking over Flat Earth claims and observations, the opposite has been true so far. From what I've seen so far, the math works out in favor of the Globe. When the math doesn't work out, It's always been because they didn't give the proper details, they fudged the figures to throw off the results...so I've learned to be diligent.
A couple months back I had a Flat Earther make a claim, that he was seeing all of a 150' tower, that he claimed was 20 miles away, from a beach observing from a 6' viewing height. Doing the calculations, he was correct, even with standard refraction, roughly 160' would have been hidden at that distance, making the observation quite impossible on a Globe, unless of course refraction for that day was much higher, but even then, seeing all of it would have been very unlikely.
But, after pressing him for further details, he finally told me his exact location and pointed out the tower he was observing...and he lied, the tower he was observing was not at 20 miles away, it was only 8 miles away. Redoing the calculations, only 12' would have been hidden from that distance, making the observation very possible on a Globe.
So you have to be VERY careful with these people. Either their math is off, or they lie about the details and in the worst cases, it's both. Now I'll give him this, maybe he didn't really lie but he measured the distance incorrectly, and his bias kept him for checking a second time. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, cause he was a nice man, but either way, he was wrong about a key figure and it threw off the whole result. In my experience so far, I have not seen one legit observation that did not fit the globe calculations. If you have any you feel are conclusive for a flat Earth however, feel free to share, but I have not seen any...just a lot of empty claims, missing variables, fudged figures and bad math.
If this subject really interests you though, perhaps you'd be interested in a more controlled experiment of calculated and observed curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is basically a recreation of the famous Bedford level experiment, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake. I prefer observations like this, because unlike observations of mountains, where the variables could be off slightly, and figuring exactly how much of a mountain is being obscured is hard to really discern, this kind of experiment is much more precise and controlled. Heights are known, distances are known, angles are precise, zoom and lenses are factored, every detail is controlled and factored. The conclusion here is conclusive in support of the globe, so go ahead and give it a look sometime if it interests you. That blog has several more observations as well that you might find interesting, so worth your time to check it out.
If the math is your interest as well, you might be interested to check out a content creator named Jos Leys. He's made several in depth 3D renderings focusing primarily on observations of the Sun. Because lets face it...we can mull over curvature calculations all day, but a sunset doesn't make any sense on a Flat Earth, if you really break it down objectively. Jos Leys has made several really good videos demonstrating how the Sun we observe in reality, does not work on the Flat Earth model, but it works perfectly on the Globe at its projected scale. Here's one of his videos you might find interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6Ojo9fJhw&t
1
-
1
-
@stevem437 You don’t think the number of pilots, sailors, surveyors, geographers, scientists, etc, is in the millions of people? 🧐 Point is, a lie gets much harder to keep the more people you have in on the lie. The shape of the Earth is vital information to have for millions of people working in many various fields of expertise…so hiding that information from so many people would be impossible, and even more impossible for millions of people to keep up a lie of that magnitude, without any problems. It’s pretty nonsensical to play devils advocate on that one…and it really shouldn’t be to difficult to understand why.
It’s just that your argument is pretty ignorant is all. Would only take a single hour introductions course in navigation, to learn that accurate knowledge of the surface you’re navigating is pretty darn important information to have, if you want any hope of navigating that surface with any proficiency. If you think a pilot just goes from A to B without much thought or effort or working knowledge of surface shape and scale…then you seriously could benefit from a slap upside the head. :/
Of course planes can exist on a flat Earth, but it’s the system of navigation that’s the real argument here. Their argument is that navigation requires accurate knowledge of surface…and that’s true. Anyone who would argue otherwise, is doing so because they’re a bit ignorant of navigation…and maybe basic geometry as well.
But no…satellite’s could not exist on a flat Earth. Satellites orbit the Earth…an orbital trajectory doesn’t work if there’s no centre of gravity to orbit. Flat Earth has no centre of mass, they don’t even believe in gravity…and that’s a pretty important part of a satellites functionality. They essentially use gravity, to fall around the planet…that requires the Earth be spherical and there be a centre of gravity they can continue to fall around indefinitely. So satellite’s can only exist if Earth is spherical, with a force of gravity as we currently understand it.
So their arguments are actually pretty good…you’re just a bit ignorant to much of the knowledge required to understand how they’re good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coryleblanc It rotates with the Earth, so why would you expect 1000 mph wind? 🤷♂️ That’s you misunderstanding the model, intentionally, argument from ignorance. You want proof? Step outside, there’s no 1000 mph wind…there’s your proof. What you really need is proof of rotation, which has plenty. Look up the Foucault pendulum experiment, or the ring laser interferometer detecting Earth rotation. Or look up the gyro compass, it’s a device used on modern sea vessels, that actually uses Earth’s rotation to function, so if Earth wasn’t rotating, then it would not work as designed. Lots of information available on this device, so look it up sometime. Just a few examples of experiments and devices that verify Earth’s rotation.
So it’s pretty simple deduction after that, we know Earth rotates because it’s been detected and measured and is now used in applied science (gyro compass), and we know there’s no 1000 mph winds, so we can deduce atmosphere moves with the rotation, pretty simple. This conclusion fits with all other known physics as well, such as conservation of momentum, gravity, fluid dynamics, etc. We’d expect it to rotate with the Earth, because that’s what all our knowledge of basic physics points too.
Is a basketball the Earth? Is a basketball thousands of miles in circumference? Obviously not…so what makes you think that’s an accurate comparison? Why would you assume they’re the same? 🤷♂️ That’s called a false equivalence fallacy, comparing apples to oranges and assuming they’re the same thing, simply cause they look similar, sharing a few traits. It’s not very smart, won’t get very far using flawed reasoning like that.
You’re sure asking for a lot, while making a lot of really poor assumptions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WilsonFox123 Of course it would, but level to centre of gravity. Here’s the problem with your argument, it takes roughly 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on an Earth that’s 25,000 miles circumference…how many degrees do you expect to see in a small swimming pool? 🤷♂️ Not even close to 1 degree, you certainly wouldn’t be able to eyeball it, it would appear perfectly flat to you. So how could you determine anything from such a small area of observation? The globe states that water is kept at equipotential to the field of force of gravity, meaning its surface is equal distance from centre of gravity…it is at the same LEVEL from centre.
So your argument doesn’t disprove that, it just misunderstands the context in which the word level is being applied here. I’m sure you understand that words in the English language often have many definitions depending on the context, right? Well, level is one of those words. In geometry it can be used to describe a round or spherical surface, that is all at equal distance from centre…at the same LEVEL from centre.
So you’re really just telling us all how little you understand about basic concepts like geometry, gravity physics, and the English language. Good job. 👏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XxlightxX Well, you’ve certainly not verified that, you’ve just stated it’s so and then called it a day. Doesn’t work like that I’m afraid…as you even agreed when you said “you must prove all things”. So alright, let’s look at the physics…well, the definitions really, because it’s the terminology you’re butchering first and foremost.
Density isn’t a force, it’s just a property of matter, how much mass occupies a volume. It has no mechanism to cause motion…and that’s what you’re missing. See you’re getting lost in the terminology really, Flat Earth has twisted and butchered the words we use in physics. Density is already defined in physics, it’s a scaler…has nothing to do with motion…has no means of causing motion. When you drop something, it’s clearly being put into motion…you didn’t cause that motion, it occurs on its own the moment you release it. So this is a physical phenomenon of nature…a motion that is caused by the laws of nature…a force. Since density is nit a force, you can not use that word.
Pressure didn’t cause this, because it happens in vacuum as well, in fact it happens better in vacuum. Everything falls in vacuum, even gases that used to rise. So falling towards surface is the motion all things with mass have in common, always in the same direction.
First law of motion states that a FORCE is required for motion, nothing is put into motion without it. Falling is a motion, so this implies a force causing that motion. Density is not a force, it’s already defined in science as a ratio between mass and volume…so it’s already defined, cannot use it twice, it’s not a force, it’s that simple.
But the falling happens, it’s undeniable, so that motion needs a name…so when we’re discussing it, we know what’s being referred. If buoyancy is the upward force, then gravity is the downward. If we can give a name to the upward force, why can’t we also give one for the downward force? 🤷♂️ We can and we have…we called it gravity. See, your real problem is in misunderstanding what defines a force. A force is just something that causes motion, falling is a motion, so we need to figure out the force that’s causing that motion, and to better keep track of it, we need to give it a name...one that's not already used and defined, like density.
Flat Earth thinks by denying a word, they can then get to reshape physics. But it doesn’t work that way. The falling motion happens, it’s undeniable. Can’t call it density, because density is already defined in science, it’s not a force, so if we use that word again then everything just gets confusing. Science is all about accurately defining variables…it needs to do this, because math equations require definite variables. If we have a single word (density), with two different definitions (force and scaler ratio), then how the fuck do we know which one is which in an equation? 🤷♂️ I know you people think math is useless…but every modern technology you enjoy today, is thanks to science, identifying variables, that can then be used in math equations, in applied science…that’s the end goal of all science, to define variables for applied science purposes…so it’s pretty important we define our variables accurately.
Let’s look at the formula for weight, for example; W=mg. Pretty simple equation, that explains how weight works. Mass is included and gravity, we have a scaler and a motion. Math is a language, a mathematician can look at that formula and understand what’s being said. In this case, he can interpret that simple formula as a mass in motion towards surface at the rate of 9.8m/s^2. Multiply the mass by the downward acceleration of gravity, you can then calculate its weight, pretty simple. But now let’s replace the formula with density; W=md. Well now it’s just confusing as all hell and doesn’t work…you can’t determine weight with two scalers…mass is basically density, they’re both the same thing, the only difference being that density gives a bit more information, it’s how much mass occupies a volume…so mass is basically in the equation twice now, so it’s redundant. The formula is now broken…it doesn’t work, you can not calculate a weight now.
See how this works yet? See the problem here yet? You’ve taken a formula that worked…and have now broken it, all because you think density can also be a force.
Flat Earth has taught you some bullshit…and they knew you’d happily go along, because you people don’t really know anything about science, but you do resent it. So if someone promises that you can be a thorn in the eye of science, you will gladly accept any bullshit they feed you to help yourselves sound smarter, so you can stick it to the egg heads.
That’s the reality of what’s actually happening here, as I see it…it’s the scientifically illiterate, playing pretend, so they can be an annoyance to an authority they no longer trust, and have likely always resented.
Now I could go deeper and explain the physics of buoyancy, demonstrating how we know that gravity actually causes buoyancy, that it doesn’t exist without gravity, but I don’t wanna lose ya just yet. Absorb that lesson on terminology and definitions first, then maybe we’ll discuss further the physics of both gravity and buoyancy.
Just know that density explains nothing…you’re not answering for the motion, you’re just taking an already well defined term in science, and using it again, redefining it…without understanding what that then does. You’re butchering terminology, to fool yourselves into believing you know physics better than actual scientists.
1
-
@XxlightxX Now I can shift gears into a more civil tone, then maybe we can have a conversation, but you’ll have to drop the attitude and accept that we’re not just indoctrinated plebs, we actually do understand what we’re talking about. I don’t mind keeping an open mind and discussing a different side of things, but to have a conversation like that first requires mutual respect. I’ll respect that you see things differently and it makes better sense to you, if you can respect that I’m no slouch on the topic of physics and the current consensus is what I understand best. I don’t claim to know everything, but what I do know I understand quite well. Perhaps I can fill some gaps, and perhaps you can help me better understand your point of view. I don’t mind having a more rational discussion of ideas, I don’t mind listening to a different side of things, because I can respect that you’re thinking for yourself.
I just find all this dick waving is quite counter productive, perhaps you’d agree. If you have a point, forcing it down my throat isn’t going to achieve much and vice versa. I’ll drop the attitude if you will, then maybe we can have a conversation. What do you say?
You don’t talk down to me and I’ll extend you the same respect.
1
-
1
-
@XxlightxX Oh I have no doubt neither of us would be able to convince the other of anything, that’s not the point for the discussion invitation I was extending. Point is to learn more about the opposing perspective, to see if there’s anything we may have overlooked. It’s a great way to learn more, by challenging our perspectives with an open mind. Regardless of changing any minds, it’s still worth it I feel, I find I learn a lot from open conversations with a different perspective. Best way to keep us from the pitfalls of confirmation bias.
It’s fine though, if you don’t want too, I certainly can’t force you. But one of us was willing to be open minded here, while the other has no interest in seeing anything beyond what they already believe. So I mean to quote you from earlier, you said “don’t argue with fools. It’s like talking to a rock 🪨. They think they know it all and you’re mislead no matter what you say to them…”. Kettle, meet pot.
1
-
@XxlightxX Ok, but what about the applied sciences that use the Globe model in their framework? Such as navigation, which is a good example of an applied science anyone can test themselves, it also demonstrates an applied working knowledge of geometry, and why knowledge of geometry is important. Do you really think the millions of pilots and sailors who navigate the surface every day, could do that job with any proficiency or accuracy, if they didn’t really know the true geometry of the Earth they navigate?
We can speculate all day on satellites and NASA and what governments are doing, but wouldn’t you rather focus on information you can test directly, that you don’t have to speculate on? Anyone can learn to navigate, and I can tell you with confidence that knowledge of the surface dimensions, shape and scale is pretty important in navigation. I’m sure you’d agree that an accurate map is required to find a destination…so it’s a good question I feel, do you think pilots and sailors can navigate Earth successfully, without knowing its true shape? I can also say with confidence, because I do know how to navigate and I have tested it, and the entire system of current navigation is built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical.
Anyway, just curious what your thoughts are on that. Have you tested navigation yourself? Do you know how to navigate using only the stars, a compass and a sextant? It’s fine if you don’t, but it is one of the many ways I have personally confirmed Earths shape, and I do feel it’s good evidence that doesn’t really get addressed much be FE. They’ll point to some odd flight routes, and make speculations about flights they believe don’t exist, but I never really see them truly tackle the subject of navigation. Seems odd to me, as this is a discussion of surface geometry…what better way to determine surface geometry, than to test the methods used to navigate it?
And why close a door? What if you were wrong? What if FE is just a clever scam? You’d never know, if you never really challenge it. I’m fine with challenging the globe, it’s one of the things I actually admire about FE, challenging something that everyone else has largely moved on from, I think that’s a good thing, keeps us sharp. But you had to keep an open mind then, why shut it now?
1
-
@XxlightxX I just feel it’s disingenuous to say “there is no evidence for a globe”, when that’s simply not true. If there really wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be a discussion, this would be easily settled. I can accept that it’s very difficult to determine Earths shape from our tiny perspective, so I’m always willing to admit that there is evidence in support of Flat Earth, I think it would dishonest to deny it. It certainly appears flat at first glance, so it’s easy to see how that was the starting conclusion and the first model.
There is real evidence for a globe…but you’re less likely to find it, if you’re only working from within the bubble of Flat Earth. That’s why these chats are good, cause the same is true for me. In this way we can conduct a form of peer review, from two sides of the spectrum.
Anyway, just some food for thought, I won’t bother you further if it’s just white noise at this point. It’s Christmas soon, so tis the season for relaxing and being better towards others. Merry Christmas, to you and yours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't just believe it blindly, it's observed to be the case. All measurement and observation points to that conclusion, we are orbiting our Sun, and that orbit is massive, requiring we be moving at some pretty intense speeds to cover that distance in a single yearly cycle. Observing the parallax that's occurring in stars over several years observation, is why we also have concluded we're orbiting a galactic center, among many other observations that point to this conclusion. We also have figured out how this motion is possible, through our current understanding of the physics of relative motion and the laws of motion, which you can look up and research at any time. This Physics is pretty easy to learn and demonstrate for yourself, at any time you choose to take a look and learn it, so now that you're aware of it, the choice is yours. You're making a lot of arguments from both ignorance and personal incredulity, both are not good methods for finding answers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 When does it ever run uphill? Rivers flow from high elevation to low elevation, elevation on the Globe is measured from centre of Earth. Farther you are from centre, the higher your elevation, closer you are to centre, the lower your elevation. Nile runs from high elevation to low elevation, just like every river does, it’s not difficult.
Eratosthenes experiment doesn’t prove anything as it is, with only two shadow measurements you can only measure the circumference, or find Flat Earths AU, but it doesn’t prove either, only infers. Take any more than two measurements though, and you can plot the data on known distance points, and then you can prove which model is reality...and I’m pretty sure I shared an example, so did you bother to watch it?
No, sextants do not prove a flat Earth, measuring the angle of stars by latitude to the horizon, gives measurements consistent with a spherical geometry, verifying the Earth is spherical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 Why is no force required for the downward motion? It’s a motion, correct? First law of motion states that nothing is put into motion without a force first putting it into motion. Is falling the exception? You’re responsible for the lift and the release of an object, yes, but the motion that occurs after you release it, that happens without your input, making it a phenomenon of nature, a force putting matter into an accelerating motion. Perhaps it’s better stated this way. Toss a ball up, you’re responsible for the kinetic force that put it into motion upward, but a counter force is always draining that kinetic energy, until that energy is spent, then it stops and drops back down...completely free of your influence. You’re still not giving any answer for why or how, that downward motion occurs, but you sure are trying really hard to deny that a force is required here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 Gravity has an answer for why, and it’s even proven its hypothesis. Science has observed it, it’s tested it thoroughly, it’s measured it, it now applies this data in equations used in actual applied science, for engineering and making predictions for celestial events. Density and buoyancy are just stating the obvious, you must have a very low opinion of science if you think these aren’t already included concepts in gravity physics.
You can’t falsify science by stating an empty claim...that’s not science, it’s ignorance for the sake of confirming bias. Believing what you WANT to believe, instead what is objectively true. Then you really think anyone should take you seriously? We can go back and forth all day, you will never get past explaining the downward motion we observe in physical reality. Meanwhile gravity physics is centuries beyond that problem, solving much bigger mysteries, and building the modern world.
It’s time to grow up.
1
-
@flatearth5821 And why does it require effort? Maybe because an opposing FORCE is constantly trying to pull you back down? Ya, I’d say so. You’re describing a force, whether it clicks in your mind or not. Falling is effortless, because of a FORCE, that pulls you to ONE direction, toward surface. If gravity didn’t exist, there would be no falling, there would be no buoyancy. Density would still exist, but it wouldn’t go anywhere, without a force to put it into motion, it won’t move at all. Basic physics and undeniably true.
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 That’s because you don’t really understand it, my guess is because you’ve never really tried, you just wrote it off as nonsense then never bothered to listen to any further talk of it. And I’m sorry if that is condescending, and you’ve probably heard it many times before, but you have to understand that it’s the only conclusion that makes sense, so that’s why you’re hearing it a lot. You’re getting ahead of yourself, we’re not even past the starting point for understanding this phenomenon of nature, so until you get the foundation, you’ll never be able to grasp the rest.
Gravity started simple, it was merely the name given to the downward motion of falling, that we all observe in nature, the one we both agree is undeniable and is a fundamental truth of nature. Falling is a motion, gravity started as simply the name given to that motion. From there science has to answer for how it works, that’s the point of science, to figure out how physical reality functions. Falling is a property of nature, so it falls under science to learn more about it.
I agree, simply stating and concluding outright it’s a force between masses, created by both masses, concluding that without verifying it first, is not how science is conducted. Luckily, that’s not how science reached that conclusion, they TESTED it first. The hypothesis was put forth that this motion was a mass attraction, caused by a yet to be determined mechanism. The next step was to test that hypothesis. The first test they did was in astronomy, testing this principle against the orbit of Earth around the Sun, with what information they had. It seemed logical to account for the celestial orbits of all things, so a formula was created F=Gm1m2/r2. For awhile, the big G could only be assumed, it was not measured yet, nor was it proven. Some experiments were done with oscillating pendulums, but nothing conclusive. But then Henry Cavendish conducted the first successful experiment, an experiment that was conclusive and has been repeated now many times. It not only proved the hypothesis of mass attraction, it measured the force directly.
If you’ve never seen the experiment conducted before, then here’s the clearest demonstration I’ve seen so far https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68. It’s a very clear experiment, demonstrating an attraction between masses. It’s not long, in 7 minutes you can see it demonstrated and learn all about it. It’s easily repeated too, here’s a high school girl repeating the experiment, and taking it a step further, demonstrating how to measure the constant of G https://youtu.be/jkjqrlYOW_0.
So science now had its figure, the next step was to test it again, for the orbits of planets. Almost every single planet tested, with Newtons laws of universal gravitation (and of course Kepler’s planetary motion geometry) came back with incredible accuracy...the only planet not accounted for being Mercury, which had an orbit that did not fit the numbers perfectly.
Not surprisingly though...the Cavendish test only verified mass attraction and measured its constant, it didn’t explain HOW mass attracts mass, that wasn’t realized until centuries later, with Einstein, who did eventually solve the orbit of Mercury.
See how this works? Science didn’t just conclude instantly that it was mass attracting mass, it tested that hypothesis thoroughly, until it couldn’t be denied. Electromagnetism was falsified, static attraction falsified, Aether falsified, all that was left standing was mass attraction...and now it’s understood that mass is bending space and time.
It’s a process and we can tell the science is accurate, when it becomes useful, when it becomes an applied science. We now put satellites, probes and rockets into orbit, we predict celestial events decades in advance, even centuries...understanding gravity helps us do that. We’ve even recreated nuclear fusion in lab experiments...the very reaction that fuels the Sun, science has created this reaction...it did that, with gravity physics. So gravity is proven true, with every time we successfully put it to use.
Point is, you’re getting ahead of yourself and you’re being ignorant. You’re thinking about gravity all wrong and that’s why it doesn’t make sense to you. You’re not considering the very real possibility, that YOU are misunderstanding the science and THAT is why it’s not making sense. Instead of considering every variable, you’re concluding it’s nonsense, simply because it doesn’t make sense to you. But, just because something doesn’t make sense to you, does not mean it’s wrong.
There’s also the fact that Earth is measured and observed to be spherical. You don’t have to understand gravity physics, you just have to observe the truth in the geometry, proven every single day, when pilots and sailors find their destinations using the globe model. Not understanding gravity physics, does not make the geometry just disappear...I don’t care if you can’t reconcile the two, the rest of us can...if you can’t, then that’s your problem, not the problem of science.
Either way, density does not even get out of the starting gate...it can’t even answer the very first questions and it does nothing for applied science. That’s the horse you’re betting on, a dead horse. You can beat it all you want, but it’s still a dead horse at the end of the day.
1
-
@flatearth5821 But yes, for every mystery solved, 2 more questions are raised...that’s the process of science and it’s unavoidable. We will always have questions to answer, but questions are not evidence and creating further questions isn’t a falsity, it’s expected. FE holds questions up, as if it’s evidence, as if we toss the baby out with the bath water, simply because many mysteries are still not solved. And no, we don’t just stop because we have further questions, we keep going and we answer those questions too. We will likely never answer every question, that’s just the reality of our situation. But it doesn’t mean we stop...and it doesn’t mean we’re wrong. Modern technology is proof that we’re on the right path......you just let me know how much technology FE is responsible for sometime.
1
-
@flatearth5821 Ok, so let’s go into your spider and train thought experiment. You’re making a false equivalence here, a spider on a ceiling is upside down relative to the surface and the gravity vector it’s in. The train is not, relative to surface and the gravity vector, it is right side up. Make sense? The trouble in reasoning here, is that you (and most people of FE) seem incapable of understanding how gravity works here, gravity pulls to centre of mass and gravity is what gives everything it’s inertial orientation. You’re right side up, so long as you’re orientated to gravity, feet on the ground, head toward the sky. People in Australia are not upside down, you’re misunderstanding gravity vectors.
You seem to think gravity goes from North to South, the error here is in visualizing it like a ball you hold in your hand, where gravity runs through it in one direction, down to the ground you’re standing on. Then you think there’s the extra force of gravity pulling to centre, so it’s like you seem to think there are two forces, acting like the North to South force gives the train its weight...and that’s not how it works. There’s just the one force, pulling to centre, that is what’s giving the train weight.
Gravity is what gives an object weight, an object always has mass, but weight is created by gravity+contact with the surface. Weight is just inertia, created by every molecule in your body being squeezed into the surface, by the force of gravity. And again, everything with mass creates its own gravity, so the more mass something has, the more gravity is effecting it. The spider has far less mass, so this is actually part of the reason why it’s so easy for it to resist gravity, the less mass something has, the less it’s effected by gravity. All falls under the law of gravitation.
You’re making a false equivalence fallacy with your spider and train argument, also an argument from ignorance, because you’re ignoring the basic physics of the model you’re refuting.
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 And yet, everything around you in the world of applied science, uses the globe model...and it all works. When FE can provide the same results, then perhaps it will have legs to stand on...but not likely, because everything already works and Earth can only have one distinct geometry, in the 3 dimensions we occupy. If your science was so superior, it would be useful and you’d have no trouble demonstrating it. But you spend more time looking for holes in our model, than you do looking at your own...then you just expect everyone to agree blindly and without question, even though FE has never been used to innovate or engineer anything.
Can you really blame any of us for challenging your claims? You’re not doing a very good job and the globe demonstrates every day how useful it is...doesn’t take much to deduce which position is true, even if you’re not scientifically literate enough to understand how. But many of us are, and we do see how FE is flawed, so we do what we can to share those details.
I think it’s time YOU woke up...not the other way around.
1
-
@flatearth5821 Because they’re not upside down...because gravity isn’t from North to South, it’s towards centre. Just stop and think about it for one second longer than your bias allows. If gravity pulls to surface everywhere on Earth, then down is always towards surface, correct? If your feet are on the surface, then you are right side up, correct? Ok, then people in Australia, who walk around with their feet on the surface, gravity pulling them toward surface, then they are not upside down at all, they’re orientated correctly to their gravity vector.
It’s so simple...it’s frustrating that some people actually can’t get this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hmm, seems you deleted a reply back to me, but I got some of it so I'll reply to it. Here's what I received.
Tyrone Simpson replied: "MrSirhcsellor MrSirhcsellor you’re assuming I don’t which is telling of your ignorance. Light refraction does not explain why the boat is supposedly still seen as straight over a length of space. T..."
9 hours ago
Yes it does explain this occurrence, because refraction effects what we see...that's how it works. It bends light and causes our eyes to interpret that light completely different then how a distant object actually is, causing for example a boat to APPEAR higher, then it actually is. Here's a quick demonstration that shows you pretty clearly why refraction is important to factor in long distance observations of ships over horizon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs Notice how when he increases the air density a tiny bit, you suddenly see objects hidden by the curve of that cylinder? The same thing happens in our atmosphere closer to the horizon, so it's relevant and Flat Earth can't just ignore this. Refraction happens in our atmosphere, especially over large bodies of water where the air density is going to be higher closer to the water surface.
I assumed you didn't know anything about refraction, because your first comment didn't mention it at all. If you knew how refraction works...then you'd know it's relevant, so why ask such a dumb question you already knew the answer too? Both of your comments now tells me that you ignore refraction on purpose...which makes you the ignorant one here...which is pretty typical of Flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
@fxeconomist You’re making a false equivalence and misunderstanding motion physics. You can lose momentum due to friction...of course physics is aware of drag force, what makes you think they’re not? jumping from one car to another, you’re smashing into a lot of air and THAT slows your momentum in that example. The air around the car is not moving at the same speed as the car, so it’s not moving relative to the car, so it becomes an opposing force, it creates drag, slowing momentum. But what happens if the air were moving with the vehicles at the same relative rate? There would be no drag, no opposing force, so momentum would not slow. A plane and the air around it, are both moving with the Earth, so they’re both within that inertial reference frame of motion...which greatly reduces drag on the plane in air. Most of the planes momentum is conserved, always moving WITH the Earth. So is the air.
It’s the same exact physics that occurs in any moving vehicle, or complete system of motion. Next time you’re in a fast moving vehicle down a straight patch of road, toss a paper airplane around sometime inside that system of motion. You’ll find it’s just as effortless as when you toss it around in a room. But then ask yourself...how does your little paper airplane, keep up with a fast moving vehicle? Because motion is always conserved, motion is relative. Try it with a drone sometime if you wanna take it a step further, you’ll find it will fly with the vehicle just fine. It’s basic physics of motion...relative motion.
You really need to learn some basic physics, the laws of motion and relative motion for starters. Most of your problems stem from misunderstandings of basic motion physics.
The more alarming thing is that people seem to really think science hasn’t figured this stuff out already. You must really think less of science, if you honestly think they don’t factor drag force into motion physics. You really think you’re finding holes that nobody in the scientific community has thought of yet? You’re asking great questions of physics...but you’re not really listening to the answers. They’re good questions, but they’re old questions, solved hundreds of years ago. I’d suggest watching some lectures and demonstrations on the laws of motion and relative motion. Tons of resources online that can help you out.
1
-
1
-
@mass1985 "If the space and globe were real, we would have space tourism already, we do not have it."
Why do you think we should be at that level already? Do you think space travel is easy? Do you put rockets into space for a living? If not, what makes you think you know anything about space travel? Do you realize that just 5 years ago, it cost about half a billion dollars to launch ONE rocket into space? How do you sustain an industry with that kind of price tag attached? It wasn't until very recently that Elon Musk and his company SpaceX, dropped that price tag down to about 50 million per launch, thanks to their Falcon 9 rocket technology, that has made rockets reusable. Still pretty damn high though...you know how much it costs to fly one plane international? Nowhere near that amount. So why do you think this industry should exist already? Are you going to pay for it? Do you have the technology that can bring costs down enough to make it economically viable for everyone?
Little hard to build a space tourism industry, when the only company that was working on figuring out how to accomplish that, is grossly under funded...because the general public is paranoid and doesn't seem to understand that you have to FUND the sciences, if you want to have RESULTS from the sciences. It's only changed over the last decade because of the private industries that exist now, like SpaceX, who have tossed their hats in the ring to make it their goal to bring space tourism to reality.
Seriously though, what kind of logic is that? "Space tourism doesn't exist yet, so that means space must be fake." Is this how you conclude everything? So the Americas didn't exist back in the day...because we didn't travel there yet? You know how long it probably took to make it viable for every person to travel to America back in the day? It took about 100 years to make that viable for everyone that wasn't a sailor or a person of extreme wealth and status, America was discovered in 1492, but the first colonies weren't established until 1607. So Jesus man...give it time! Traveling space isn't exactly like driving across country. The only thing that would be harder would be traveling through the core of the Earth...it's HARD to get things into space and even harder to transport people through space safely. Until that is made safer and cheaper, it's not going to be an industry for the general public...that's just the way it goes.
But you're in luck, there are a companies right now working on this and they hope to have their first programs going by next year. You likely still won't be able to afford it, but soon space travel won't be limited to just astronauts....but be patient, it will be some day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trojax44 It sounds like you're paranoid to me, that wouldn't happen though if you just took the time to LEARN some science, and stop letting conspiracy nuts scramble your brains. Paranoia and fear of science is a byproduct of scientific illiteracy, if you don't know how anything works, it's natural for the mind to start filling the blanks with worst case scenarios...that's how our brains are wired, we're prone to reacting first and thinking much later. Worry and dread tend to rule our thoughts more then optimism, I feel paranoia increases the less you know about something...the opposite is true the more knowledge you acquire, but it's harder then ever these days, because misinformation spreads around so much easier then ever before. So you really have to be careful where you're getting your information from.
In my experience, Flat Earth (as well as many other conspiracies) are conning people...fooling you into believing that science has been lying to you for malicious purposes, and these con men do it so they can sell you more books and documentaries. It's a scam, they are modern day snake oil sales men. They exploit peoples laziness and lack of knowledge, feeding you quick and easy to digest bullshit, that is more akin to misdirection then actual facts. If you had any knowledge of physics, or astronomy, or mathematics, you'd know right away how these people con you...but in my experience, Flat Earthers are not people who have backgrounds or experience with ANY of those fields.
It's perfectly fine to ask questions, it's even logical. It's also perfectly logical to demand higher standards from science. If there are groups of swindlers in science that are up to no good, then those individuals should be held accountable, absolutely. But when it comes to the shape of the Earth....this is not something that can be so easily hidden or brainwashed into us. There are just too many minds out there, working in industries where they rely heavily on our knowledge of the Earth to be accurate, in order to do their jobs with any level of efficiency.
I know you feel very strongly that the Earth is flat...but what exactly led you there? Was it actual evidence, or just pure speculation, bias and paranoia? Speculation is dangerous, cause it can feel like evidence...but most people seem to really have a hard time discerning the difference...and we all have our bias, that we also tend to follow more so then objective truth. Your bias seems pretty simple, a lack of trust of authority and your faith. Both are powerful bias. My bias is probably a deep trust and respect for science, it's just as powerful, but at least I'm aware of my bias, that helps me to keep it under control. I feel it's important to be aware of your bias, if you want to really keep it from getting in the way of objective truth.
Either way, the shape of the Earth is easy to discern, anyone can deduce the true shape with just a little bit of effort and critical thought. Observe any sunset for example, and then just try to make sense of that over a Flat Earth. Very basic things about reality just fall apart the moment you try and make sense of them on a Flat Earth...meanwhile, the Globe answers for these same occurrences with absolute ease. A sunset for example, the Earth rotates away from the Sun each day causing it to rise and set...there, explanation over. But how exactly does the sun set on a Flat Earth? Where does it go at night? Somebody always sees the Sun somewhere on Earth, so it's not just disappearing. So it has to occupy the same visual sky, so if that's the case...then how does it set? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9d4bjImHM&t=5s
The Earth is not flat, but of course I can't force you to believe that statement, you'd have to go through the evidence and make up your own mind. I am sure you have done that, for at least one half of the discussion, you wouldn't be a Flat Earther otherwise. If it interests you though, I could share some information with you that you may have overlooked. Up to you really, my aim is not to mock you or ridicule you for having a belief that is opposite of mine, just here to offer some information from the opposite side of the argument, if you'd like to know more about it. At this point I know quite a lot about Earth science, so feel free to ask and maybe I can help provide some perspective.
1
-
@trojax44 No, cause that's not possible. I don't think it has ever been the goal of science to destroy or disprove the concept of God, so it's not my intention either. Science is just another tool in the belt, it's a method of thought that we use to deduce how physical reality works, nothing more. In my opinion, science has done more to prove God even more grand then ever before. What's more impressive, a God that created a tiny terrarium we can never escape, or a God that created a cosmos so vast and expansive we will never hope to explore it all or even comprehend it...but we're free too explore all we like, so long as we're willing to try? For me it's the latter, and being a very curious person, I don't like limitations, I am personally more excited by a universe so vast it's impossible to see and understand it all. But, that's my bias right...point is, science will likely never disprove God, that's not what science is for anyway.
Anyway, no, I won't argue against a God, I have my own spiritual beliefs on that point, so I'd merely just share information on the points of Globe Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BriansLogic Yup, cause long dragged out conversations with little Nathan Oakley Jr’s are pointless. At the end of the day, you’re just keyboard warriors, with zero real world experience. You know it and so do I. You repeat a bunch of keywords to appear knowledgeable, some is legit, some is completely made up, but it’s all for show. And it’s all pointless rambling…science is pointless if you can’t apply the knowledge. So, if you’re so confident, then save us both the bullshit, and navigate across an ocean successfully with your superior understanding, without any aide from the globe model and current systems of navigation (which all use the globe), and document the trip, then you can argue. Until then, it’s pointless to chat with you people. :/
I’ve travelled the world…I’ve made observations in both hemispheres, that are not possible on a Flat Earth. You have to abandon all common sense (and basic geometry) to ever believe they could be, or too believe any pilot or sailor could ever navigate anywhere successfully without accurate knowledge of the surface they navigate. Stop wasting everyone’s time…navigate somewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ever considered the possibility that it’s actually Flat Earthers who have been deceived, by huxters online who took advantage of the gaps in your current knowledge and experience? The ridicule is unfortunate, but it’s a natural human reaction towards the absurd, so I’d say grow a thicker skin if you’re going to challenge common knowledge. But a lot of the time…it is deserved, just as many nasty Flat Earthers coming to these videos to troll, so don’t pretend like they’re innocent.
Science doesn’t mind questions, but Flat Earthers rarely ask questions with the intention to learn anything, or to spark discussion. Most of the time they’re trying to force us to agree…before they’ve even presented us with a scientific model that actually works and is proven. Then they’re surprised when people react aggressively? Even here in your comment above, you’re basically bragging at the start, more than you are introducing a topic to be discussed.
Why do you feel the globe is nonsense? Why should we agree that your conclusion has any merit? I think you’d find that people would harass you less, if you didn’t start your comments with thinly veiled jabs, followed by zero evidence to support your claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well...we didn't start with the heliocentric model...you numpty. We deduced the SHAPE of the planet first, using simple observations, the heliocentric model and all its movements became known and understood MUCH later. But the shape can't be denied...by thinking the Earth is Flat you ignore Sun sets and sun rises (same goes for the Moon), they always maintain the same angular size throughout a day and then dip into the horizon...this would not occur on a Flat Earth. You also ignore that we have TWO equal hemispheres that are the same size, also impossible on a Flat Earth. These two hemispheres also see different stars and have TWO celestial rotations around their own central pole stars, this is exactly what we'd expect to see occur on a Globe, but does not make any sense on a Flat Earth. None of these things work on a Flat Earth...but you're happy to ignore them anyway for some reason.
The list goes on, there are hundreds of simple observations like this...that you people have to ignore, in order to accept the Earth is Flat. Also, it's not the fault of science that you are too stupid to understand how relative motion and conservation of momentum work...that's your problem, but you don't care, Flat Earth brings you closer to your imaginary friend in the sky, so you're just looking for ANY reason to make it feel more real to you. I get it...but that's called CONFIRMATION BIAS! And it's not very objective...thankfully, the scientific community knows better to leave religion out of these discussions. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
1
-
The level on a plane experiment is an inconclusive experiment, that doesn't verify or falsify either model, so it can't be used as evidence...that was his main point there. Flat Earthers however do use it as evidence, not realizing how it is inconclusive, so this makes it the perfect example of how people fall for Flat Earth...by illustrating how scientifically illiterate you'd have to be, to count that experiment as evidence. That's the topic of this video after all, talking about HOW people become flat Earthers.
So the point is pretty clear here, if Flat Earthers use inconclusive experiments as their evidence, then they are bias researchers...which means they're very likely reaching a great many false conclusions, as they'd probably make the same mistake with most of their observations. The Bedford level experiment performed by Rowbotham is another perfect example of an inconclusive experiment, done only to confirm a bias. Are you seeing a pattern here yet?
Flat Earthers are led by bias, not objective science. These two experiments he shared here are evidence of that, so that's how a lot of people become flat Earthers, they don't know how to spot inconclusive results, and they don't know how to keep their bias in check. It's pretty simple. If you'd like to learn more about how both experiments are inconclusive, I don't mind going deeper into the science.
1
-
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Yes, the laws of motion don't prove that Earth is in motion, they just confirm that it is possible. Relative motion verifies that the motions of the planet is within the realm of real plausible physics. But you're right, that doesn't prove that Earth is in motion, that science just explains and proves that it is possible. So now if you want I can help you with some experiments that do help to verify Earths motions, particularly it's rotation which is the easiest of the motions for anyone to verify on their own. Here are 5 examples of scientific experiments/technologies that anyone can reproduce for themselves, that verify Earths rotational motion.
1.Ring Laser Gyros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXYV6wNdZm8&t These gyros are used in planes today to detect pitch, yaw and roll of the plane. They are deadly accurate for detecting rotational motion and they use the Sagnac effect to achieve this. Here's a more in depth experiment done with a home built Sagnac interferometer (basically a stripped down laser gyro), detecting Earths rotation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t Here's the best visual representation of the Sagnac effect I've seen demonstrated so far, if you're like me, I tend to find visuals like these more helpful for learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q To summarize, light is shot through a splitting mirror that then travels along two alternate paths, arriving back at a detector. When not in a rotational motion, both beams of light arrive at the detector at the same time, when put into a rotation, there is a detectable difference in arrival times between the two, that's the simplest way to explain it. This shift can be measured to give the rate of rotation, which is how it's used in planes. If it didn't detect rotational motion....then it wouldn't be used in gyros on passenger jets, so it does detect rotations and it has been used to measure Earths rotation. We have been using this very technology to detect Earths rotation for decades now and even Flat Earth has done the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A&t
2. Gyro Compasses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t The gyro compass is a device used by most modern large passenger/cargo ships who travel internationally. They're far more accurate than your standard magnetic compass because these compasses always point to true north, rather than the magnetic north of standard compasses. What's interesting here, is that they actually use the rotation of the Earth to achieve this. Here's how they do it, ALL mechanical gyros precess. It is a flaw of the mechanical gyro that can't be overcome, because the moving parts have to be touching each other in mechanical gyros, which creates friction, which creates torque, which will move the gyro out of rigidity over time in a steady precession. What some clever engineers noticed however, is that while you can't completely eliminate friction in these mechanical gyros, you can control the friction to set a rate of precession. So what they've done with these gyros, is they have calibrated them to align with the polar axis of our Earth and then have set the precession rate to align with the Earths rate of rotation. Because gyros do keep their rigidity aside from precession, these gyros now will always point to true North and they precess with the rotation of the Earth at the same rate, to achieve that. The fact that these gyros work as intended, verifies the Earths rotation, as the ground would have to be rotating beneath the free spinning rigid gyro, to keep up with that rate of precession. So it was clever engineering that verifies Earth rotation, taking the unavoidable flaws of a piece of equipment and coupling that with Earths motions, to create a compass that always points to true North. If Earth isn't rotating...then these compasses would not work the way they are supposed too. it's worth looking into and learning more about. You can even purchase your own mechanical gyros and create your own Northern aligned precessions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cvD9V4C_TU
3. Foucault Pendulum experiments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t This is one I have seen demonstrated myself, and it's fairly simple to recreate. I'm sure you've heard of these by now, if you've been looking at Flat Earth long enough, this was the very first experiment done that helped verify Earths rotation. So what's happening here, a free swinging pendulum passes through a short change in latitude/longitude while it swings back and forth, which causes it to undergo some Coriolis effect, as it conserves the momentum of that swinging motion, freeing it from Earths rotational motion, effectively countering it. The Coriolis effect dictates a few rules of thumb, if Earth is rotating, then we'd expect to see a pendulum swing rotate in a specific direction depending on what hemisphere you run the experiment. What the experiment above also points out, is that you can also do more then that, you can also calculate your latitude, by paying attention to the rate at which it rotates. The closer to the Equator you are, the slower it will rotate, the farther you are, the faster. If you were to run this experiment at the Equator, then it wouldn't rotate at all. Here is a quick visual to help understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6LrZKgRqY And here's a great video breaking down how you can recreate this experiment for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoGY3-zGAY&t It has been repeated many times over the last couple centuries, all over the world, when done correctly accounting for and controlling all variables so that the pendulum is free from Earth rotation, air resistance, tension in the string, etc, then all that is observed is the Coriolis effect in a very simple demonstration. Upon all recreation of the experiment, it has been found conclusive to verify Earth rotation.
I'll break this up a bit, got a little too long for one post.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 4. Measuring Centrifugal Force at the Equator - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t I've shared this already, but here it is again in greater detail. Many people are not aware of this, but you (and everything) actually weighs slightly different in different latitude locations around the world. The equator being the place where you weigh the least. This is due to the centrifugal force generated by Earths rotation, negating a small amount of gravity, about 0.3% at the equator, which causes everything to weigh slightly less. Which is about 0.5 grams difference from a place closer to the tropics of Cancer or Capricorn. Not much, but the great thing here, is that it is measurable with cheap standard equipment that anyone can purchase. So what this guy above has done is a great little experiment anyone could repeat with a bit of travel. What he did was take the same 500 gram weight, using the same scale and then just simply weighed it over and over again, as he traveled closer and closer to the Equator. He took several data sets in a day, throughout the morning evening and night in each location and also over several days in each location, just to make sure he controlled for any flaws of the scale and to test for any time of day effects due to pressure variations in temperature, humidity, weather, etc. Before he left on his trip, he even calculated some predictions for how much Centrifugal force our Earths rotation generates at each latitude and then plotted his predictions onto a simple x and y grid. At the end of his experiment, the math predictions matched with the tested results. The weight weighed less and less the closer he got to the equator, as it should if the Earth were rotating at the rate that it is.
People assume that our Earths rotation should generate a lot more Centrifugal force....but they reach this conclusion, because they really don't know how Centrifugal force works or how to accurately calculate it. All they hear is the 1000 mph rim speed of Earth, and then jump to conclusions based around that. You can tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Flat Earth does, I've never once seen them attempt to understand the physics of Centrifugal/Centripetal force, they just make assumptions about it and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. It's not that simple I'm afraid. If you're going to successfully falsify something...then you have to get down to the physics of these things and understand it MUCH better then just your assumptions of these things.
The physics is pretty simple really, Centrifugal force is caused by a sudden or rapid change in angular velocity and the biggest factor to its increase is not so much speed, as it is RPM's (rotations per minute). These are not the same, as you increase the circumference of a rotation, it requires more linear speed to complete the same rotations, but the rotations are still the same and the angular velocity decreases. The more rotations per minute, the more Centrifugal force, that's a good rule of thumb really. Distance and speed do play their roles, but it's more the rotational rate that increases this forces output. The Earth rotates at a rate of 1 full rotation every 24 hours, which is twice as slow as the hour hand of a clock. So the Centrifugal force generated by our Earth, is not as great as many would assume...Flat Earth throws around the 1000 mph rim speed of the Earth, but pays zero attention to understanding the physics of Centrifugal force. When you actually figure out the science, you can then figure out how much Centrifugal force our planet generates at it's peak (the equator), it only negates roughly 0.3% of Earths gravity. Which is nowhere near enough to overcome gravity and toss you into space, but it is enough for us to be able to measure it. So this makes for a great experiment to verify rotation. If the Earth is rotating at the rate we know it to be, then those weights should decrease in weight the closer to the equator they get. When this is tested, that's exactly what we find. Here are a couple more of the same experiment, done by others, all receiving the same results. Feel free to repeat it, it only requires weights, a scale and some travel, pretty simple stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo&t
https://youtu.be/agQnj1q2Y08?t=383
5. Coriolis Effect experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t You know what Coriolis effect is I'm sure, so I won't go into this one too much. This experiment is pretty simple to repeat, just requires some set up and if you want to get really crazy with it a buddy in the opposite hemisphere repeating the test to observe the opposite rotation. The video also breaks down Coriolis a little more in depth, cause I get the feeling a lot of people aren't even quite aware how it works. They know what it is, but very few seem to know how it works, so this video explains it pretty well. It's just a difference of distance vs speed caused by conservation of momentum while passing through increasingly shorter lines of latitude from Equator to pole. Objects conserve the momentum of the place they left from, but a rotating globe surface is going to be rotating increasingly slower the closer to the poles you get, meaning the object conserving a faster momentum is going to pull ahead of the slower inertial reference frame (the slower moving latitude closer to the poles), causing it to arc (or appear to arc, it's really just pulling ahead due to conservation of momentum) and in the case of draining water, rotate in a specific direction. This experiment verifies the difference between the hemispheres, but you can verify at least one rotation on your own without a buddy, it's just better to have a buddy to really confirm.
So all of these are examples of experiments that help to verify the rotation of Earth. Feel free to look them over and review them if you like. If you have any questions or rebuttals, feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look.
I'm not trying to be difficult and I know I'm not being unreasonable, Flat Earth has to wake up and accept that they don't know as much as they claim they do. You can argue with layman online all day long, but there are real experts out there who know exactly where you're twisting things, that aren't so easily swayed by the same bullshit. At the very least, Flat Earth needs to stop being so damn arrogant, and at least consider that there is a very good possibility that they could be missing some things and it's confirmation bias that is keeping them from seeing it.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 If you'd have watched the video I shared on Foucault...you'd know that it is a video from someone who recreated the experiment himself in a stairwell, not using any mechanical assistance to keep the pendulum going at all. So that right there verifies to me that you didn't bother to watch any evidence I shared...so why am I even bothering? If you're not going to remain objective and look at the evidence, why bother even discussing?
I have done the research myself Giorgio, does it look like I haven't? Would I be this knowledgeable on the subject if I hadn't been at this awhile now? So please, save your "research it" comments for the suckers that empty rhetoric actually works on. Please share actual evidence that falsifies my evidence...that's how science works. I'm not here to have a pissing contest with you, you asked for evidence I shared evidence. The next step for you is to falsify that evidence, with your own evidence...and so far all you've said in rebuttal are empty speculations and then "research it". It's incredible to me that you think this is all you need to do, that you think this is how you falsify evidence. Evidence is how you falsify evidence, pointing out the flaws of the experiments presented is how you falsify evidence.
The motor rebuttal is an ok attempt, but I've done the research here and I've seen this experiment myself....done without motors, the results are still the same. The reason they use motors in big museums, is because air resistance and center of gravity will always eventually stop that pendulum, so they require a motor to restart the pendulum back and forth motion, that's why they use them in museums.
I'm not here to mock you or claim delusions of grandeur, I actually admire that Flat Earth is questioning modern consensus...I just hate how bias, ignorant and arrogant you are in your process. But if you shared some experiments with me that help to falsify my evidence or verify your own, I would gladly take a look. I'm here for a discussion...you can put your shields up and treat me as a lesser, and then learn nothing new, or you can open up and have a discussion where information is shared free from ridicule and then maybe learn something. I can shift gears into a more civil tone if you'd like, and just focus on evidence, it's no trouble....but that means you have to stay objective and actually LOOK at what I share. I will do the same for your evidence, so the offer is there.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "so did you try to do that on the airplane without the cabin on? Or please show me where the cabin is on earth, because you are not supposed to believe In the dome so...
"
Ok, so here's a common rebuttal I hear from Flat Earthers and it's an ok counter question. Now I'll explain why this is a false comparison you are making and is only a deflection from the main lesson of conservation of momentum.
So how is my example with the closed cabin plane similar to our Earth? Simple, all the air of Earths atmosphere is moving WITH the Earth, all of the air inside the cabin of a closed airplane is moving with the plane. So the closed system airplane is a far more accurate comparison, because in both of these examples, the air is moving WITH their respective inertial reference frame of motion.
So when you open up the cabin of that airplane, what is now different? The air outside is not moving at the same rate as the Plane, it is in a different inertial reference frame of motion. This creates a drag force, which will now slow down the conservation of momentum of things moving within the relative motion of the plane. So this drag force stops conservation of momentum in the second inertial reference frame of motion (the plane). First law of motion again, all things in motion stay in motion until acted upon by an opposing FORCE or MASS. Air is the mass, the contact of that air causes drag force, which stops conservation of momentum of the second system of motion. Getting it yet?
All your argument does is deflects from the lesson here, of conservation of momentum and relative motion. You are making a false comparison and using it to ignore the lesson. So it's deflection, not much more.
You're also assuming that the air of our Earth needs a container, to keep it rotating with the Earth. This is false, it ignores gravity and further ignores conservation of momentu, both of which keep the air moving with the Earth, at the same relative rate of motion. Gravity is the container of Earths atmosphere, it also helps keep it rotating with the Earth at generally the same relative rate. However, the atmosphere is a fluid so it's subject to the same fluid dynamics as any other fluid in motion, which is why the clouds swirl and move in different rates all around the Earth....but it's also why hurricanes rotate in the directions they do, and why they never cross the equator....Coriolis effect, which is observed and very well understood.
Which brings up a good question for you though...if the Earth is stationary, then what exactly is putting the clouds into motion? What causes the observed Coriolis effect of hurricanes and typhoons? The heliocentric model explains both, but can the Flat Earth do the same?
Here's what you really need to learn here though. You're making a false comparison with your "open cabin" counter. Earth is more like a vehicle, the atmosphere moves with the Earth in all its motions, just like the air inside a closed plane is moving with the plane in all its motions....so that is a far great comparison. To make your comparison accurate, Earths atmosphere would be ripped off by drag force...and there is no air in space, so nothing to cause this drag force. So it's a false comparison you've made, and it deflects from the lesson of relative motion.
In closing, here is a pretty simple example of conservation of momentum, done outside. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Now pay close attention to this simple demonstration. Do you notice how this man keeps landing dead center of the trampoline, even though it's being pulled out from under him while in the air? Notice how he's experiencing some drag force, yet he still bounces with the motion of the tractor, as if it's not even in motion? Relative motion in action...real science, easy to demonstrate, conclusive. You do your argument no favors by ignoring the science.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "Show me one shipment of any product that takes this into account"
Great question, but you're making an assumption. You're assuming they don't account for this in industries, so the burden of proof here is more yours than mine, because you're claiming they don't account for this, which is an assumption. On the flip side, I have shared an experiment that verifies a centrifugal force change, you have not. So where I have evidence, you're counter argument is an assumption and not evidence. So nice try, but not good enough I'm afraid. This burden of proof is more yours than mine, so keep going.
I don't assume to know everything and I'm certainly not an importer/exporter or a scale manufacturer. But I do understand the physics and if I was to account for this issue, I would account for it in my scale and create a consistency chart that accounts for centrifugal force for all scales used, that chart going by latitude. Basically I would design scales to be used by latitude location, to account for each change by latitude to measure a consistent weight in every location. I know they do this for simpler weighted scales you see in say a doctors office, these scales come with weights that account for the weight change by latitude. I would assume they do the same with industrial scales used in shipping yards or at markets, but I don't know for certain so I won't assume to know.
So it would be interesting to learn more on the subject, so I'll do that. In the meantime, this is more a burden of proof on your end, because you're assuming they don't...but you don't really know.
So I won't speak on things I don't know for certain. What I do know for certain though, is that the experiment I shared demonstrates a weight change in the 500 gram weights, as it gets closer to the equator. That doesn't just happen on its own. This change in weight is consistent with the pre-calculations done for centripetal force at Earths projected speed and scale. So where I have shared evidence of a measured centripetal force by latitude, you've made an assumption.
I'll do some digging to see if they account for centripetal force in sending things to marker, it's not an industry I have experience with, but I'll do some research, I don't mind learning more about it. If I come across anything, I'll let ya know. But it's getting late, so off to bed I go.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "So, the air around a rock next to the vaccum of space moving at millions of miles per hour, and doesn't lose any air, at the same time an airplane flying inside that air needs a container for the air to move with it."
You're still not getting the comparison. Earth is experiencing no drag force through space, the plane in your example with an open cabin is experiencing a great deal of drag force....seeing the difference? One has drag force that will remove the air, the other has none...so no air lost. So false comparison.
There is another false assumption flat Earth makes, that vacuum is actively sucking our atmosphere off, or that entropy will cause our atmosphere to disperse into space (which it does a little bit, but not very much at all). This is false, space is not a suction...it's not actively sucking anything, that is not what is meant by vacuum here. The very first definition of vacuum is "a space void of all matter", that's space in a nutshell...a space void of matter. Of course, everything is technically in space...but there are HUGE pockets of nothing between everything, we call these pockets of vast empty space, the vacuum of space. It's not implying a suction...if you think it is, then that's your error here.
Entropy does occcur, but a rule of entropy that Flat Earth ignores is that it can be slowed. You do it all the time with a simple thermos you use to keep your coffee hot. Gravity does something similar, by slowing the entropy occurring in upper atmosphere. Except it does it with FAR greater efficiency. Entropy will win, it always does, but it's not happening very fast all with Earths atmosphere.
Either way, still making that false comparison instead of realizing where you're going wrong...good job.
" wonder at which point do you stop and realice that you just can't fit everything that doesn't fit the previous hypothesis, into a completely opposite hypothesis and then claim it works"
I wonder if you've ever bothered to look at the model you're supporting and ask yourself the very same question. The Globe doesn't have all the answers yet, but nothing in the model contradicts anything else. The only people who think it does, are people who don't understand it...and then think that means it's wrong, rather than considering the very real possibility, that they're just not smart enough to understand the higher physics. Maybe tomorrow, we'll spin the lens around and go through some problems of your model....and then I hope you'll maybe finally realize just how flawed it truly is....cause let me tell ya, it's a doozy how broken the flat Earth model is.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Well not quite tired yet, so a few more of your points I'll address now I guess.
"basically EVERY construction crane should obviously follow the same Dynamics, yet guess what they prove... Not movement at all.
"
Is a crane swinging back and forth over and over again over a steady few hours of observation? No...a crane moves from one position, stops, moves to another, stops, it's not swinging back and forth continuously over and over again to cause Coriolis to occur. It's the conservation of momentum in the pendulum that causes the Coriolis effect to be observed and measured, a crane is not doing the same. I don't think you realize how minuscule the shift from Coriolis is...it takes several minutes to hours for a pendulum to bob back and forth before you can observe the change...a crane moving from point A to point B is not long enough to cause any noticeable change. So yet another false comparison you've made...and a weak counter argument in general. Your conclusion here assumes Coriolis is this incredibly immense force that causes problems in cranes. But Coriolis effect is tiny on Earth, it will not effect a crane. You know what it does effect though? Planes in flight, here's an actual pilot discussing how they counter Coriolis in flight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYAfHW0I8&t Yet more evidence of Coriolis.
"gyroscopes prove flat earth on planes every day. You can sophisticate it as much as you want, but gyroscopes work on a free floating basis, the same principle has been used since WWI until today."
You're not considering the inner working mechanics of the gyros that are used in navigation's equipment on board planes. As I pointed out earlier, no mechanical gyro in existence is free from friction precession...so they all tilt out of alignment eventually thanks to friction in the gimbles, that is unavoidable. So to counter this, airplane make use of what are known as pendulous vanes. These are little hinges on the gimbles, that drop once they're out of alignment with center of gravity. When they drop, they open a hatch that allows air into a compartment, which triggers a sensor, which kicks on a motor and applies a torque to the gyro, to tilt it back into level alignment with center of gravity. This counters the natural precession of the gyro, but it also helps them tilt with the curvature of the Earth, because gravity vectors on Earth always point to CENTER of Earth, meaning always to surface no matter where the plane is. So gravity is used in the artificial horizon indicators on board planes, this is a fact, not an opinion. The gyros used here are not as simple as you seem to think, there is mechanics involved here that you have to be aware of, that does matter. Here's an actual pilot explaining these pendulous vanes in greater detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QGRPVBZvw
So, just a couple more of your weak arguments falsified. You're not doing very well so far I'm afraid.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "A crane standing perfectly still, should just never happen me still have a Foucault Pendulum to work"
You love making false comparisons don't you. A crane standing motionless is only moving relative to Earth (this is relative motion again), it's not creating any of its own motion, so it will not undergo any Coriolis effect, Coriolis requires a motion occurring WITHIN the relative motion of Earth. A Foucault pendulum is creating it's motion, that motion it is creating counters Earths rotation, freeing it, making it undergo Coriolis effect. One is creating it's own motion, the other is not....so not the same thing. So you're reaching another false conclusion, due to a false comparison you're making. So ya, I do get to have my cake and eat it too...your misunderstanding of Coriolis effect doesn't falsify Foucault pendulums. Sorry man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "So why is the pendulum in Foucault Pendulum not following those same laws you claim the crane must follow.... can you keep a concept in mind for 30 seconds and try to not contradict yourself with your next claim?"
Again, it's really not my problem if you can't keep up, all I can do is point out your errors and hopefully it clicks eventually. The pendulum is in a back and forth motion, the crane is not. One is creating it's own conservation of momentum, the other is not, it's only conserving the moment of Earths motion. So one is in a system of motion that can register Coriolis drift, and the other is not....an object has to be in continuous motion, for a long period of time, within the inertial reference frame of Earths motion, in order to observe or be effected by Coriolis effect. The crane moves and then it stops...this is not long enough to register Coriolis drift. When the crane stops, the only motion it's registering now, is the relative motion of Earths rotation...that's it. To register Coriolis drift, it would need to swing back and forth for several minutes to hours...depending on where it is, just like a pendulum does. It's the continuous back and forth motion of the pendulum, that sets it apart from a crane and makes it succumb to Coriolis effect.
I really don't know how many ways I can point out to you, that you're making a false comparison...but lets try anyway. What is different about the crane and pendulum? One is swinging back and forth continuously...the other is not, right? Coriolis is an effect we observe, from an object in motion, WITHIN the inertial reference frame of Earths rotational motion. The pendulum is in motion within the system of Earths motion for long periods of time....the crane is not in motion within Earths system of motion, the only motion it has, is the Earths motion. Getting it yet? Christ on a cracker. xD
Either way, whether you understand the physics or not, Coriolis is observed, it is measured, it is verified to exist. I've shared several examples now that verify it and I can share more if you'd like. It's undeniable now, Coriolis effect exists. So how exactly does Coriolis occur, on a stationary flat Earth? What causes it on Flat Earth? Why do pendulums rotate in specific rotations and at varying rates depending on latitude and hemisphere? What's causing it? Why do bullets shot at long range that account for Coriolis drift, hit their targets? Why do pilots have to account for Coriolis while flying? Why do hurricanes and typhoons rotate in opposite directions, as they should under what we understand about Coriolis? Why do they never cross the equator? Questions flat Earth has no answers too....meanwhile the Globe does.
I wonder when you'll realize, that flat Earth is a con job, that takes advantage of your lack of understanding of basic physics and your ego driven desire to be "special".
1
-
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "This my friend is intelectual dishonesty" No, this is not jumping to any conclusions too quickly, this is being diligent and careful and asking the question "well lets see if there's anything else going on here we might need to consider". Science is all about falsification, you don't just stop looking after a bias is confirmed...you keep going to punch as many holes in your experiment as possible, to see if there's anything you did wrong that might have given you a false conclusion. Basically, you do all that you can to falsify your own work...when you can't falsify it any further, THEN and only then can you reach a conclusion with whatever evidence is left standing.
Intellectual dishonesty is stopping at your bias and never looking any deeper into a subject or experiment. And then you make it even worse, by not accepting any peer review or process of falsification to occur after the fact. Intellectual dishonesty is never considering that you could be wrong, which is Flat Earth in a nutshell. I'm fine with being wrong, I don't mind at all, but you have to prove it to me first, I won't just roll over and accept empty claims blindly and without question. Over the years I have spotted many errors in the Flat Earth conclusions, so I'm not just going to ignore them simply because you have trouble seeing those errors...I'm sure you'd agree, that's the best way to do things. I feel Flat Earth reaches a great many bias conclusions, they rush the process and aren't really thinking things through very well...and they for some reason believe themselves above all peer review, and they simply are not, no claim made is above peer review.
So ok, let's look at why that level on a plane experiment is inconclusive and why it doesn't count as evidence for either conclusion.
I'll spare you a long physics lesson of how buoyancy works, I'm sure you've heard it all before. The main point is that the Flat Earth ignores the physics of a spirit level in their conclusion. They look at just the base of what a spirit level does in normal use, it levels surfaces. So they just conclude that because the bubble never shifts, it must mean the surface is level, then they pat themselves on the back for a job well done, no need to look any closer. No peer review required, the experiment is perfect in their mind.
This is how you do science wrong, you're ignoring a LOT of physics and acting like it doesn't matter....this is sloppy bias research and it's not that simple. Nothing in science is.
Earth is huge, nobody is going to dispute that fact. But it matters here, because it takes 70 miles to arc 1 degree of difference on the globe Earth model. For this reason, a spirit level can be used on our surface to create a level surface over a few hundred/thousand square feet. Of course it's curving...but when that degree of curvature is in the arc seconds, it won't matter one bit and so you can use this surface to build a foundation upon, because of how massive the globe is and how tiny we are in comparison. So it's our size compared to the Earth, that makes it possible to use a level to level surfaces for building. If Earth was much much much smaller, then we couldn't do that...but it's not.
The second variable is that the globe model has gravity, gravity is understood to pull all matter to center of mass, all experimentation and evidence collected has verified this to be true. A spirit level uses buoyancy to work, buoyancy is understood to be caused directly by gravity, it is a left over effect of gravity causing a density displacement in the tube. Gravity vectors shift as you travel along the surface of the globe, always pulling to center of mass no matter where you are, so that means so too will the bubble, that is constantly leveling to center of gravity's influence, it will shift to continue being level perpendicular to center of gravity....that's what a bubble level is leveling too, center of gravity for the gravity vector it's currently in.
So if this is true, then the level will read level on both models. If gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat, the level will read level. If gravity exists and the Earth is curved, the bubble will read level. So in conclusion, that means....THIS EXPERIMENT IS NOT ENOUGH TO FALSIFY OR VERIFY EITHER MODEL! Which means it is inconclusive....which means, if you use it as evidence to support your model, then you have done so out of bias. Which means you risk reaching a false conclusion due to confirmation bias.
We have enough evidence today to verify that gravity exists...so you can't just ignore that. But, that's what Flat Earth is best at, ignoring physics it doesn't like. But this is just good ol' fashioned denial and INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. You would first have to successfully falsify gravity, to render this experiment in your favor. Flat Earth has failed in all attempts to falsify gravity...they just think denial and ignorance of this force is all you need to do....and it's not.
That's the real problem with Flat Earth....you seem to think ignoring things is just fine in science. You pick and choose what you want to believe, rather then looking at ALL of the evidence and then forming your conclusion from the evidence. Instead, you start with a conclusion and then only pay attention to the variables that support your conclusion. THIS IS CONFIRMATION BIAS. There's no other way to put it.
Bias will not lead you to any actual truths, it will keep you living a lie and then we'll never get anything done. Thankfully, science is well aware of this, and thankfully they're not as lazy and ignorant as Flat Earthers. Science has done everything they can to counter mans instinct to follow bias and it's worked so far...the proof is all around you.
So basically, until Flat Earth successfully falsifies gravity, this experiment is inconclusive. The definition of inconclusive is as follows. "Not conclusive in evidence or argument; not leading to a determination or conclusion" It's pretty simple stuff....and it's not the only example of Flat Earth reaching inconclusive results and then thinking they've solved things anyway.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 To put that last comment shorter, gravity exists, we have no reason to believe it doesn't. It is a variable that matters and that can't be ignored in the level on a plane experiment. So until Flat Earth can successfully falsify gravity, then it will remain an inconclusive experiment that doesn't support either model. So far, Flat Earth has failed to falsify gravity. They have no experiments that falsify it, just incredulity, ignorance and denial....I shouldn't have to tell you, these are not arguments, they are fallacy's of logic. Flat Earth has no answers or better replacements for why matter is put into motion towards Earth at an accelerating rate when you drop it. The facts are simple, nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it, it's the first law of motion. Falling is a motion, so a force is present that is causing this motion, it's quite simple. This can not be ignored and so science doesn't. Flat Earth does...that's your bread and butter, ignorance.
I choose the side that decided ignorance is not how to find answers. Live in denial if you want, but I will not ignore evidence and I will not place my bias upon an inconclusive experiment.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 False, the Cavendish is repeated constantly around the world, and upon all peer review is found to be conclusive evidence of matter attracting matter. If you bothered to actually look at the experiment and recreate it yourself, you'd know this....but Flat Earth has successfully convinced you to ignore it, so you never bother to recreate it yourself, so you really have no idea. Denial of an experiment and it's conclusion is not an argument against it, it's just straight up denial....can't get anything done if people are just going to pretend when it suites them.
Here's the simplest demonstration and explanation of this experiment, explaining all the variables that are accounted for in the experiment, such air currents, static and electromagnetic fields, string tension, etc. in 7 minutes you can learn all about it and see it demonstrated for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68 I remember recreating this experiment in my high school physics class...it's quite common practice in teaching physics to demonstrate the experiment that verifies matter attracting matter. It did more then that though, it also measured the force of gravity and gave us the universal constant of gravity used in many equations today, from orbital mehanics, to parabolic trajectories, to fluid dynamics, the value of big G is used in many working equations for a great many tasks. Here's a highschool girl, recreating the experiment herself to measure this force for herself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t If she can do this...then anyone can. So your claim that's "Cavendish has never worked" is completely false.
So no, all you really have here is denial...and again, that's not an argument, it's just intellectual dishonesty.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Nope, nothing to assume anymore, the Globe is verified science and you are grasping at straws.
I don't think you've been paying very good attention.....I have done the research flat Earth has asked of me. I have observed boats going over horizon with cameras at full zoom, they still went over curvature, you guys just never thought to keep watching, you just bring the boat back into view, conclude it's vanishing point and then you stop watching. But, you just let me know if you think the bottom of these turbines can be brought back in focus, by zooming in further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc&t=82s The simple fact is, if you can bring a boat or distant object back into focus with a telescopic lens....then it has not gone over the curvature yet, it has just reached the vanishing point of your eye. Vanishing point and horizon are NOT the same thing. Horizon is caused by curvature, vanishing point is caused by the limits of your eye to render an object visible due to perspective. A telescopic lens can fix that, but if you people just KEPT WATCHING past confirming your bias, you'd see boats then begin to dip into horizon, bottom first then disappear. Just like those very large wind turbines are missing their entire base....that's not vanishing point causing that, that's an obstruction, that obstruction being curvature.
I've made these observations myself, I've also reviewed many of the observations made by flat Earthers. I've found they make these 3 mistakes of long distance observations, pretty much every single time. Either they use the wrong math (8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender), or they get their numbers wrong (wrong distances, observer heights, viewing angles, etc.), the third error flat Earth makes, they ignore refraction or other key variables. This is pretty consistent in every long distance observation I've reviewed. All 3 of these errors...will lead to a false conclusion. It's not hard, use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion. Get your figures wrong, you will reach a false conclusion. Ignore important variables like refraction, and you will reach a false conclusion.
If long distance observations are something you hold as pretty good evidence, here's an example I like to share. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment This is basically a recreation of the famous Bedford Level experiment that Rowbotham conducted, only this time done across 10 km of a frozen lake, and this time done properly. See the error of Rowbotham is that he only did ONE observation, collected ONE data set. Then he did the wrong math, ignored refraction entirely and then called his work done. So, like all bias researchers of Flat Earth, he just went so far as to confirm his bias, then he stopped looking. So his experiment is inconclusive, because he didn't do enough to fully account for every variable. It stands today as the perfect example of the dangers of conducting a sloppy experiment to confirm a bias. It's not that it was a bad experiment, it's just that he didn't do enough to render a more conclusive result....he only went as far as to confirm his bias, then he stopped looking.
That version of the experiment I shared above is quite thorough, accounting for every variable, taking multiple data sets, over multiple days, with multiple markers. They've used the correct math, and even used the math in too scale simulations, to give a visual comparison of that math, along side the real world observations. I prefer this experiment over any half assed Flat Earth observation of long distance observations, because this is a more controlled version of that kind of observation. Every variable can be controlled, measured and accounted for with extreme accuracy. The distances are measured and plotted, the heights of the markers are known and placed, the refraction index for that day is known and factored....every variable is accurate and accounted for, isolating the observation of curvature down to the smallest detail. This experiment, is also easily repeated.
The conclusion of this experiment is conclusive, Earth is curving and it is curving at the rate it should given Earths true scale and shape. You asked for evidence of curvature, and there you have it, an extremely thorough scientific experiment that verifies curvature. I encourage you to give it a look sometime. Pay close attention to the section on refraction, you can't miss it, it's the entire second half of the report. It demonstrates quite clearly why this variable can not be ignored in long distance observations. Light bends in atmosphere....this is basic physics, refraction is real, it can not be ignored. This experiment not only verifies that, it factors it into the observation...rather then ignoring it, like Flat Earth does.
So....I don't know how many more ways I can demonstrate Flat Earths COMPLETE ignorance and denial, but I'm sure if we keep going, it should become pretty clear eventually.
YOU are backing a model that doesn't exist........that is a fact, not an opinion. Flat Earth survives on lying to yourself about how physical reality works and ignoring anything that refutes your position. You wanna talk about intellectual dishonesty, Flat Earth is the poster boy for that disorder.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "Feel the heat of the sun everyday and think on how irrational it is for Earth's tilt to create such massive difference in temperature"
This assumes distance is the only thing that can increase/decrease temperature, and it's not. Angle can and will effect how much light energy is focused upon a surface, which will effect the temperature of that surface.
So here's a simple experiment you can do to verify this. Get yourself a heat lamp, and a thermometer. Now place that heat lamp so it's 90 degrees over a surface, shining directly down upon it, take a temperature reading. Now angle the heat lamp at a 45 degree angle, so it's heat energy now disperses in a wider area across the surface, take a temperature reading. You'll notice pretty quickly, that the more focused and direct light energy, will create a hotter surface, the light that hits the surface at an angle, is dispersing more, creating a slightly cooler surface.
So what does this teach us about temperature? Well, it's not just distance that effects it....the angle at which a heat source arrives upon a surface, will also effect the temperature of that surface.
Earth isn't any different. The more direct the sunlight is arriving at the surface, the more focused that solar energy is....it's pretty simple. Light that arrives on the surface at steeper angles, will be more spread out and less focused....creating a decrease in temperature.
Just more basic physics for ya...so not illogical at all really, at least when you don't ignore things due to bias. You must have failed most of your science classes pretty hard I imagine. Cause damn....
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "A trait of an educated mind in to entertain an idea without accepting it"
Ya, what do you think I've been doing this whole time? You on the other hand, fell right into Flat Earth and accepted it hook, line and sinker...even though it has no working model, no working map for navigation, not a single pilot or sailor uses it. It has no way of explaining sunsets, the southern hemisphere, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, tides, Earthquakes, Coriolis, Earths magnetic field, satellites in orbit, or really how anything works for that matter. Nothing in the real world operates on Flat Earth science...that's a fact, not an opinion, and that is for a good reason, yet you believe it anyway. Why? Because you did some bad math at a beach once, then convinced yourself there was no curvature....yup, you figured it out alright, let's get on tossing out all the science we've accumulated over the centuries, cause Giorgio and his mighty p900 couldn't find curvature. xD
"Then go and try to answer any of the questions regarding Earth's shape without saying gravity, see how far you get
"
Exactly! Mankind realizing gravity was one of the most pivotal moments in scientific history. It's really no surprise to me at all, that the scientific and industrial revolutions, were kicking off around the time of this discovery. It quite literally solved most of what we observe in the physical world....so yes, it is quite important, that's why it's recognized as one of the 4 fundamental forces of reality. When gravity was realized, the mysteries of reality started falling like dominoes....it explains everything, from why we remain on the surface, to why things fall at the same rate regardless of mass, to why things order by density, to why the planets, stars, moons are all spherical, to why and how they orbit each other, to how stars burn, to how EVERYTHING formed in the first place...gravity explains everything. The ONLY REASON why you deny the existence of gravity, is because it single handedly takes your Flat Earth fantasy away...so you deny it, because it's not very convenient for your belief. You don't have a valid reason for why you deny it, no experiments or data or observations that replace it, or falsify it....you just deny it because of how inconvenient it is for your specific brand of bullshit. You know it, and I know it, Flat Earth has no real solid argument against gravity......you just straight up deny it exists, that's it, that's all you have. Denial.
Flat Earth has ZERO answers for anything...FLAT EARTH HAS NO WORKING MODEL OF REALITY, this should be a concern too you! Worse is that you seem to think this is ok. As if mankind doesn't need too know how anything works....as if we're creating all this technology you see around you, with magic alone. Nope, we're using the heliocentric model and all the physics that comes with it, to build the world around you. Another fact of reality for you.
" I do my own experiments"
Oh I have no doubt that you do, but just because you do your own experiments...does not by default mean you've done them correctly. This is why peer review is important...it weeds out errors and bias, lying and overconfidence. I've done enough in my years of looking at this Flat Earth mess, to know for absolute certain, that you people are terrible at conducting experiments. I don't really care if you don't agree...but I know it to be true. Bias leads you every step of the way and I know this, because I've successfully falsified every experiment presented to me from Flat Earth so far, and it's always the same errors...sloppy experiments, that ignored variables, ignored the proper steps to reach the most conclusive results, ignored that they were using the wrong math...all because if they didn't, if they were more diligent and did things properly, then they wouldn't be able to confirm their bias. It's incredible the power of confirmation bias....it blinds you so completely.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Alright, so let's focus on gravity then if you'd like.
First, give me your replacement for gravity, I will do a hypothetical with you and pretend we haven't discovered gravity yet. So what causes things to fall to Earth at the constant rate of 9.8 meters per second squared? Falling is a motion, there's no denying that. This is of interest because as we know, nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it to put it into motion...it's the first Law of Motion, remember the dynamics you mentioned earlier that you agreed is real science? Ok, so when you drop something, it is put into motion...so it's a simple question then, WHAT IS CAUSING THAT MOTION? Only a force can put matter into motion, so give me YOUR answer for what you think is putting matter in motion when you drop it.
It shouldn't be hard to give me something. Flat Earth likes to claim it's smarter than all the rest of us, so by all means, explain this phenomenon.
Then once you have an explanation for me, you'll have enough to form a hypothesis, then all I require is experimental proof that verifies your hypothesis. So after you've explained it, provide me evidence that supports your explanation, pretty simple stuff.
So go ahead, I don't mind going through this process with you.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 "Now, what make denser things go "down", I don't know"
Ok, that wasn't so hard now was it? So that means you don't have an argument against gravity, so best you can conclude then for why things fall is "it just does". Gravity however, DOES provide an answer for why matter with mass is attracted down towards the surface. So since YOU don't have a counter answer to explain this phenomenon, we will go with the leading theory that DOES have an answer...gravity. See how science works yet? But, of course it's more then that, of course evidence does matter. When Scientists don't know something for certain, it is perfectly fine to say you don't know, but what you're ignorant of...is the fact that modern science HAS evidence for their conclusion of gravity, and they do have enough to conclude that they do know what's going on. So that's why it's the leading theory here. If you have no evidence to falsify their evidence, then it will remain as the dominant theory, see how this works yet? Denial is not evidence...don't know how many times I have to say that.
Now, onto that evidence. Objects don't just drop at 9.8 meters per second in air...they do it in vacuums as well. In fact, it's best to do this in a vacuum, because then you're testing gravity directly, without air resistance getting in your way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyeF-_QPSbk&t Of course this won't happen in water....because it's a dense fluid, so there's friction, which will slow anything being dropped....this doesn't refute gravity though like you seem to think it does, it should be pretty obvious that physical matter in the way of something in motion, is going to slow it down. First Law of motion again, all things in motion stay in motion UNLESS ACTED UPON BY AN OPPOSING FORCE OR MASS! The opposing mass here is water, this causes friction...much like air resistance does. Which is why, the best test for 9.8 meters per second squared, is in a vacuum....then you can test the downward force directly.
Buoyancy is already included in the theory of gravity, and buoyancy also occurs in air...why do you think helium rises up? Buoyancy is why. Why do you think clouds rise up? Buoyancy is why. Now here's how buoyancy is part of the theory of gravity...it doesn't occur without it. Remove gravity from the equation of buoyancy, and it will not occur. This is proven time and again within simple density columns put in zero G environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI&t=190s Without the inertia caused by the downward force of gravity and contact with the surface, there is no ordering of matter by density...there is just chaos.
So again, things fall, this is a motion...the question still remains, what causes that motion? Density can't account for this, density is not a force, it is just a state of matter...how much matter occupies a given space, that's all density is. So not a force, so it has no means to put matter into motion. Buoyancy is a force, but it does not occur on its own. Take gravity away and you don't have buoyancy occurring, it's the downward acceleration that causes the displacement order of buoyancy. More dense material will occupy center of gravity before less dense material, pushing less dense material upward...causing displacement, causing buoyancy to occur....simple stuff. The downward force is required...it's even included in the equations for buoyancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy you'll find many of those formulas here, you'll see that gravity acceleration is a variable in many of those equations.
So Buoyancy can't occur without a downward accelerating force first occurring. Without a downward force telling all matter in which direction to begin organizing...buoyancy can not occur, it is just chaos.
So why down? Well, you've admitted you don't have an answer, so that's where your knowledge on the subject ends. But, science doesn't just stop when it has a bias to feed...it keeps going. The best answer you have is "it just does" well, can't do much with "it just does". If science concluded everything with "it just does", then we'd still be in the bush thinking that fire is something we can never harness or understand.
So a few things were proposed. First it was electromagnetism/static attraction....but there's just to many irregularities and contradictions for this to be the case. To name one example, these are attractions between positive and negative electrons...and these have a tendency to repell as well as attract, for all things, not just by density. So if this were true, then we would be able to reverse our positive/negative polar alignments, and then repell from the surface. We can not do this...so the downward force that's keeping us to the surface is not electromagnetic/static in nature. Just one of many ways to falsify this proposed hypothesis.
So what is it? The next thing that was considered was mass attracting mass. Ok, so can we test that? Absolutely. Here's that video on the Cavendish again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68 This both explains and demonstrates this attraction. So there are some discrepancies with this presentation, which is fine, science is all about falsification, so here's another video that points out and falsify's some of those counters to this presentation in particular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdJTaw68hPo Science is a long back and forth process of falsification, this is normal and what should happen in science, so nothing wrong with pointing out any flaws or discrepancies, it is absolutely encouraged. How NOT to falsify something...is how you're doing it....by just simply denying these experiments don't exist. Denial is not falsification...it's just denial.
The only good point you make, is that experiments must be repeatable. So can this experiment be repeated? Absolutely, here's someone who has repeated it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdifwJ31ig&t and again, a highschool girl recreating the experiment to measure the constant of gravity herself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t So very easily repeatable....ANYONE can recreate this experiment. As I mentioned, I have seen it recreated during my highschool physics class. Small scale Cavendish apparatuses used to be pretty common in physics classes...it was useful for demonstrating how we deduced mass attracting mass.
Denying this experiment exists...is not how you falsify science. It's just that simple.
So we have verified evidence of mass attracting other mass....which is consistent with the 9.8 meters per second that we measure...all the math checks out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV2MwaMApZw
So here's what we have in conclusion here. YOU have no answer for why things fall towards the Earth, science on the other hand does. It is verified through an experiment, that is repeatable and upon all recreation has yet to be falsified. The values that are measured in the experiment, are consistent with the values measured in 9.8 meters per second square...they don't contradict each other, they're compatible.
So science has evidence, that supports it's hypothesis. That evidence has not been falsified by any counter evidence, so it is accepted now as the leading theory for why things fall towards the surface for this reason. This knowledge has gone on to help us understand the orbits of planets and their formation. It has also gone on to help us put our own satellites into orbit, which are orbiting the Earth right now as we speak. It has also gone on to help explain how stars burn, through Nuclear Fusion, which we have now recreated in our own fusion reactors...science could not have achieved fusion, if they were wrong about gravity.
So again...all you really have is denial, while modern science has evidence that has led to their conclusion. Do they know everything about gravity? No, there is still much they don't understand. General Relativity took it one step further, but even this theory is incomplete. Science is well aware of this, but until actual evidence comes to light that can successfully falsify gravity, it will remain the dominant model for why things are put into an accelerating motion towards Earth. You don't do your arguments any favors, by ignoring what science understands and knows about gravity.
1
-
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Ok, but in your dog analogy, you're participating. You falsified the claim "dogs can fly" by pointing out that wings are required for animals to fly. I agree with your falsification of that statement "dogs can fly", because I agree that wings are required. So we reach an understanding, because we both participated in the conversation, get it? You can do the same with me on gravity....but you have to offer the same participation in return, for that to happen. What I'm looking for is the same participation with you on gravity. You're not even looking at the Cavendish experiments I have already shared with you....you keep asking for them, I keep sharing and then you keep replying back "share a working Cavendish experiment". Do you see the problem here? It's not the same as your analogy where you participated and offered me REASONS for why dogs don't fly. You're asking for something and then ignoring it....this is not a rational discussion at that point, it's the equivalent of a child shoving his fingers in his ears the moment people start trying to say something to him.
You don't have to agree with the Cavendish, all I'm asking for is you actually LOOK at the ones I've shared and then explain to me WHY you feel they are not legit scientific experiments. Why bother asking for an experiment, if you're not going to look when I share it? Here it is again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68&t=4s and here's another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdifwJ31ig&t=161s and another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t=3s.
All I'm sayin is, YOU'RE making a claim that gravity doesn't exist, I'm providing you evidence and explanations, math and science that verifies that it does exist...so if you want to continue to believe gravity doesn't exist, then you have to PROVE THAT, through falsification. Otherwise, you believe that due to ignorance alone. The burden of proof was on the Globe when it made the claim of gravity, it has since proven it....so now if you're going to make a claim that it doesn't exist, then to do that, you have to falsify the evidence, the burden of proof is now in your court. That's how science works. It's fine if you don't want to look...then I will just conclude you've reached your conclusions on ignorance, so you've chosen ignorance, then we can go on with our lives. Or you can prove to me that gravity doesn't exist, by falsifying my evidence. If you succeed, then maybe I'd agree with you....but you have to make an effort for that to become even remotely possible.
What's irrational about Flat Earth is asking "PROVE IT!" then we provide evidence that proves it, then instead of looking a the evidence you asked for you just reply back with "PROVE IT!" indicating to us that you didn't even look at the evidence....you've decided to deny it exists. Like...it's like I'm talking to a wall at that point. Ignorance is a logical fallacy...you don't strengthen an argument through ignorance, you just make it abundantly clear why and how you've fallen for an obvious scam on the internet...because you're ignorant.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 So allow me to pretend I'm you for a second, to help make this point clearer. If I was in your position, arguing that gravity was not real, the moment I asked for evidence and somebody provided it too me, then I would look at that evidence. To not look at the evidence after asking for it so vehemently, would make me intellectually dishonest. Why ask for evidence, if you're not really going to look when it's presented? So I would look, then I would take my time to point out what I feel are the errors of that evidence. I would do everything I could to falsify that experiment with legit problems I was seeing. On the flip side, if I can't spot any errors, or if after a long back and forth those errors I pointed out were successfully falsified by my opponent, and if I couldn't falsify his counter points or the experiment any further...I would then admit that it's a valid experiment that verifies the claim being made....or I would forfeit from conversation, saying I don't know, I will wait for further information to get back in the discussion.
That's how a reasonable discussion between two people looking to get to the truth should play out. Where we both remain objective and open minded and actually participate in the discussion and LOOK at the evidence being shared when we ask for....THAT'S being intellectually honest. Then absorb each others evidence and then make an honest attempt to falsify it with ACTUAL counter evidence...not just ignorance and denial and deflection tactics. If we can't falsify the evidence any further...then we either yield and agree that it's valid, or admit we don't know, which forfeits us from future conversation on the topic until we do have more to add. That's how rational discussion plays out......or at least that's how it SHOULD play out.
Instead, this is how our interaction has played out so far. You ask "show me proof!", which is a reasonable request, so I show you the proof you're asking for that supports my claim. Then you respond back "show me proof!"....I sigh in slight frustration, your response is now an unreasonable request because I know I shared already and without a proper rebuttal from you, it is now just ignorant, but I show the same proof again anyway, cause I know you didn't look the first time, but a part of me just hopes you look this time. Then you respond back "just waiting for that proof bud!".......to which I'm pretty fed up after that, cause It's like I'm talking to an echo, now it's way beyond unreasonable to keep asking, and far more clear that you're just being willfully ignorant.
If your aim is to frustrate your opponent with school yard tactics, it's working. At least as far as making the experience frustrating, but that's about it. You're not winning any arguments by pretending like I'm not here sharing the evidence you're asking for, you're just proving further how ignorant you are...which proves my main point of Flat Earth from the start. You reach conclusions from ignorance and incredulity and bias....not so much evidence. Which means you're bad researchers and you're more then likely wrong because of it. You ignore the evidence that doesn't support your conclusions, rather then directly refute that evidence and see if it has any validity. Ignoring it means you really have no idea if that evidence has any weight in your argument, so you're basically rolling the dice. If you're only following the evidence that supports your positions, then you're following confirmation bias, which is an illogical form of information processing. Definition of confirmation bias right here, fits you like a glove. https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias
Everyone in Flat Earth does this....and then they wonder why they're not changing anything, they wonder why they're being ridiculed, blocked, and removed from search algorithms...because you're not rational people. It's that simple. Nobody takes ignorant people seriously, that's why ignorance doesn't change anything. It's fine to question things, but what's not fine is thinking that ignoring evidence makes you anything other than ignorant. You disagree with the Cavendish, great, then tell me why? I would LOVE to hear why you feel it's inaccurate....so watch those damn videos I keep sharing and then respond to them directly, please and thanks.
That's how I've seen things from my perspective so far......and it's the same every time I talk to flat Earthers and we get this deep into it, your ignorance shines brighter and brighter as we go.
1
-
@giorgiopoli7408 Wow...just straight up proved my point to the letter, that's awesome. Good job. xD
Cavendish experiments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYf-Glwtr68&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdifwJ31ig&t=164s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0&t=287s
Observations and experiments demonstrating Curvature:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3176
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
Experiments that verify the Earth is rotating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&t
https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A?t=51
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbPynV68Bg&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aSVsifj-o&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38&t
"But if you want to know why things go down, and say it's gravity, then you need to prove that matter attracts matter, it's very simple"
I've been trying...with the 3 videos I've been sharing of Cavendish over and over and over again. I'd love to prove this effect to you....but then you have to actually LOOK at what I share with you. It's that simple.
I'm calling you ignorant, because that's what you are...it's pretty cut and dry. You ask for evidence, so I share it, then you ignore what I share and then act like I never shared anything. That's a clear case of ignorance...so I'm calling you that, because the shoe fits, in fact you might as well be the Cinderalla of ignorance! It matters and you should be concerned....because it's likely the reason WHY you're a flat Earther. It's a big reason why you fell for this scam...and probably many others as well. You don't have to remain ignorant though, just watch those Cavendish demonstrations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eventually this planet is going to have a civilization ending event occur, it’s just inevitable. So it’s in our best interest to spread ourselves out across space, inhabiting multiple planets. It’s just smart for our long term survival. But space isn’t easy to travel in…so we have a lot more to learn about it, before we can ever hope to master it. Gotta start somewhere.
If you think it’s not beneficial for mankind to study and explore space, then you’re pretty short sighted. We’re natural explorers, it’s a big part of what’s got us this far…why would we ever stop something that’s such a big part of our success and is baked into our very nature? 🤷♂️
It’s also in the best interest for any nation to fund the sciences, if it wants any hope of staying at the top of industry. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Fund scientific research into fish farming, and you feed an entire nation for a lifetime. So it should be a no brainer why funding science is beneficial.
NASA makes pennies compared to the military…seriously, you should compare their annual budgets sometime. If the US took even 1% of the military budget, they could easily build and fund better homeless shelters. Take 10% and they could solve so many more problems. So you should be pissed at the military budget, not NASA.
1
-
1
-
Nothing is being hidden from you, you just suck at researching and using a search bar I guess. Spend less time on Flat Earth channels that hide a lot from you and feed you bullshit to sell their bias, and start being more objective and less paranoid. Here's an archive with hundreds of photos of Earth, taken during the various Apollo missions, one of many resources online that archives these photos. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
When searching for the curve, make sure you're doing things correctly by first making sure your math is correct and then make damn sure you have all the correct details. Flat Earth cons you here in two ways, they know most people are not very savvy with mathematics, so they give you the wrong math formulas to use...and the other way they con you is by lying or fudging the details of what they're showing you. This has led a lot of people to believe there is no curvature...because the math doesn't add up when they try it for themselves. But if the math is wrong and if the details are wrong...then ya, no shit you're going to reach a false conclusion.
Here's a great channel that has documented many observations of the curvature you're looking for. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDXr2cbK7WlfeYEtJxC9i3w The data he has collected out in the real world is quite extensive. Here's a blog that has also gone out and done some pretty extensive surveying to put the Earths curve to the test. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth They have also provided a great globe Earth simulation tool, that is too scale, that is pretty handy for generating to scale representations of curvature from varying altitudes. Just click through the yellow labelled tabs to watch some of the demos they have mocked up already. The first one marked "Curve" is quite good for challenging the claim of "horizon always rising to eye level" (it doesn't by the way, as that demo helps to verify), and my favorite is also the observations of the Lake Pontchartrain causeway bridge. Just a small sample of some observations for curvature that I can share with you. If you'd like help with the math feel free to ask, I can point you towards the correct formulas and break them down for you.
"Why aren’t we allowed to fly straight to our destinations?"
Because at the end of the day, air travel is a business and it only makes money by consumer demand. Meaning, they can only afford to fly flights, where they are going to have the most paying passengers. Most people live in the Northern hemisphere, because that is where the majority of land is, that's where most of the worlds major cities are, that's the highest density of population is, so that's where the most flights are...because that's where the most paying customers are. It costs millions of dollars to fly internationally, from paying the flight crew, to the fuel, to the maintenance required, to bunker storage....it's not cheap. Direct flights are harder to maintain, in places that do not receive as much traffic. It's basic economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, what is that old saying about rocket science? It's not easy, but they have since solved these dilemmas. Today, they bring their own oxidizer along in the form of liquid oxygen (yes, oxygen can be liquefied)...this is the oxidizer and it is burned inside the fuel compartment, not outside and is added to the fuel as it burns to keep it burning. Once in space, they don't require as much fuel, because there is no wind resistance, and they're not fighting against gravity so much anymore, they're using it in the form of an orbit, so there is far less resistance, meaning less fuel required to move around. So they can switch engines to something that doesn't require oxygen or a constant burn, just something that requires a chemical reaction of some sort, so two chemicals that when combined cause a volatile chemical reaction that creates a burst of propellant...and they have lots of different options at this point. They only require liquid oxygen really for getting into space, once there, they can switch to something different or keep using it, there are options and many different types of rocket engines at this point.
Just to list some of the other options they're currently working on as well, they also have nuclear rockets...which generate far greater thrust then regular engines that require the burning of fuel, but they still have issues with radioactivity so they haven't been put into use yet, but they also have fusion engines which could potentially trump both options...and is completely safe for the crew. But the problem here is the same as all problems with fusion, that being maintaining fusion reaction for long periods of time...that's why we don't have fusion anything just yet...it's very hard to maintain fusion. There is also ion rockets, which are pretty interesting but do not generate much thrust (so can't get us off the ground), just a constant thrust that is almost limitless...which is perfect for once we're in space. Lots of cool advancements in rocket tech these days...but anyway, yes, to answer your original question, they bring their own oxidizer in the form of liquid oxygen to maintain any fuel burn required.
1
-
1
-
Ya…cause every scientist and expert in the world is wrong and lying, even though they design and create EVERY modern comfort you enjoy, from electricity, to cars, to your computer….but a tiny minority of numpty’s online, with zero credentials, or experience in any science, who have contributed to nothing…no possible way they could be lying, right? 🧐 No possible way YOU could just be reaching a false conclusion, from a lack of knowledge and understanding of basic physics?
It’s really not hard to sniff out bullshit science….does it work, can it be applied? If not, then it’s likely bullshit…it’s pretty simple. You just let me know how many applied sciences today, make use of a flat Earth model to achieve anything. Meanwhile, conservation of momentum physics explains how the motions of the planet are possible, and its knowledge that engineers use for things like making sure you can walk around the cabin of a passenger jet at 500 mph, and it’ll be as effortless as walking around your house.
The real liars are the idiots online, too stupid to realize they’re stupid, and too stubborn and proud of themselves to even consider it as a possibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neiljohnson7914 If you understood general relativity, and are fascinated by black holes…then you would understand and agree with gravity, they’re directly linked. So if you really understood that science, then you’d understand gravity vectors, then you’d also understand how people in Australia are not walking upside down. Gravity is what orientates them and us, so they are right side up to their gravity vector, so long as they are orientated with that gravity vector, feet on the surface. You don’t get to pick and choose…if Earth is flat, then Relativity physics doesn’t work, because it’s built on the foundation that mass bends space to a centre of mass, forming everything into a sphere around it. It basically explains why everything we observe in the cosmos is spherical…including our planet. So if you understand and agree with General Relativity, then by proxy you agree the Earth is spherical too…oops, your lies are showing.
You don’t have a physics degree, so why lie? It certainly doesn’t help your position to lie about your credentials. Also, you’re lying about your unbiased position, I’ve chatted with you before, you are a flat Earther through and through, so you can save the little pretend games. You don’t want a discussion, you want science to agree with you that it’s flat, any other discussion can be ignored. Your as biased as they come, closed to only one conclusion, no matter how wrong it’s proven to be.
Go troll somewhere else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
That’s her point…you trust that it is edible. 99.9% of the time it will be, because we have standards in place that ensure it…science isn’t much different. Up until recently people were happy to trust the science that Earth is a globe….so what happened? Flat Earth is a symptom of a loss of trust in society. They’re not really forming good conclusions or doing objective research, most Flat Earthers seem to form their conclusions from lack of trust alone. I’ve talked with hundreds of them now (it’s a sad hobby), that’s something I’ve noticed for sure that they all share. They just don’t trust science, so they’re running on instinct alone.
They’ve created a boy who cried wolf scenario, they’ve stopped listening, because they don’t trust the source anymore, concluding that it must be the opposite of what they’re saying. But people tend to forget how the boy cried wolf story ends…the boy wasn’t actually lying in the end, but it was already too late.
It’s really not always a logical way to conclude things, concluding things must be opposite of what someone said, just because you don’t trust them…it can keep you from thinking and reasoning objectively.
1
-
@terry3002 No, I wouldn’t scold him for that, because I know he only recreated the experiment as a joke. With even a basic understanding of gravity physics, you can immediately understand how that experiment is inconclusive, does not verify or falsify either position. The whole point of this video wasn’t to prove or disprove flat Earth, only to analyze WHY they believe what they believe. He did that experiment as a joke...but it also points out the kind of people we’re dealing with here, people who really can’t understand why that is a bad experiment...which is the part that’s not very funny, but that was the point.
It’s fine to have questions, in fact it’s perfectly logical, but you are revealing more and more with each new question, that don’t really understand gravity physics very well. That personal misunderstanding, is leading you to some very poorly formed conclusions. But nit your fault really, gravity is tricky science and of you’ve never seen the experiments that helped form the larger theory, then it’s understandable how people could misunderstand a lot about it. It’s a bit frustrating though, for some of us...because we know it’s fine to question things, and you don’t have to agree...in fact, it’s good that some people don’t, because science is all about questioning things, no matter how settled it is. So it’s frustrating, because on one hand we’re all for individuals questioning things the rest of us have largely moved on from...but on the other, we’re a bit annoyed that it’s not just as obvious.
So my apologies if I came off as crass or pushy in any way before, I don’t want you to misunderstand me, I’m actually all for individuals asking questions. It’s the one thing I do actually admire about Flat Earth, stubborn tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds. I just prefer not to pull my punches in a review of anything, I assume most wouldn’t want me too anyway.
Anyway, just rambling a bit, I’ll get back to the points.
So let’s look at your flowing water argument. First of all, let’s break down how water flows. Flowing water is a motion from high elevation to low elevation. On a sphere, elevation of the surface is measured from centre of the sphere. So points further away from centre, are at higher elevation. That’s how gravity works as well, it pulls to centre of mass. The downward force of gravity (or for arguments sake, whatever downward force you’d prefer to use), is what causes the motion of flowing water, essentially falling from high elevation to low elevation. So if elevation is measured from centre on a sphere...and the downward force pulls to centre as well, then down always toward surface, high elevation is away from centre, low elevation is closest too it, so water can flow just fine on a sphere with these perimeters.
See the problem? Your argument doesn’t really falsify anything, it just misunderstands gravity physics and is not aware of how elevation works on a sphere. Best thought experiment I can provide for this, take a few two inch pins and stick them all one inch deep into the surface of a ball, what’s the elevation (or length of the pins) from surface of that ball? 1 inch...they’re all 1 inch elevation from surface, make better sense now? Check any river system in the world, you will find they all flow from high elevation, to low elevation. Water doesn’t really seek level, it seeks lowest potential energy...closest possible position to centre. This forms into a sphere, if lowest potential energy state is toward a central point. It’s why bubbles form spheres as well, rain drops...all because of forces to squeeze to a centre. Gravity pulls to centre...which explains why everything we observe in space is spherical.
See, gravity doesn’t just explain why things fall to surface...it explains almost everything. You need to understand, when gravity was realized, mysteries of the universe started to fall like dominoes. It was a pretty big discovery, and currently used in almost everything, from simple weight calculations (W=mg), to calculating Buoyancy for ships and submarines (Fb=Vpg), to projectile arc equations, calculating the lift of an aircraft, orbital mechanics, unlocking the mystery of nuclear fusion, etc. It’s applied science...probably THE most applied knowledge in human history. So it’s just...frustrating for some of us is all.
But...like I said, it should be fine for people to question, nothing should be off the table for debate, not even the most established science. We’re at a current stand still with gravity physics, we still don’t know what directly causes it...and all attempts to find it, are coming up empty. So who knows, perhaps we just need people willing to start over, and maybe stumble upon something the rest of us over looked. Which is why I’m personally fine with this whole FE thing, because mankind is hive mind in a way. The truth of things is often found somewhere in between.
Did you know, there’s a famous psychological study (though how famous can it really be, cause I forget the name of it), where they take a group of people and a jar of beans and ask each person how many beans are in the jar. What’s interesting is that no single individual ever gets it right....but the average of every person taken together, pretty much nails it, with deadly accuracy.
I don’t know about you, but what this tells me, is that we’re effective at solving great mysteries of reality, because we’re such a mixed bag of varying ideas and intelligence levels. So that’s where I find comfort in all this, I find it frustrates me less when I remember that even wrong answers are useful, and we should all never be to quick to assume that WE are the ones in the right...just take comfort in knowing that together, is really how we get shit done, that includes every facet of human intellect. Flat Earth is at least thinking outside the box, so who knows what they might discover.
Jeez...I’m rambling again. Didn’t even address your other point yet, with the butterfly and oceans. To touch on it briefly, gravity gives things weight, everything has mass, but weight is a product of mass+force of gravity. So what this means is, things with less mass, are essentially affected less by gravity. Less molecules of mass being attracted, equates to an easier time moving around. That...and water is not alive, it is an inert molecule. It has no physical means of creating energy, to put into muscles, it can then use to resist gravity. A butterfly does, it flaps wings that it moves by spending energy. But what happens when it’s not flapping those wings? It falls towards surface...just like everything does.
Anyway, I hope you find this information at the very least interesting. Apologies if it got a bit long. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask, I’m not here to scold or troll you, I’d prefer to just share information and then let people decide fir themselves. It’s all good really, so take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terry3002 The trouble I’m seeing in your reasoning though, is a lack of first hand knowledge in much of science, in physics most of all. It’s not that you don’t have a lot of knowledge in science, you clearly do, I’ve just noticed so far that you’ve reached a great many conclusions, that I feel shouldn’t be concluded just yet, they’re not quite there yet. You’re not wrong to be skeptical and untrusting of systems of authority, we all have that uneasy feeling that we’re being screwed by something, but some of your conclusions are poorly formed, from a lack of real scientific understanding in some of the topics. See I prefer not chasing things I can only speculate on, that’s why I enjoy science...because there’s very little speculation in much of science, and I don’t have to just take somebody else’s word for it, I can reach more definite conclusions, all on my own. People may lie to you, but physical reality does not. The nice thing about junk science...it simply does not work, it is not useful. So it reveals itself as false, the moment it becomes apparent how inaccurate it is.
I mean, cause I could go through each of your scientific points and falsify them, with evidence supporting my conclusions, no problems. But when it comes to say Free Masons, Illuminati, the dark history of some shadowy overlords...all I can do is speculate. I can imagine all sorts of possibilities, and I have really, I have contemplated much of the same things you have, but I can’t make any definite conclusions, so I feel it’s a bit of a waste of time. For me personally anyway.
I see the logic in saying “they hide FE to hide God from us”, sure, there’s logic there...but it’s only inferred logic, it does not mean it’s a definite conclusion. I choose not to conclude anything from inferred logic, and I do not bolster an argument with speculations alone. If you go through your posts, I can break them down into two parts. Endless speculations and bad science. Which leads me with little reason to conclude your position has any merit to it. It’s interesting to discuss, but I feel you are chasing confirmation bias, so determined to defeat “them” or “they”, or at the very least, not fall into their traps. I’ve been there myself at points in my life, but I found it just robbed me of energy and time, so I now just focus on things I don’t have to speculate on. I focus on science.
It’s fine really though, it’s good I suppose that some are still chasing those speculations and pondering the possibilities a lot more thoroughly. Like I said earlier, the actual truth of things is often somewhere in the middle. You may be WAY off, but then people like myself who don’t trouble ourselves with conspiracy rabbit holes, are probably extremely naive or overly optimistic, putting far too much faith in humanity, and so the actual truth is likely, somewhere in between both of our positions. Possibly anyway, but now that’s only speculation, and so I’ve now exhausted my tolerance for the topic.
Science is where I prefer to ground myself, because again, physical reality does not lie, so it’s a far more reliable source. So in another comment I’ll focus on a bit of science. I will just offer some quick tidbits of information, for each of your more scientific points mentioned so far, then up to you really if you choose to explore the science a bit closer. I feel you’re not wrong to question things, but I do strongly feel you are wrong about the shape of the Earth. Just another part of the disinformation you spoke of, being put out there to chew up your time and mislead you.
1
-
@terry3002 So I’ll address some science and see if you find any of it interesting or of use to you. I’ll try and just be as quick as I can with each, just point you in a direction really...though some of these may get long, but I’ll try and be as brief as I can.
“Conventional science says that the earth is spinning at over 1,000 mph at the equator. The problem, for me, is that my senses see no evidence of that, not in volcanic smoke plumes, not in planes having to contend with that as they fly east or west, and so on.”
So the trouble here, is your expectations, not fitting with the explanation. You hear 1000 mph, you immediately think about what it’s like being on the outside of a moving vehicle, being hit by all that air resistance, you then wonder why our motions doesn’t produce a similar drag effect. And that’s where you seem to have stopped thinking about it, concluding that it’s a hole in the current model. But let’s go back in and analyze it closer. So you’re trouble is with drag force, primarily, you assume that all great motion, comes with a drag force effect of some kind, but what is drag force? Drag force, is just friction caused by a body in motion, moving through a medium (like atmosphere) that is not moving at the same relative velocity as the object. So the friction is created by the moving molecules, smashing into non moving molecules. But what would happen, if everything was moving at the same relative velocity? What if the air was also moving at 1000 mph, in the same direction? Would you expect there to be friction then? No, because every molecule is moving together, they’re not colliding causing friction. We call this relative motion, usually described as an inertial frame of motion, everything within an inertial reference frame of motion, moving together creating an environment that operates almost as if it is stationary.
Can we test this? Well sure, get inside a moving vehicle, create some smoke, watch as the plum moves with it, in the same relative frame of motion. Do more tests even, you wondered about flights East to West, so get on a moving train or bus, make yourself a quick paper airplane, toss it back and forth along the length of the vehicle, going with its forward velocity and against it, you’ll notice the plane glides effortlessly in either direction, doesn’t matter where you toss it really, the paper plane will operate as if you were throwing it around in a stationary classroom. What does this tell us about motion? That as long as everything is moving together, at the same relative velocity, in the same direction, at the same time, then no drag force friction will occur. The environment it then creates, will operate as if it’s stationary, because motion is always conserved.
We can go further into the physics of motion and science has, developing the laws of motion, law of inertia, conservation of momentum, etc. All very simple physics to test and confirm...it’s physics 101.
Now I hear a lot of rebuttal with that one such as “ya, but Earth is an open system, so do those experiments on the outside of a vehicle not inside”, ok, but then you’re creating drag force, which is a false equivalence here, as the point is to illustrate that when all objects and molecules are in motion together, no friction can occur. Earth’s atmosphere rotates WITH the surface, so it’s more comparable to the inside of a moving vehicle, not outside. Think of Earth like a car, moving through space, the atmosphere is the wind shield. Of course, that’s a very crude comparison as well, but it’s far more accurate, because everything on Earth is moving together, in the same relative frame of motion, just like the inside of a moving vehicle.
So see the trouble with your point there, is that it’s ignoring basic physics of motion...in fact it doesn’t seem to even make any note of it, lacking any scientific mention of motion physics. So it’s a poorly formed conclusion, that really can’t be included as evidence for your main position, as it’s easily falsified, if you just examined the science of motion a little closer.
Lots of little experiments you can conduct to verify the laws of motion and relative motion, so definitely worth learning more about, if you want to know how the motions of Earth are possible. In fact it’s pretty crucial.
Now, I should note, that none of this is meant to prove that we are in motion, it’s only an explanation for why we don’t notice it. It’s real physics, easily verifiable, confirming that motion is actually a lot more tricky to discern, then you currently assume it is. If you want some evidence that helps verify Earth’s many motions, then that’s a different topic, but I can also point you to that evidence, if you’d like to see it, so feel free to ask.
So I’ll answer a few more points in a different comment now. This one got a bit long.
1
-
@terry3002 “Snipers do not take into account the Coriolis Effect.”
Yes they do https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs. As do pilots actually https://youtu.be/eugYAfHW0I8. Whoever told you Coriolis wasn’t a thing we have to factor, was lying to you or they just don’t have any experience with it, so they just assumed it wasn’t real. Here’s great experiment conducted not to long ago, that helps verify this phenomenon https://youtu.be/mXaad0rsV38. Coriolis is quite real, and is actually a great bit of evidence for Earth’s rotation. You can verify this for yourself, with just a few simple experiments like these and others.
“Geodetic surveyors do not account for the alleged curvature...”
Yes they do...it’s quite literally in their job title. Here’s a geodetic surveying going over some data he recorded from a long causeway bridge in New Orleans https://youtu.be/EIOs-PzNIZU?t=3176. Again, whoever told you they don’t, was lying to you...and for some reason you believed them. I’ve met and discussed with surveyors, I’m in no way an expert into what they do, but I do know for certain that measuring curvature is very much what these experts are tasked to do. I’ve even chatted with a civil engineer, who told me how much more difficult his job is, simply because he has to consider Earth’s curvature into his calculations...or his spacings will be off and those errors will complicate things over time.
“...countless laser experiments on YT attest to the fact that the earth is not curved over deserts, lake beds etc.”
I have seen none that are conclusive, in fact analyzing them closer often reveals a disingenuous or even malicious intent, from those conducting the experiments. In my own experience, I know that lasers are not a great tool over long distances, because the further they travel, the more they refract (bend or reflect in atmosphere) and diffract (expand out from source, with inverse square law). So even without conducting the experiments myself, I understand how lasers would produce errors here. It would be impossible to produce a perfectly tangent beam of light, required for such an experiment.
But if you don’t believe me, just take a look at some of the more in depth reviews of these laser experiments. A great source is from a content creator known as Sly Sparkane. I can not share his links however, as he’s black listed from YT. But worth checking out if the topic truly interests you and you would like to remain objective.
This is actually more evidence to suggest that FE is part of a disinformation campaign, as these laser experiments are extremely flawed and those conducting them are clearly not all that interested in being honest about them, preferring to lie to people about their results. Upon reviews of these experiments, they are found to be in great error, of their preposed conclusions.
But that being said, I’ve certainly never reviewed all of them, so if you have any that you feel are conclusive, feel free to share. That being said, I am not currently aware of any way, that a laser can be controlled at distances to keep the beam at a perfect tangent, it’s just not a reliable tool here, because of what effect atmosphere will have on the beam. Typically when scientists use lasers over large distances, they go to great lengths to build long tunnels where near perfect vacuum can be produced. Just look up the LIGO lasers sometime. Fun fact about these lasers as well, they are I think about 4 miles long in each tunnel, and so to keep the lasers tangent, it required that they raise up (or dig into the surface, can’t remember which) a few feet at both ends from starting point. That would not have been necessary, had the Earth’s surface not been curving. I believe there are public records of the building specs for LIGO, so you can look it up I’m sure. Worth a look anyway.
“The idea that ships disappear from the bottom up as they cross the horizon is easily explained by perspective, angle of refraction, and the physical limitations of our eyes as opposed to the alleged curvature of the earth.”
Not really though. See as an artist for a living (that’s my current profession, physics teacher was my other desired vocation), this is the topic that got me into this conversation in the first place. Perspective and visual geometry, are two avenues I would consider myself an expert in, I’ve studied them both for most of my life. Refraction is something I’ve since learned about later, but I now have a very good grasp on it as well. The trouble with this argument, is; 1) for it to work it has to ignore many rules of perspective; and 2) it does not falsify curvature, so you can’t rule it out completely, as much as you’d like too.
Some things it ignores about perspective. First of all, vanishing point, which is just the physical limitation of your eye to render an object visible, as the object has shrunk in apparent size to a point no longer perceivable to a viewer. Vanishing point can occur in any direction, and it can occur before horizon. This is important to know, because when you see boats being brought back into focus with a zoom lens of some kind, you have to consider the possibility that they’re not being brought back from horizon, they’re just being brought back from vanishing point. This is can be confirmed further to discern which is really occurring, if we can find any examples of objects being brought back into focus, while still having tens to hundreds of feet of their base being cut off by horizon. Of which there are now hundreds of examples online, here’s a great one https://youtu.be/NKQI18jr8Oc. These wind turbines are hundreds of feet in length...yet you can only see the very tops of them. Perspective would not do that...because perspective convergence occurs equally from all angles towards centre of object, it does not pick and choose what to make disappear first, it does not work that way.
Now refraction is also noted as a rebuttal to this, but refraction is also well understood in physics. It’s affected by air density, which is largely affected by temperature and humidity. For refraction to do what FE is claiming, light would have to bend up. This only occurs when the air at surface is much hotter than the air above, causing the air directly at surface to be slightly less dense than air above. This is what causes a mirage on hot roads. Trouble is, over water, where most of these observations take place, the air directly at surface is cooler and more humid, meaning more dense. This causes light to refract down...which actually causes things to rise up, not down...which is what would be required for their main refraction argument.
So they have to ignore many variables here. Another one they ignore (and lie about) is eye level. Horizon does not actually rise to eye level as they claim...they’ve just never measured it. I know of two ways you cam effectively measure horizon drop from eye level. Using a simple levelling rig, or a surveyors theodolite. Here is an example for both.
https://youtu.be/RUr9ymz_nVI?t=159 - levelling rig.
https://youtu.be/WVTgP-KpyRc - theodolite.
So no, it’s not as simple as FE likes to pretend it is. It’s mostly an argument from ignorance, relying on the scientific illiteracy of the individual. It’s very effective against anyone who’s not well versed in perspective and optics...which is most people, but to any artist or geometry student...it’s incredibly ignorant information they’re giving people.
This one I’ve spent a lot of time on, so I can go very deep into it. Perspective and optics are something I pride myself in knowing quite a bit about in particular. When you really analyze this claim closer, you actually find it’s very flimsy...and it still doesn’t falsify curvature. Another problem I’ve noticed is the math being used (8 inches per mike squared being the worst offender, but there are others). I’ve not seen anyone of FE use or derive the correct equations for their observations...which is a big problem. Because it should be pretty common sense, that when you use the wrong math, you will reach a false conclusion. If you’d like to learn more about the math here, I don’t mind getting into it, but I’ll leave it there for now.
Anyway, this is all the science we can analyze closer, the rest of your points we can really only speculate on, so I won’t address them much. As much as I’d love to share an archive of old Apollo Earth photos with you, I know it won’t matter much to you, because you can not confirm them for yourself. So we can both only speculate on their legitimacy. As much they are convincing to me, I know they’ll still do nothing for you.
But the rest of what I shared above is all science anyone can test for themselves, at any time. This is what I prefer to focus on, because I agree that people can and will lie to you...but reality does not. It can be tricky to understand, our senses can be fooled by sensory illusions, people can present faked data and observations, but we can still test physical reality for ourselves, at any time we choose too and discern truth from it, using the scientific method. I believe it’s the best tool we have against bullshit...so that’s where I put my attention. The internet is full of misinformation and conspiracies, so it’s really not a great source for all your information. Best to drag yourself away from these screens sometime, and actually get out into the world and put it to the test. It’s really the only way you can know things for certain.
Anyway, let me know if you find any of this information at the very least interesting. If you have any questions or rebuttals, feel free to ask.
1
-
@terry3002 Some further rebuttal from some of your new replies.
You mentioned that we are in motion in several vectors. This is largely false, I mean, it’s technically true, but there’s nuance. We are rotating, orbiting the Sun, orbiting galactic centre, and also moving through the universe around what’s known only as the great attractor. The thing is though, most of these motions are such large circumference, that we may as well be moving in a straight line. Centrifugal force or G forces are the only two factors that we would be able to detect in any of these motions. As I recall discussing earlier, centrifugal force is a product of angular velocity change per second, depending largely on RPM’s. The only motion that is rotating at a rate fast enough for us to detect, is our Earth rotation, once every 24 hours. But as already discussed, the RPM’s for this rotation is still a meer 0.000694 rpm’s. What do you think they would be for for an orbit taking 365 days to complete, or an orbit around a galactic centre taking 230 million years to complete?
They are irrelevant motions, we are basically moving in straight lines (as far as centrifugal force is concerned) in all our motions. The other force is G force, but this only becomes detectable in sudden or rapid changes in velocity. All our motions are nearly constant, so there is no sudden or rapid shifts in velocity we would detect in G force.
So again, it’s just more poorly formed conclusions, ignorant to the basic physics. You say you’re aware of things like relative motion and general motion physics...but then why would you ask the questions you have concerning them? If you really knew the arguments, I feel you probably wouldn’t ask such simple questions you knew could easily be refuted. I can only conclude because you’ve never really thought about them much, you know of them, but you do not currently understand them, at least not completely. Or if I was to get completely speculative, you know full well they’re poor arguments, but you repeat them because you know they will hook certain people reading these exchanges.
It’s fair though to ask HOW we know of these motions, that’s fair to ask. Because it’s one thing to understand how they’re possible, it’s completely another to prove them scientifically. I already discussed Coriolis, sharing many examples of proof for its existence. Another great proof of both motion and our Earths geometry, the Southern Hemisphere, more precisely, observing the second rotation of stars that exists there. I’ve been fortunate enough to have visited the Southern Hemisphere on several occasions, New Zealand and Australia, on multiple visits. On one of these trips, I was again fortunate to meet up with an astronomy group in a park, who were filming the Southern celestial rotation around their pole star, Sigma Octantis. I’d already made my own observations of the southern stars, I’m some what of an amateur astronomer myself, seeing the Southern Cross for the first time was a big deal for me, noticing that I could not see the Big Dipper or Polaris, also pretty big for me. But seeing that South rotation for myself...that’s an even bigger deal. This was long before I became aware of FE, way back in 2012...almost 10 years ago.
These observations ate consistent with what we’d expect to see on a globe. To this day I’ve seen nothing from FE that can successfully falsify this observation. It’s a great proof of the geometry and Earth rotation, among many others, all of which are easily testable and repeatable. Though from this observation I’ll admit, not a good proof of Earth’s motion, but Coriolis sure is, as are ring laser interferometers that measure Earth rotation, gyro compasses that make use of it in practical engineering, and Foucault Pendulum experiments, which I’ve also action seen demonstrated now. And I’m not talking about at a museum, no, I’m talking about a high school experiment that recreated it in a stair well, without motors.
So I mean...you can try and tell me Earth is flat and not rotating, but I’ve seen the evidence that verifies both.
Some good astronomy questions though, but also easy to refute, because they ignore the distances of stars and what effect those distances would have on parallax effect. It’s also not aware of the fact, that the stars are shifting...any astronomer who actually spends their nights watching and recording stars every night, will tell you, the stars are all shifting constantly. It’s well documented today, so you’re making a false claim when you say they haven’t moved in eons. You can actually start making observations of the stars, recording their positions. Start with a few closer stars like Barnards Star, or Alpha Centauri, observe them shifting greatly within just a few years! There’s also the 6 month stellar parallax you can observe, very easy to check for yourself, that stars actually do shift quite a bit...as we’d expect they would.
So I’m sorry, but you should really research more science and get a better grasp on it.
It’s true that getting information from other sources can be bias, and can be manipulated, so when I said science doesn’t lie...I wasn’t talking about the body of collected knowledge, I was talking about the method itself. Use the method correctly and you can discern real truths...but bias is a problem and we all have it, which is why peer review is so important.
Point is, you could really benefit from learning more first hand knowledge in the science. I feel your research has largely focused on just the shadowy groups that you feel are responsible...and very little focus has been put to the science. You’re right, that’s where we differ. I spend a lot of time doing my own science and experiments and observations. I chat with experts, I watch science lectures from renowned scientists, I watch science channels like Veritasium, Smarter Everyday, Minute Physics, and so on. I think this keeps me a lot more optimistic, cause I engage more with the positive side of humanity. I’m not shy or afraid to delve deep into the occult (actually I did a science fare project on the occult once, many years ago), I listen to metal (even played in a few bands), horror movies are my favourite genre of film, so the occult and our darker nature is an interest of mine as well. Like I told you, I’ve pondered these same dark possibilities you have and I’m certain evil organizations do in fact exist, and they do more than likely effect our lives.
But...this is not something they can easily lie to us about. They can muddy the waters of information, and perhaps they are doing that, but at any time we can pit physical reality to the test. I don’t have to speculate about the shape of the Earth, I can verify it, with just a few simple observations and experiments. I prefer to be optimistic about humanity, I don’t think the majority of mankind is interested in misleading us. Millions of experts would have to be lying, for this conspiracy to be true. Are they all Satanists? No...very very likely not.
So, from my perspective, I do feel it’s you who are being misled. Maybe focus more tine on the science. That would be my suggestion for you.
1
-
@terry3002 Yes, I was just more interested in the discussion, I like discussing science and it was just nice to get a civil conversation for a change. This is a nasty topic of conversation unfortunately, very hard to find mature adults who can entertain an idea, while not necessarily agreeing outright, or not getting upset or angry just from some rebuttal. I won’t take up anymore of your time though, it’s quite true we both have lives to get back too. Thank you for the civil discussion, all really interesting points, despite my disagreements. If more conversations were like this, maybe we’d reach better understandings. So thanks again, have a good one! 🙂
1
-
1
-
@terry3002 Ok, that’s fine, I don’t mind helping with whatever information I can. You’ve asked a few great physics questions now, so I’ll take a look.
So about the motions, I do see how people can think nearly 70k mph would be something we should be able to perceive, given most people’s experience and understanding of G force. But then you have to really think about what G force is, to see if that would really be true. So what is G force? Well it’s just a pressure you feel, when the cells and molecules of your body are squeezing together, being forced together suddenly, due to an acceleration. But you see if everything is moving at the same relative rate of motion, in the same direction, then there is no pressure, because nothing would be squeezing together. Everything is moving at the same velocity together, then they adhere to the rules of relative motion. So G force is a product of acceleration and deceleration, rapid or sudden change in motion. Once everything is moving together, they conserve that motion, nothing is being forced together, so no G force pressure is being produced.
Can you test this? Yes, absolutely. Get in a car sometime and blast on the gas going from 0-60 mph as fast as you possibly can, you’ll likely feel the G force pressure from that acceleration. Ok, now do it again only this time gradually increase your speed, going from 0-60 mph over the course of about an hour. You wouldn’t feel any G force in this example, but why? The eventual speed you reached was the same, so why no G force? Because G force is not created by the velocity itself, it’s a product of acceleration or deceleration.
So it’s a common misunderstanding people have, but truth is, we don’t really notice motion very well. We notice sudden or rapid changes in motion, but steady constant motions...not so much. Not sure if you’ve ever flown in a plane before, but it’s incredible how smooth they are and how slow they feel like they’re going, even though they’re the fastest commercial vehicles we’ve ever created. 500 mph is the general cruising speed for most passenger jets, that’s an incredible speed by most standards, yet it’s almost completely imperceptible to the passengers. We do not really feel or notice motion, we feel sudden or rapid change to motion, that’s what our senses detect.
This also pertains a bit to your other question, about the elliptical orbit of Earth. You’re correct, Earth speeds up at Aphelion and slows down at Perihelion, within its elliptical orbit. So 66,670 mph, that’s just an average velocity between the two. The thing to note here, is that the change in velocity is very gradual. Taking months to change by only a few thousand miles per hour. I don’t remember the exact figures, I roughly calculated it once before, but it was something like 100 mph every 24 hours, or something like that. Not all the time mind you, that increase is only at Aphelion, and that’s even just an average over about 4 months or so. At Perihelion it’s slowing down by like 15 mph every 24 hours, or something like that. Lots of variables here to factor, but in the end, it’s no different from the car example, accelerating from 0-60 mph over the span of an hour, except Earth is even slower than that. The increases and decreases of our elliptical orbit are so gradual, we will never notice.
Let me know if you have any more questions on that topic. I’ll move on to some other questions you had. 🙂
1
-
@terry3002 Another misunderstanding is the difference between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. There’s nuance here, technically they’re the same, but in physics we classify them as different and they’re even treated differently mathematically. Gas pressure always has a volume included as a variable in the math, just look up Boyles Law and all the other gas pressure laws. But these formulas are basically useless, in atmospheric pressure, because it’s not the same thing and without a physical barrier containing the gas, you can’t include a variable for volume. So they don’t, atmospheric pressure is treated as a completely different science.
That’s where the confusion comes from. I’ve noticed FE has a very hard time thinking of these two things as separate. So they wrongly assume gas always requires a physical barrier to create pressure, but we know this isn’t actually the case. In gas pressure within a container, yes, this is accurate...but when we talk about our atmosphere, we’re now talking about atmospheric pressure, which is completely different.
The pressure is created in atmospheric pressure, by the downward force if gravity. So instead of volume as a variable in math equations, gravity often replaces it instead. So basically what this means, is that gravity is the container of our atmosphere. Just like it contains everything else to surface, it also brings our atmosphere to surface.
Is there evidence of this? Well ya, it’s well understood that pressure decreases as you go higher. Which tells us, that pressure is being created from a sort of stacking effect, a downward force squeezing mass together, causing pressure. I’m sure you’ve experienced being piled up on before, being at the bottom of the pile up of bodies kind of hurts doesn’t it? Cause you were being squeezed by all the weight above you, but that pressure decreases the higher up you are on the pile, the last kid on top feels no pressure. It’s a crude analogy, but it’s basically the same thing with atmosphere, the pressure is greatest at surface, because it’s being squeezed by all the weight of the air above it. But what happens when there’s no more kids (or air, or anything really) to stack? There’s no more pressure...there’s vacuum, zero pressure, zero mass, which is all space is...a space void of matter.
The key here is gravity, cause the pressure is always consistent in the same direction, down towards surface. So when flat Earth claims you need a physical container for gas pressure, that’s only half true...because they’re intentionally ignoring the difference of atmospheric pressure and in this case, no you do not require a container, just a force that attracts matter to surface. We have that, it’s called gravity. Though I mean, I still understand if you disagree on gravity, but there is a downward force still and that’s all that’s really required here. It’s that downward force that creates atmospheric pressure, which is measured, air does get thinner as you go higher, which is consistent with the model.
Now there’s some other nuance in there argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics being breached here. But it’s another misunderstanding about entropy. They seem to think it has to do with matter needing to always find equilibrium and that’s sort of true...but matter itself is going to take billions of years to find that equilibrium. Thermodynamics isn’t about solid matter, it’s about energy...and Earth is losing energy all the time, constantly. But it’s also receiving it, constantly, from the Sun. If we had no Sun feeding us energy, then ya, our atmosphere would eventually erode away. Because nothing would be alive on surface to produce NEW gas. Earth loses gas, most of it is contained by gravity, but we do lose it slowly over time to space. That’s why Earth actually has such a massive cloud of hydrogen gas around it, extending past the Moon even, also known as the Geocorona.
Thermodynamics is about energy transfer, not matter. For example, when a cup of coffee goes cold, did the coffee also leave the cup, or just the thermal energy? It’s about energy, sometimes matter catches a ride on that energy, but no laws of thermodynamics are being broken in our atmosphere, they’re just misunderstanding the physics. I feel some are doing it intentionally, but it’s very difficult to know for sure, so better not to speculate on that.
Point is, no, thermodynamics laws are not being broken in the heliocentric model. We are constantly losing energy, but we’re constantly getting it back as well, from the Sun.
Another thing to note here, they’re so confident a barrier exists...then where is it? Why haven’t we found it yet? It would have to be physical in nature, to contain gas as they claim, so why haven’t we interacted with it yet? It seems to me all they really have is a broken understanding of both gas pressure physics and thermodynamics...but no tangible evidence. I mean, that’s fine really, cause science often starts with just a hunch, that’s what theoretical science largely is, it’s like the sketching phase of science, drawing the blueprints. But we don’t settle science on a chalk board, we settle it with tangible evidence. Dark matter is hypothesized to exist, but it means nothing if they can’t find it...it’s like the Aether that came before it. This dome will be treated no differently.
Here’s an interesting observation you can make today. I’ve seen people send up plenty of their own weather balloons, Flat Earth has even done this in the search for curvature.
In those videos you’ll notice two things, the blackness of space above our blue atmosphere, and you’ll notice that the balloons always eventually pop, as they are designed to do, once reaching vacuum conditions. So even Flat Earth, without realizing it, has confirmed the vacuum of space. But you know what they’ve never found? A container.
Anyway, let me know if you find any of this helpful or informative. It’s a big topic, full of variables and nuance, which is why it’s actually one of their better arguments I think. It requires a lot of knowledge in physics to really break this one down. Which is how they’re able to get people here I feel, cause most people don’t have that kind of time required to really learn this stuff. It’s difficult science, much more advanced than simple motion physics. But I hope I was able to make better sense of it, though I’m sure you still have many questions, so feel free.
1
-
@terry3002 Well I’ve talked your ear off about physics, maybe now I’ll take the time to chat about the logic behind FE a bit. Cause it’s not like their logic is bad, much of it I used to actually agree with when I was younger. And some I still do. I mean it’s a frustrating system we currently live in, isn’t it. Lot of things to worry about lately, and democratic processes have seemingly been corrupted to a point where we’re just, constantly trying to vote the lesser of two evils...not a whole lot of choice anymore. Though I suppose there never really was...but it just feels more frustrating today, because the stakes feel higher.
And yes, it does feel more and more like government and corporations have tightened their grip on certain sectors of research and development. But I think it’s just exasperated by a life experienced mostly online today. Social medias don’t really represent the world as it actually is, it sensationalizes it. We spend more and more time online, we’re fed this version of the world every day...we get stressed, worried, pessimistic, angry. I think it starts to have a negative psychological effect on us. Go out and actually talk to a scientist out in their field of research, you’ll find they’re not as clenched down as you’d think. They get by just fine and they’re focused on their research. Fighting for grant money, sure, that does happen, and I’m sure it does cause some to resort to disingenuous tactics to get that grant, but I very much doubt it’s a majority of cases.
But see the nice thing about science is that we can’t really do much with faulty data, false information, fake information. These people are eventually weeded out, during the process of peer review...which is part of why we conduct peer review. It doesn’t always work mind you, and some products get rushed...but when people start seeing the disadvantages, we start fixing them. Nothing flies under the radar forever, despite their best efforts...because junk science does not work. It’s really that simple.
There are more good honest people than bad. Everything you’re saying does happen, but I would argue it’s not as bad as you think it is. It just feels like it is, because media likes to bombard us with bad news, it sells better. Social media is no different, it focuses on drama, fuelling our negative reactions. But, we can’t do much with junk science, so it’s not in societies best interest, or in governments, to lie about basic core understandings, like physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
Geometry is very simple stuff...you can try and hide the shape of the Earth from 7 billion people, but when nearly half of that population requires that information be accurate, in order to do their jobs with any accuracy, then you have yourself a bit of a problem. When any one of us can get up, and look at a sunset...then wonder how a sun could set over a flat Earth, if line of sight to that Sun is never blocked geometrically? That’s a big problem for that lie...the bigger a lie is, the harder it is to keep. And it’s made all the more difficult, just by the fact that geometry is pretty simple stuff. I travel to the South and see different stars...I’m going to wonder why that is. I plot a navigation route using the lines of latitude and longitude designed for a planet with two equal hemispheres, I’m going to agree the Earth is spherical, the moment I pull into port successfully.
It’s just too big...it’s more logical to me, that Flat Earth is part of the disinformation campaign, not the other way around. But that’s my feelings on that currently.
I see the logic a bit, indoctrination is a hell of a tool, and over 500+ years, you can get people to believe almost anything. Once it’s old enough, it becomes almost non debatable. But...I still do feel, you can combat that sort of lying, with life experience, there are simple geometric and physical truths to reality, that anyone can confirm first hand, free from any system of alleged indoctrination. I don’t have to agree immediately with gravity physics, but I can put a weight on a scale and wonder to myself...if there was no downward force, then how is pressure being applied to the scale, just as it would if I was pushing down on it?
See, nature doesn’t lie, so that’s what I listen too. With that, I feel you can combat pretty much any man made lie.
But anyway, it is still interesting to ponder. I do see much of the logic, I have the same worries and dread as you these days. It’s a stressful time fir sure, but no reason to lose our heads over. But keep looking, it could lead to some solutions eventually, who knows.
1
-
1
-
@terry3002 Hi again, found some time to respond to more of your questions, figured I’d share a bit more info.
So you asked a question about people being “upside down” in Australia and Southern countries, just wanted to help with that for a bit if I can. First of all, upside down relative to what? If gravity is what orientates us, is what pulls us to surface, then you’re going to feel right side up no matter where you are. You’re upside down relative to someone in America, sure, but then they can say the same thing. To them, we’re upside down. You have to get this idea out of your mind that North is the top South is bottom...in reality, there is no top or bottom to the Earth. Gravity pulls to centre...to surface, that’s what you and everyone is orientated too, we call these gravity vectors. Just like any object you drop falls to surface, your blood is drawn to surface as well...everything is. I mean, just stop and ask yourself this question fir a second, what force would draw your blood to your head? If gravity pulls everything to surface, including your blood...then what counter force exists pulling your blood up instead? This might be difficult to wrap your mind around, but there is no top or bottom of Earth. Down is always toward surface, up is always away from it, no matter where you are on Earth. We chose to orientate our maps with North up, South down, so I see where that confusion comes from, but that’s not how it is in reality.
You should look up the sped up ISS footage of its orbit around Earth, it looks like Earth is spinning underneath it, but ISS is what’s moving. At no point do they feel or look upside down, because there really is no direct orientation in space. You will feel right side up no matter what direction you’re pointing in space. It’s gravity that orientates us while on the surface, your body is designed to handle gravity pulling blood down, you feel upside down only when you orientate yourself upside down relative to gravity, then gravity pulls blood to your brain, creating a feeling of being upside down. If that orientation is always towards surface, if blood always gets pulled towards surface, then you will not feel upside down anywhere on Earth, so long as you’re orientated with your feet on surface.
1
-
@terry3002 Now you had some questions about flight routes.
“Why are flight routes so restricted over Antarctica?”
Several reasons, so I’ll just list what comes to the top of my head; 1) There’s barely any airports in Antarctica (or in the South in general), so emergency landings are scarce; 2) there’s barely any people or major cities in the South Hemisphere, most of the land and population is in the North, so there’s really no point to fly to places where nobody really lives, not economically viable; 3) it’s dangerous, it’s one of the harshest places on the planet, flying here raises the risks and airports need to lower risks to ensure their passengers arrive safely; 4) Pilots fly what are known as great circle routes, this is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. Because there’s not much land down there with major cities on them, great circle routes rarely cross over this location, it’s just basic geometry.
So lots of reasons why nobody really flys over Antarctica. But yes, real flights do exist that do go over it, or at least very close to it, so it’s not like it doesn’t happen. You can say they’re just fake...but that’s just a speculation, until you actually try. I’ve been to New Zealand and Australia, which are both pretty far South, I’ve met people who have flown on these flights you say aren’t real. Met a South African once who flew direct from Johannesburg to Perth, then Perth to Melbourne, Melbourne to Aukland, which is North island NZ, where I met him in a town called Napier. Was he lying to me? I very much doubt it, this was in 2012, long before I ever heard of FE. It’s great I had that experience though, cause now I know for sure...but to be fair, I understand your hesitation. I just feel it’s kind of a weak argument, mostly just speculation and bias. Nothing you can really reach a definite conclusion from.
“Yes, I am aware of the argument for the airlines trying to take advantage of the wind currents, but I’m skeptical.”
So am I actually, never heard that one before. I’m not a pilot though, could be possible, but I’m not about to speculate on that. It’s more logical to me that they don’t fly many flights South for economic reasons, the passengers just aren’t there and the airports are smaller, so they can’t handle as many direct flights...so they don’t, they instead link up with bigger airports that can handle the flow and process more passengers. Makes far more sense to me.
“With regards to flight paths, many of them make no sense on a globe map. They are not the shortest distance between spots.”
How do you know? Have you really checked them on a globe? Getting the feeling you haven’t. I find a lot of these channels claiming they don’t work on a globe...never actually use a globe to check them, they instead use a Mercator map...which is just another flat Earth map. How do they think using a different flat Earth map, debunks a globe? Of course they’re not gonna make sense if you do things that way.
Try actually plotting them on a globe for a change, you’ll find they all actually work just fine.
https://youtu.be/MiUklHodcho
I feel this is one of those slight of hand tricks FE uses, plotting everything on flat maps, never actually doing them on a Globe...then wondering why the routes didn’t work. I’ve always found that odd.
So let’s look at one. You can actually go to Google Earth at anytime and make use of their ruler tool, which between two points will generate a great circle route for you. So let’s try actually plotting one of these emergency routes on the globe, see what we get. There’s one old one that FE used to use a lot a few years back, a flight from Taiwan to LA, that had an emergency landing they rerouted to Alaska. Plotting this on a Mercator map, the straightest path goes over Hawaii, plotting it on the AE map (most commonly used FE map), that flight flies over Alaska. So I see the confusion here, but let’s try actually plotting that course using the globe. Here’s a screencap from what I got when I plotted the direct route https://ibb.co/4R3ZPFC. Do you see how far South Hawaii is? What does this route fly closer too, Alaska or Hawaii? Should be pretty obvious now I think.
To me, this is actually a perfect example of how FE tricks people. It’s one of the many first examples I stumbled on, that made me realize...they’re not being very honest with themselves. It’s why I’m so skeptical of FE. If they actually bothered to plot this route (and many others) on a globe, they’d see it makes perfect sense on a globe. I feel it’s confirmation bias that’s keeping people from actually checking though...it’s incredible how powerful bias is for leading our conclusions. This is why I can’t over state it enough, how important it is to remain objective...as best you can.
Anyway, hope you find this information interesting. I’d urge you to try plotting dome routes on the globe for yourself sometime, better to not just blindly listen to what others claim.
1
-
@terry3002 No, there’s nothing anywhere that states flying over Antarctica is illegal under any international law. Did you look? Doing some searching, I’ve found nothing on that. It’s not illegal, they just don’t have the infrastructure down there to handle a large influx of air travel...just like I said in my prior comment.
Yes, I’m aware of the Antarctica treaty, I’ve also read it many times now. It’s not a long article, so it doesn’t take long...have you ever actually read it? Nowhere in the article does it ever say planes will be shot down, or that lethal force will be used on anyone. What it does say is that Antarctica is to be used for peaceful purposes only, no military force is to occupy the continent for the purpose of occupying or controlling it through force. Military can be there, but it must be for scientific purposes, excluding weapons testing...no weapon testing allowed.
So there’s a reason I feel FE is bias...right there, you’re making some pretty biased claims now, claims that are easily falsified if you actually bothered to read the article you’re making claims of. Go ahead, I urge you to read the treaty yourself, find me the section where it states flight over Antarctica is illegal, or where lethal force will be used on anyone venturing there.
The treaty is a peace treaty between nations, stating that no one nation can own or lay claim to Antarctica, it is to be shared and used for peaceful scientific research only. Little contradictory I’d say, to apply lethal force...for a document declaring strictly peaceful interactions, wouldn’t you say? It’s not strange at all, that’s the main purpose of the UN, to maintain peace between nations...that’s their function. Antarctica treaty is not the only peace treaty in existence, nations come together and sign all kinds of peace treaties such as this, so you’re wrong to say countries don’t cooperate, they do MOST of the time actually. If they didn’t, we’d constantly be at war. It’s a big treaty, yes, but it’s not out of the ordinary and it makes perfect sense. There’s nothing there but ice, you can’t really put a city there anyway, so it’s better that it just remains neutral.
You may disagree, but you are applying bias now. Almost nothing you claimed is actually in that article, so you should be aware of that. I urge you to read it sometime.
On your other point with the flights, many in FE claim some flights don’t exist, that Johannesburg to Perth flight is one of the flights they claim is not real. Simply because of its time taken. It’s only a 10 hour flight direct, but on flat Earth it would be about double that...because the distances in the South are longer on the FE model most commonly used, the AE projection map. So that’s why I mentioned that flight, because I actually met someone who flew it, even though FE claims it’s not real. I was just simply stating that much of what FE claims, isn’t actually true. That’s one example that I can personally confirm. I realize it’s trickier for you though, because you don’t share that experience, so it’s fine if you choose to disagree, but it’s something I personally know for certain.
As for the emergency flight I shared between Taiwan and LA, point was...if you’re going to refute the globe, then you have to use the globe for your argument. You can’t just ignore it and then think that’s an argument. Google Earth uses the most up to date and current topographic and geographic data, so it’s using the globe model you’re trying to argue against. If you’re going to claim the flights don’t work on the globe...then don’t you think you should actually plot those flights on the globe, so you can then actually check that claim for accuracy? Yes, absolutely you should. The Mercator map is not an accurate map of the globe, it’s a greatly distorted projection of the globe...yet that’s the map FE uses to make comparisons with. How can you not see the error in that? Of course plotting flights on the Mercator is not going to work...it’s not the globe. This is just simple geometry now...flat maps of Earth are missing that third dimension, so they will be inaccurate.
You’re claiming you’re not bias...but then you won’t even look at the model you’re currently refuting? Most of the data that makes up the WGS84 (the most up to date globe model, used in Google Earth), doesn’t come from NASA, it’s from geodetic land surveying data, which is a global collaboration between varying surveying organizations. But point is, you claimed the flights don’t work on a globe....but then never thought to actually check them on an actual globe model? You do understand you can’t really make that claim then, right?
You didn’t test the flights on a globe...so you don’t really know if they work or not on a globe, so you can’t really make that claim then. I mean, at this point I’m just stating common sense. If I ever said flights don’t work on FE...you’d expect me to have actually tested that claim on a map of FE, right? I mean, that should just be common sense. So I’m sorry, but your argument there is just...ignorant. You’re not really challenging the model, you’re just ignoring it. That implies a bias...you’re not even looking at the globe, you’re just ignoring it.
Sorry man, but your new arguments are heavily steeped in bias. You’re making a lot of really ignorant arguments now.
1
-
@terry3002 I never said you did say they had infrastructure, that was what I’m saying. I was just saying that’s a large part for WHY flights don’t go over Antarctica, because they don’t have the infrastructure, so airports avoid it because without infrastructure, it becomes a risk. That’s been my argument, so don’t get it confused. I’m not putting words in your mouth, I merely answered your question. That was my reply.
Fact is, I see no official law or treaty that clearly states flight over Antarctica is illegal, so look at it from my point of view. You’re claiming it’s illegal, you said it was international law, you even said the treaty states that it’s illegal...but then It doesn’t, there is no law that I can find and nowhere in the treaty does it even mention flights. So who do you think you’re fooling? Your claim is very empty of facts, and I’m kind of shocked you’ve chosen to believe it...on basically just pure speculation and assumption, which is not very logical.
We can agree to disagree, but I think you should really be more honest with yourself here. Yes, I urge you to look into it further and also consider the possibility, that you might have reached a erroneous conclusions, due to confirmation bias.
1
-
@terry3002 Indeed, I do feel we all have bias, and it’s very tricky to catch it most of the time, even harder to admit when we do. But that’s why these kinds of chats with an opposing viewpoint are good I feel, I find that I learn so much more when I actually listen and consider viewpoints that are not my own. I can be far too trusting of scientific authority, so it’s good to keep that in check.
Thanks for taking the time to look a little closer, I did not know there was a fine for going without a permit, and I wasn’t completely sure what the rules were for air travel over Antarctica either, so we did both learn something new. It is what I figured though, far too dangerous for most flights, because of a lack of infrastructure. Good to know for sure though with cited sources, so thanks for the effort. 🙂 But still many questions left, still can’t know much for certain without physically going there.
I appreciate the honesty as well, goes a long way, it shows a true rational mindset and good strength of character. Good to have a rational conversation on the subject for a change, so thanks again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JessiQT17 Well you clearly didn’t bother to read my full comment, where I explain how poorly set up the “Cold Moonlight experiment” truly is. You numpty’s didn’t think to include a control for your experiment, to isolate the main variable of your hypothesis. I don’t much care to repeat it all either, so you can just scroll up and reread it. Your claim also breaks thermodynamics physics. Light is basically energy, energy is never cold, it’s what produces all the thermal energy in the entire universe. You ever been near a hot plasma? It’s not producing a cold light. The Sun is a plasma…plasma only burns hot, it’s HEATED gas, that’s what a plasma is. You are an idiot, who was easily conned by huxters online, with smoke and mirrors, it’s all keep your eye on their empty claims, and ignore common sense. That’s the reality. It’s a con…and YOU fell for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JessiQT17 Do you even know what plasma is? It’s basically heated gas…you ever seen fire maintain a rigid structure? The Sun is basically a plasma, if you view it through a solar filter lens you’ll see its surface, and it’s constantly shifting and changing…cause that’s how plasma works.
Look through a telescope sometime, the surface of the Moon is clearly rigid, does not shift or change, and with shadows in its many craters…a plasma would not do that, it wouldn’t have craters at all actually.
Your conclusion is ignorant of basic physics and astronomy. You think you’re revealing some truth to us, but what you’re really doing is not listening or considering what we’re saying, instead continuing to ram a square peg into a round hole. I’m listening to your conclusion, but it’s in contradiction to how plasma actually works, so I’m sorry, but I do not agree with your conclusion for that reason.
I feel strongly that you were fed some bullshit, that’s the real truth. Use your head please…THINK about what I’m saying instead of ignoring it, you might realize then who the real huxters are.
1
-
@JessiQT17 If by “lunar waves” you mean the shimmering effect you see, that’s atmospheric refraction. You see the same thing on the horizon when you look through a telescopic lens…that’s because you’re looking through atmosphere, and atmosphere is gas, so it’s a fluid, and thus is constantly flowing and shifting, causing light to shimmer and wave, distorting what you see. If the Moon were a plasma, it would not have rigid forms that remain the same over time, like craters. Only solid matter can maintain a rigid structure, all other states of matter (liquid, gas, plasma) shift and change constantly over time. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Anyway, no disrespect, it’s good to question things, even well established science, so I hope I haven’t patronized you. It’s actually quite admirable. I hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting, and I hope it’s at least considered. Take care.
1
-
@StephenJelinek The Sun is clearly dipping into and under the horizon, being obscured by surface. If a sunset was caused by the limitations of light propagation, then wouldn’t we expect the Sun to fade out, instead of becoming obscured by horizon? And you’re reaching a definite conclusion on how you feel light works, without first verifying your conclusion as conclusive. Do you have any evidence that verifies light is finite and has its limits? Do you think simply stating a conclusion without evidence is how science works?
Seems to me that when I successfully falsified your claim, instead of reanalyzing the main conclusion (Earths shape), you just found an ad hoc response that agreed with your bias. Instead of considering that the Sunset is caused by surface physically blocking it from line of sight, you slotted in an ad hoc conclusion instead. You don’t see that as confirmation bias?
Again, you have a bit more work ahead of you if you’re going to conclude a sunset is caused by what you now believe it is. I’m seeing some immediate problems with your current conclusion. Why doesn’t the Sun fade out slowly if light is finite? Another problem is it ignores some fundamental rules of perspective, such as eye level. If an object is above your eye level, then it will never drop below it, neither physically, nor due to perspective. Everything will converge at your eye level due to perspective, but it will not go below it. The Sun clearly goes below eye level…how does it do that if it’s never physically below your eye level?
The globe model still accounts for this observation better. Even if you could rectify these issues, you’re still not falsifying the globe. So I wouldn’t be so quick to ignore the globe conclusion here.
1
-
1
-
Knowing the correct scale and geometry of Earth matters a great deal to fields of navigation, communication, engineering and infrastructure. Kinda need to know this stuff, if they’re gonna have any chance of doing their jobs with any accuracy. Also just helps to be on the same page in general, saves a lot of time. May not notice the effect, but spreading misinformation actually slows human progress, by crippling future generations chances at entering fields of work that fuel innovation. If a kid grows up believing misinformation, it really makes it harder for them down the road, if they ever attempt some form of secondary education. If they grow up thinking fields of math and science are pointless, makes for fewer scientists, doctors, and engineers...the people who pretty much keep the wheels of innovation turning. So it matters.
1
-
1
-
@pedrocortez1683 There are a few channels dedicated to dispelling misinformation, who earn a little for doing it (Scimandan, Bob the Science Guy, etc), but sadly, the real money has always been in conning people to believe bullshit, and it’s much easier. Much easier to endlessly speculate and seed doubt and exploit paranoia, than it is to convince an angry mob they were conned. Much easier to destroy, than it is too repair the damage done. So the real money and the much easier path, is in pushing conspiracy, not disproving them. And most people who do it, aren’t in it for the money, they do it more as a public service, sharing their knowledge and experience for free (Wolfie6020, Sly Sparkane, Soundly, etc).
You only really see the big science and news channels on the top searches (channels who aren’t very dedicated on conspiracies and only scratch the surface), it’s just as hard to find the channels really dedicated to debunking things like Flat Earth, the REAL debunkers, they get just as buried as the Flat Earthers do. Lots of experiments I used to be able to find pretty easy with a search, are now buried and almost impossible to find…one in particular I find to be really useful for demonstrating refraction, I have to type every word of the title, and it’s still buried a ways down the search results. So the REAL debunking channels get just as ignored by the algorithm today. So the opportunity for debunkers to get their foot in the door and earn anything substantial here, has pretty much passed, the algorithm doesn’t care which side you’re on, but it does favour big general science and news channels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some great questions, but please remember that questions are not evidence, there is a difference. Just because you don’t know the answers currently, does not mean they can’t be answered. It’s fine to ask questions though, in fact it’s perfectly logical, I just find it troubling how so many people today, seem to think speculations are enough to reach conclusions with, so long as you have a lot of them. Anyway, I’ll offer some answers here if you don’t mind, they are good physics and astronomy questions. Then you can let me know if you have any further questions or rebuttals.
1) I’ve analyzed many satellite photos, I’m not aware of any that features every continent, so could you please share the photos you’re referring too, cause everything I’ve searched only shows one side at a time. In the meantime, have you ever considered recreating the image you’re seeing with a real globe or perhaps Google Earth? The continent’s are quite big, stretching pretty far in ways you’re probably not aware of, so have you ever considered recreating the photos to better visualize the geometry?
2) Well I’d assume because you’re only ever seeing images from a single satellite. There are several in orbit though, have you tried taking a sampling from several different ones, to see if they’re different? I know the GOES 15-17 are locked to the Americas and Himawari 8 is locked to Asia, try comparing those. I just did and I can tell you, Australia is not visible in the GOES and it’s more to the left of centre in the Himawari 8 photos...so really not sure what you’re talking about.
3) Well, Earth rotates from West to East, so the Sun will go the other way East to West and the shadow of night will follow.
4) For the same reason tossing a ball back and forth in a moving vehicle will be the same no matter which way you toss it, with the vehicles velocity or against it, because of conservation of momentum and relative motion, basic physics of motion. Give it a try sometime, then do some further research on the laws of motion and relative motion.
5) The stars do change, any astronomer will tell you that. Every year they’re shifting slightly and it’s well documented. The reason they take so long, is because of their distances, it’s a parallax effect. I’m sure don’t have to explain how distance will effect the rate of an objects perceived velocity, it’s why a plane at just 3 miles up appears to barely crawl across the sky, despite travelling at roughly 500 mph. Now imagine what trillions of miles distance would do. There’s also the fact that every star is orbiting galactic centre at roughly the same rate of travel, so like cars down a highway at night, going the same speed, maintaining the same distances, they’re not going to shift very quickly.
A better question to ask is, if the Earth is flat, how is there two different night skies, with two celestial rotations for each hemisphere? Doesn’t make a whole lot of geometric sense on a flat Earth, meanwhile it’s exactly what we’d expect to see on a rotating globe.
6) The Moon rotates on its axis at the same rate as its orbit, this causes it to remain locked one face towards us. It’s known as tidal locking, and it’s actually quite common in our solar system. The majority of moons in our solar system are also tidal locked to their host planet, even Mercury is tidal locked to the Sun. It’s what’s expected to happen due to gravity, even our planet will eventually be locked one face to the Sun, but it’ll take a very long while.
So that’s some of your questions answered, let me know if you find the information helpful or at the very least interesting. Perhaps I’ll provide some answers for the others when I have the time. You don’t have to agree with any of it, I’m merely sharing information, much of it I’m sure you’ve even heard before, but it bares repeating, cause the answers don’t really change.
1
-
@lastfirst3291 Eric Dubay is the worst of them, the guy borders on a cult leader...you should just watch is melt down when he found out people were following other flat Earthers online and not him. He got really offended, called them all hacks, declaring that HE and he alone is the true prince of Flat Earth, demanded that they pay him the respect he feels he deserves and then got really angry and attacked them all publicly...it was like a toddler throwing a tantrum, over something so trivial, he should have been more humble about. He's just a petty, self absorbed, narcissist and I'm pretty sure he's also a psychopath. So not a guy I'd want to follow personally, but you do you I guess.
Worst of all is that he lies...a LOT. Take his very first 200 proof video for example and start at the beginning with his "horizon always rises to eye level" claim. No...it does not, but he sure made a lot of people believe that, before they even bothered to go out and measure it for themselves. You can measure it by the way, it's pretty simple to measure horizon drop, just take either a leveling rig (which are easy to build with household supplies) or a theodolite (which you can download apps for on your phone) with you on a hike up a hill with a few hundred or thousands of feet elevation from sea level, and the horizon drop becomes pretty clear, pretty fast. Your eye can't measure it, because your eye isn't an accurate measuring tool...but Eric doesn't care, it's the blind faith in his claim he cares about and he's VERY good at selling it. Because he has zero empathy in his tone and 100% confidence, it makes him able to lie without flinching...that's why he sounds so convincing, he lies like breathing, it's second nature to him. Which is a known trait of a psychopath...and it's not the only trait he shares with that sort of personality type.
Just rewatch his video of him explaining a sunset sometime, or the second hemisphere, the Southern star trails, or his explanation for how Polaris drops to 0 degrees at the equator. Have you seen how ridiculous his explanation is for these things? Complete mental gymnastics...that even Flat Earthers must agree at least a little bit, sounds like absolute bullshit! But you guys don't do you...you ACTUALLY listen to him talk about the personal perspective bubbles or the mirrored sky's claims....and actually nod your heads in agreement? He's ramming square pegs into round holes...and Flat Earth just nods and agrees...it's incredible really. Meanwhile the Globe explains all of the observed occurrences I just mentioned above with absolute ease...they're exactly what you'd expect to see occur on a Globe, with TWO hemispheres, that rotates, with one sun that lights one side of the Earth at a time. No mental gymnastics required there....yet Flat Earthers listen to Dubay without ever questioning him? Do you ever wonder why exactly? Have you ever questioned any of his claims, or do you tend to just agree right off the bat? His explanations are clearly bullshit....so it's just a tad maddening for the rest of us, that you'd side with a clear huxter with such ease.
I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, all I'm seeing is a bunch of people...following a mad man, just so they can spite everyone else. It just seems like you're being contrarian on purpose...for the sole purpose of, pissing people off. Arguing a position you know is bullshit, just to stick it to authority? Feel free to disagree, but that's really all I'm seeing from Flat Earth....especially if you're following a crazy person like Eric Dubay...enough that you're actually proud of it. I know he likes it when people call him crazy, but I don't say that lightly...it's not just that he believes in a Flat Earth, it's fine to question what you're told and I'm all for that actually...but he is just generally not a very stable person, he's very self absorbed and seems to crave the attention, to the point where I think he believes himself to be like the second coming of Jesus at this point! I see more similarities to Charles Manson then a gentle guru in which to lend an ear too...he might have Flat Earth fooled, but I would be cautious with him if I were you.
1
-
@lastfirst3291 Yes, I just see a lot of people praising Eric...and I'm just confused, because why? I see something completely different, so I try to point out to anyone who dabbles in his work and gives it any praise, I feel he's someone you should be cautious of. Question what he says, don't just listen to it blindly...he is very convincing, because of how calm and confident he is...doesn't mean you should ever take his words at face value. I see a liar, who's VERY good at lying. Just watch the Joe Rogan podcast episode where he talks with a paleontologist about Eric and his claims made about Dinosaurs (he also believes they're fake btw) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knWCsonQVG4. This is an ACTUAL expert, who works out in the field, who knows WAY more about his profession, then Eric does. It's pretty eye opening how quickly this guy points out every lie made and just how many Eric makes in rapid succession is just incredible.
Eric acts as though he's an expert on all these things he talks about and he's very good at making you think he actually is...and it's very clear here how he does it, he lies...like breathing. I've seen the same thing occur in all his videos pertaining to Flat Earth. I've sat down and found a great deal of his lies, before I just couldn't take it anymore and had to conclude, he's a scam artist...and very good at it.
So just doing what I can to warn people about this guy. I don't take that much effort with other Flat Earthers, I still think they're all liars and con artists, but Eric is on a whole other level, because he spreads a lot of hate and intolerance (he's a Nazi sympathizer, and talks a lot about his distrust of the Jews) as well and he's 100% dedicated to his lies...he does not waiver. Only a psychopath could lie like that, without flinching...it's why he's so convincing, because he doesn't flinch. He has to know he's lying...you can't make that many lies without realizing it, and most people have a tell, something in their voice that indicates they know they're lying, which is why most people prefer not lying, what they'll do instead is hide details...because normal people with normal empathy actually can't handle lying to much, it gets to them and then it starts to show. Eric does not, he just lies and lies and lies, like breathing, and that's why so many listen to him...cause it's so unnatural, that we see it as a guy telling the truth.
Anyway, yes, you just said he did good work, so I can't assume you praise him from just that alone. I don't go out of my way to talk at length about most of the Flat Earth proponents, but Eric is someone I try to warn people about...cause he's a scary dude compared to the others. So I hope that information is at the very least interesting. Thank you for reading, I mean no disrespect for having your own opinions and if you still disagree, that's perfectly fine.
1
-
@sam-cn9gf The Moon does rotate, that’s why the same side is always facing us. In order for that to happen, it has to rotate as it orbits us…it’s called tidal locking. It’s not rare either, pretty close to every other Moon in our solar system is also tidal locked to their planet…that’s what happens when an orbiting body is very close to their host. Though it’s actually an inevitability of all orbiting satellites and even planets. Mercury is also tidal locked to the Sun. In a few billion years, even Earth will eventually be tidal locked…it’s part of how gravity slowly effects a rotation. It’s very common and it’s expected under gravity physics.
Just because you don’t understand something currently, does not make it false, nor does it imply you can’t still learn it. Currently, I understand the physics of the globe model and it fits observable reality perfectly, really doesn’t take much to verify that either. It’s used in the foundation of pretty much every applied science, from navigation, to engineering, communication and infrastructure….and it all works, that’s not just a coincidence, applied science requires knowledge be accurate, or it doesn’t work. You know how to spot junk science? It’s simple…it doesn’t work and it has no use, besides squeezing a few dollars out of the gullible. Flat Earth has no working model and is not used in any applied science. So it’s not a debate anymore. You fell for an online scam, that’s the reality, and you were happy to believe it without much question, because it helps confirm a bias you have, that being the Christian story of things.
I’ve been chatting with Flat Earthers for about 4 years now, I’ve heard the arguments and I’ve reviewed the supposed evidence. In all that time, there hasn’t been a single claim I haven’t been able to falsify…and with very little effort. Just a basic understanding of physics and geometry and a few simple observations, is all a person needs to debunk Flat Earth. So I’m sorry, but I’m not going to just ignore what I know and have verified for myself, simply because others can’t seem to understand. I don’t mind entertaining other perspectives and conclusions still, I think it’s perfectly fine to ask questions and I try my best not to patronize or be condescending, but it’s pretty simple for me, Flat Earth lacks evidence and a working model that can actually be used in applied science, so it’s pseudoscience.
I don’t care how badly someone wants it to be true, no matter how much it confirms their biased beliefs, no matter how many questions they have. Questions and speculations are not evidence, Flat Earth has no working model, not a single field of applied science uses FE. The globe on the other hand, has actual evidence, has a working model and is used in every field of applied science. That’s the reality.
You know tons of Christians have no problem with marrying their faith and beliefs with our modern knowledge. The Earth being spherical in vast cosmos doesn’t falsify the existence of a God or creation. Most scientists throughout history, and even still today, are actually theists, not atheists. They just prefer to remain objective when it comes to science, because they understood how useless false information is for human advancement.
1
-
@sam-cn9gf You sure say a lot, without saying much at all. You keep saying things in science are a lie, but you really haven’t done anything to prove that claim, just made a lot of empty conjectures, claiming over and over again that they just are. I don’t mind being wrong, but flat Earth has yet to provide anything that actually demonstrates where I and modern science has gone wrong. Evidence is what you’d require for that end, questions are not evidence, neither are speculations and empty claims.
We can speculate all day on why Von Braun put that passage on his tombstone, but speculations are not truth. I would say it’s because he was an astro physicist, which had to do with studying the sky and space above us, the firmament translates to mean “the sky”, so it was a poetic passage that reflected his life’s work, nothing more. You would probably say that he was hinting at the existence of a dome firmament above our heads, a clue left behind to be deciphered. But understand this, both of those are just speculations at the end of the day, and I for one do not reach conclusions on empty speculations alone. I require real evidence…not speculations.
So far you’ve just given me a bunch of questions (good questions, but still only questions), which I’ve answered, and empty speculations/claims….that’s the problem. You seem to think that’s all been good enough. Some people really don’t seem to understand what constitutes as actual evidence anymore and that’s a real problem. I don’t mind being wrong, but you have done nothing so far to prove that I am. But feel free to give me something better, I don’t mind analyzing actual evidence, but so far you haven’t given me any.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes it does, planes fly what is called a great circle route, which is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. If you go to Google Earth, which uses a to scale globe Earth model, then use the ruler tool provided there and use it to trace a path from Connecticut to China, it'll create this great circle route for you...because that's what this ruler tool does too, creates the shortest distance between two points on the sphere. Every time you do this, you'll notice that the path goes over Canada, past Greenland, through Russia...exactly like that flight plan and exactly like it should on a Globe at our scale. And I'm not surprised it would take 20 hours, it's a little over 8000 miles. At an average flight speed of 400 mph, that would be about 20 hours. So it all checks out perfectly actually.
Stop listening blindly to con men on YouTube feed you bullshit. Question them just as much as you now question the mainstream, you might find out who the real liars are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps you could use a lesson on some basic physics. A rocket does not require air to fly, it makes use of the third law of motion for its propulsion, action reaction. Essentially, the ignited gas pushes off the rocket, the rocket pushes off the ignited gas. Not much different than if you were to stand upright feet together, then toss a medicine ball with both hands from chest height, what happens? You fall backwards and the medicine ball flys forward, pushing off of each other, action reaction, simple physics of motion.
They actually move better within a vacuum, because there’s no drag to slow them or stop them, so they can propel forward indefinitely, under the first law of motion, all things in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. There’s a reason why we don’t use planes or jets for space travel, we instead use rockets. Your point is ignorant, rockets are not planes, so they don’t work the same way…this should have been pretty obvious, but confirmation bias is a hell of thing. Stop looking at things with a biased filter, start looking at everything objectively.
1
-
@zigzac1650 Holds up oceans of water? 🧐 Do you think the south pole is the bottom of Earth? 😅 What force is present out in space, that’s pulling on the water at the South Pole? All I’m aware of is the gravity that emanates from centre of Earth and attracts everything in its gravity well, towards its surface. So your question tells me you really don’t understand gravity very well. Do you think Earth operates the same as a ball you hold in your hand? In that example, you poor water on a ball, where does the water fall? To Earth…right? So in that example, gravity of Earth is under the ball, that’s why the water falls off the ball. In space…where’s the force that’s below Earth attracting the Earth’s water? 🤷♂️ You’re making a false equivalence…Earth is very different from a tiny ball you hold in your hand, it’s not an accurate comparison.
It’s fine to have questions though, in fairness it’s not a bad physics question, so my apologies for the jabs at your current knowledge…but you are misunderstanding gravity quite a bit here. Gravity is constant, but it also depends on an objects mass…that goes both ways. Everything with mass (so all physical matter) creates gravity, and that gravity is directly proportional to the objects mass. Earth has its gravitational pull, which really isn’t all that powerful here on Earth, it’s just the only force present on Earth, so nothing is pulled away from it. But it doesn’t crush us, because it’s not a powerful force, it’s just the only force present. As well though, our bodies evolved here, so we’re built to withstand Earth’s gravity, you feel that force every single day in the form of weight. I’m sure you feel heavy…right? That’s gravity causing that feeling. We’re just so used to it, we don’t notice.
The larger you are, the more mass you have, the harder it is to overcome gravity…because you have more gravity you’re creating yourself, and more mass to be attracted to Earth. So the larger you are, the harder it is to move…that’s why bugs and birds have such an easy time moving around, they have way less mass. It’s also why there’s a limit to how large we can create aircraft…eventually the weight to thrust ratio becomes too great the bigger you make it.
Anyway, you’re treating Earth as if it’s constantly fighting a second force somewhere out in space. But there’s only Gravity, and it’s strongest at its source, which is centre of mass. So we’re all closest to Earth’s centre of mass, so that’s where we’re attracted. Earth isn’t big enough to create enough gravity to crush us, a planet like Jupiter sure, Saturn as well, the Sun is definitely, but Earth is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, so its gravity is just right for life to thrive.
If you have any further questions on the physics of gravity, I don’t mind sharing more. Lots of great experiments you could research as well, that have all helped verify this fundamental force of nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RageDaug Yes, exactly, it explains how we see further than is physically possible…hence it successfully falsifies Flat Earthers claim that Earth is flat because we see too far. That’s how falsification works; a claim is made, in this case “Earth is flat because we see too far”, then if no explanation or evidence can refute the claim, then it stands as a possibility, but the moment an explanation with evidence is presented that successfully refutes the claim, the claim is then falsified, until more evidence can come forward that may falsify the current position. It’s pretty simple. So far Flatties have no further rebuttal, that’s why they do everything they can to just ignore refraction…until it suits them.
Refraction is not a proof of the globe, it falsifies a flat Earth claim…that is all. That is why we continue to mention it…because they don’t listen, so it bares repeating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Globe Hoax is just a troll, he doesn’t care what you or anyone has to say, he’s firmly dug into the bullshit, so pretty pointless to even acknowledge him. Just another Flat Earth zombie, helping the huxters seed misinformation.
But yes, it’s extremely delusional to think such an extremely important knowledge like Earth’s geometry, would just slip by billions of people without noticing. Not a single whistle blower in the scientific community…after hundreds of years since the scientific method was established? Millions of successful voyages a year, by plane and ship, all using the same system of navigation designed from the knowledge that Earth is spherical…you’d have to be an extremely paranoid individual, with zero life experience, spending every day in front of a computer screen, with zero understanding of basic geometry, to think these people could do what they do, if the surface geometry they’ve been using this whole time was wrong.
We’re not dealing with rational people in Flat Earth…many of these people belong in padded rooms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@streetsurvivor687 Helium balloons go up because helium is less dense than oxygen, which causes the heavier gas to displace the lighter gas and force it upwards, that part is correct...and that's exactly what the theory of gravity teaches. The part you and Flat Earth ignore is that a downward force is required to start that displacement. Without the downward force telling matter what direction to begin falling...there will be no displacement of matter by density. Nothing is put into motion on its own, that's a basic law of motion...a force is required to tell matter what direction to fall and begin ordering itself by density. Gravity is the downward force that begins that motion. Without gravity, buoyancy can not occur...this is also proven with density columns in zero G environments. Without gravity telling matter what direction to fall...there is no ordering by density, no buoyancy, it is just chaos.
Listen, you and all of Flat Earth are in some crazy denial...that we're just trying our best to help wake you up from. Ignoring the obvious and stubbornly changing and bullshitting about science you disagree with...is not how you conduct objective research. Like it or not...Flat Earth is not the reality and all you're doing is falling deeper into a con that keeps you from opening your eyes, to the amazing world that surrounds you!
You are kidding yourself, if you think you're smarter then all of modern science...the same science that brings you ALL of the modern technology you enjoy today. Do you contribute to any engineering, innovation, invention, or scientific discovery? Do you know how your computer works? How your wifi is accessed and sent across the world? If no...then what makes you think you know more about physics, than the people who DO KNOW how these things work!?
You need to wake up bud...you're being played by con men, who have robbed you of your better reasoning and have turned you against your fellow man, they've made you very ignorant and ungrateful for every luxury you take for granted today.
1
-
@streetsurvivor687 Yup, as usual, 40 minutes of gish gallop, smoke and mirrors and misdirection. Just watch this video and understand why a solar filter is VERY important when making observations of the Sun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFTWGdR8SiU The sun is not actually shrinking in your video...it's just a poor observation made without a filter to help show you the true size of the Sun. What your observing is the Suns brightness diminishing as it passes through denser atmosphere during a sunset...and it becomes pretty obvious once you see a video of the Sun setting that compares the two, with a filter and then without.
THIS IS EXACTLY HOW FLAT EARTH CONS YOU! They dazzle you with bullshit like this all the time, showing you what they WANT YOU TO SEE, it's basically just smoke and mirrors and clever misdirection...and BOAT LOADS of confirmation bias! It's typical, you people do just enough research to confirm your bias and then you stop looking...and that never changes, it's the same for every argument across the board, Flat Earth thrives on bias research...and it's not hard to see that, if you actually take a second to question what Flat Earth claims, rather then listen to their bullshit blindly!
That Sun observation you shared is a perfect example of a BAD OBSERVATION to confirm a bias! Watch the Sun set again, but next time use a solar filter...and watch as the Sun maintains the exact same size throughout the entire day, never once changing in size. I don't like calling people idiots...but I'm getting really tired of you insufferable fools. Wake up! You're being conned. :/
I'm not new to this argument, I've been researching it for more then 3 years now, so you can save your bullshit...I've seen it all and I know exactly how Flat Earth cons you, on every single argument. If you'd like me to point out more ways they con you, feel free to continue, I don't mind slapping you back to reality.
1
-
@sterlingracing7135 Earth’s rotation and gravity, have both been measured and observed, in several different ways. Just because you’re currently not aware of how, doesn’t mean they haven’t.
For rotation it was first proven by the Foucault pendulum experiment, and then later by the same physicist Léon Foucault, who devised a simpler (and lesser known) experiment, the Foucault gyroscope experiment. Both are repeatable, you can even use the Foucault Pendulum experiment to calculate your latitude, as the pendulums rate of precession is different depending on your latitude.
There’s also simple experiments of Coriolis you can check out, plenty on YouTube. Then there’s ring laser interferometers that directly measure Earth’s 15 degrees per hour drift. And are you aware that Earth’s rotation generates a small amount of centrifugal force at the Equator? This actually causes everything at the Equator to weigh slightly less, about 0.3% less. This can be tested with a simple scale and a set of weights.
So plenty of evidence today that verifies Earth’s rotation…and that didn’t even include all of the Astronomy data, and the gyrocompass, which is a device that actually uses Earth’s rotation as part of its function.
For gravity there’s plenty of various drop tests, and there’s the Cavendish experiment (all easily repeatable). Plenty of people reproducing the Cavendish experiment, you can find scores of people conducting the experiment on YouTube. Then there’s the Eddington experiment that verifies relativity physics, it’s recreated pretty much every time there’s an eclipse. And it’s applied science, we use our understanding of gravity in everything from calculating your weight (W=mg), to determining buoyancy force (Fb=Vpg), to determining an aircraft’s thrust to weight ratio (ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g), then there’s the whole field of orbital mechanics and astrophysics, which accurately predict the positions of celestial bodies with gravity as a variable, and put satellites into orbit with that knowledge.
So again, just because you’re not currently aware of the science, doesn’t mean there isn’t any.
If you’re curious to know how they determined the Earth’s inner composition, look into the science of Seismology, more specifically do some research on S and P waves. In a brief summary, every Earthquake releases shockwaves that travel along Earth’s surface and through the Earth. Any large Earthquake (8.0 or greater), will actually produce shockwaves that travel all the way through the Earth, to ping stations on the other side of Earth. These waves almost quite literally paint us a picture of what the inner composition of Earth is. There’s two types of inner waves, S waves and P waves. P waves (primary waves/pressure waves) travel much faster and they travel through anything, solid, liquid, air, doesn’t matter. But they travel at different rates depending on the material. S waves (secondary waves/shear wave) are slower, and can only travel through solid matter, so they stop once they hit liquid or air. This creates shadow zones in the data, telling us that the core is liquid in nature. This data combined with the p wave data, tells us a lot about Earth’s core.
And the conclusion fits with other models of science, for example, it helps make sense of our electromagnetic field. We’re pretty good at creating our own electromagnetic fields, and they require a few ingredients…such as a metal alloy, spun into a coil, with a lot of energy traveling through it. The outer core swirls around the inner core, and the heat and pressure generates a lot of energy. Iron and nickel are common metal alloys used in electromagnetic conductors, and they just so happen to be the most common metal alloys found on Earth, every volcanic eruption spews out tons of it.
So there’s more science here than you think. We don’t have to physically go directly into something, to learn more about it. We’re limited in what we can do physically, but mankind is pretty clever, we have plenty of other methods we can use, to probe deeper into places we can’t physically go.
Anyway, I hope this information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@callonejaxon5191 Ever heard the phrase "common sense isn't always common"?
Truth is great, but the truth is often the hardest thing to prove. For that, we've created the scientific method, which is so far the best method we have for logically deducing truth....trouble is, a lot of people don't know how to use the method properly, and if you use it wrong, it can lead to just as many false conclusions as it does truth. Layman not trained in how to properly use the method, are more likely to get it wrong. This is just a fact, not because they're stupid or incapable, but because they've never practiced the method step by step, so they don't really know how it works. It's the same as learning anything and doing it properly...can't expect to be good at it, if you've never done it before. From what I've seen so far, Flat Earth is currently demonstrating that fact. Using the method incorrectly, to reach a great many false conclusions about the Earth.
It's not just getting science wrong though, it's jumping to false conclusions from misunderstood or misinterpreted information. For example, here's some errors you've made in some of your conclusions.
"Your so-called scientist says that there's curvature after 6 miles"
No, Flat Earth says that...that's what Rowbotham (Parallax) said in his experiment in the video above, but he was a flat Earther, not a scientist, so you misheard. What math and geometry calculates here in truth, is that with an Earth at our projected size, at a 6 foot viewing height, HORIZON is at about 3 miles from that persons perspective. This doesn't imply "curvature" begins here, the Earth is constantly curving at a gradual rate in every direction. Horizon is just the point where you can't see any further, due to curvature, it's curved under to a point where it's now blocked by it's own curvature. That doesn't mean horizon is ALWAYS at 3 miles, as you go higher you see further, now being able to see OVER that curvature. Take the observer to 100 feet viewing height for example, the horizon is now 12.3 miles away from that viewing perspective. It's basics spherical geometry and perspective...and it's common sense. The higher you go, the farther you see, the further your horizon extends. You also have to take into account the height of the object being viewed though. Yes, horizon is at 3 miles away from a 6 foot viewing height, but you'll still be able to see the top of an object for several more miles before it drops below the horizon, and out of line of sight.
So this is what science actually says about the geometry, but even this is too simple, because it ignores refraction. Here's why refraction is important to factor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t So because of this, it's not as simple as doing JUST a geometric calculation, because refraction can and will effect what you see at distances, so it can't be ignored, it MUST be factored into your math and your observation as well. If you do not factor refraction, then you do so out of bias....which is how you do science wrong and reach false conclusions.
This is an example of WHY you have to be more diligent and careful in science. Do it wrong, skip over important variables, and you absolutely can and will reach false conclusions. That's what Rowbotham did in his famous Bedford Level experiment, that was shared in the video above...he overlooked important details, like refraction. This is what is known in science as confirmation bias...and it's an example of how to conduct an experiment WRONG. He also did not do enough to render a more conclusive result. He only took ONE data set, from ONE observation...and that's not enough in ANY experiment, to render a conclusive result. You have to run the experiment several more times, over several more points in the day, to see if his results are consistent. He could also greatly improve upon the experiment, by adding several more markers and several more viewing heights and several more marked distances. This gives him more data to collect, allowing him to cover more variables. That's how you do science right.
But really, his biggest error was just that he got the math wrong...8 inches per mile squared is not the correct math to use for this observation. That math is just a basic parabolic arc equation, it is missing variables for this observation. It does not tell you where horizon is, It does not represent your line of sight, it does not give you an accurate figure for what is hidden from your line of sight due to horizon, it does not factor height of the observer, height of the object being viewed, the viewing angle, the arc length, the degree tilt of the object being viewed, and it completely ignores refraction index. It is simply NOT the correct math to use.
Simple rule of thumb in mathematics, use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion. It's that simple. Here is the correct math to use for these observations. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/earths-curve-calculator.9654/
So Rowbotham reached a false conclusion in his experiment, because he rushed the science and did it poorly, only going so far as to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking. That's confirmation bias in a nutshell...which means his experiment is inconclusive. Which is what they rendered it upon review. It's not that it was a bad experiment, it was actually quite clever....but when you do science WRONG, even a good experiment, can render a false conclusion.
This is why I can't stress enough to people, that just because Flat Earth is making observations and doing experiments....does not mean they are doing things right. You can do an experiment wrong, receive a false conclusion, and then present that false conclusion to a group of people...and if they don't have the time or patience to review that experiment and make sure it's conclusive, then they will think it's a good experiment...without ever realizing it's not.
Collect enough of these experiments that were done in error, and it makes it VERY hard to go back and review them in the future...because now you have an opinion, that you think is supported by evidence. See how this works?
If you'd like to see the Bedford Level experiment done correctly, here's a very recent undertaking of the experiment. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment The conclusion here is quite conclusive, Earth is curving and it is curving at the rate it should be given our planets scale.
Anyway...sorry if this got long, I just like to be thorough. I'll keep the rest of my points brief.
1
-
@callonejaxon5191 "Secondly can any of u give me evidence other than a cgi image or video out your so-called "outer space", your rotating while revolving earth?"
Well, here's the problem, none of us can go to space, so the only visual evidence we have is photos and video...which doesn't matter what we show you, you'll just call it fake. So even if that photo or video is not CGI, doesn't matter to you, you would just call it CGI anyway...without proving that.
Here's some photos of the Earth taken during the various Apollo missions. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 These are in high resolution, taken long before the days of CGI. I remember many of these photos from when I was young. So is it good enough for you? Probably not.
How about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoJSrctxpk8 This is footage from a weather balloon. You'll notice the blackness of space, above our blue atmosphere. Is this good enough? Likely not, cause you want to see it rotating. Why it's not rotating, is because of conservation of momentum. Basically, the balloon is moving with the surface of the Earth, at the same rate. This is basic physics of motion, which I can demonstrate for you if you want to learn more about it.
Truth is though, it's a little pointless to show you photos or videos, because you'll just call all of them fake....so it's pointless really. We get your point here, don't worry, it's not lost on us. The main point here is "well you've never been to space yourself, so how do you know?". It's a great point, and you're not wrong, little hard to verify this footage for certain if we've never been. But you don't need NASA to verify the science....NASA had almost nothing to do with building our collected knowledge of the heliocentric model, most of that science was already worked out before NASA came along. All NASA did was help further confirm all that science as accurate, by putting people into space.
But you can learn the science that deduced the shape of the Earth before NASA came around, you do not require their work to help you verify these things for yourself.
1
-
1
-
@callonejaxon5191 Here's a thought, instead of keeping it to yourself then, why not share it? What's the big deal of keeping it to yourself? Shouldn't you want to share the "truth" with others?
You know what I think? I think you just enjoy the feeling of knowing things others do not, I think that's why Flat Earth ultimately interests you. You get to be like a hipster of knowledge, where you know things and others do not. Doesn't matter if that knowledge is accurate, just that you're in the club of special knowledge. So it's more psychological, just feels good finally feeling like you're more knowledgeable then others...even if that knowledge is complete bullshit.
Because if you were really in this for truth, then you would have not problem sharing what you're talking about. Sharing information would be easy, because people who really are seeking truth, desire sharing that knowledge, so that everyone knows the truth they've found.
So, why keep it to yourself? If I was wrong about your definition...then what was it? Go ahead.
1
-
@callonejaxon5191 No, I prefer to never reach conclusions, until I know ALL the details. I don't start with a conclusion and then gather only the evidence that supports that conclusion, I collect ALL the details and then form my conclusion from the evidence. That's how you remain objective.
What you do, is jump to conclusions and then make speculations, before you know anything for certain. When it comes to the Moon landing, there's a lot you don't seem to know about those missions....yet you reach full conclusions anyway. This is exactly how a person reaches false conclusions. You reach conclusions because of bias, that bias being, that you don't trust NASA...so you don't really pay attention to the evidence or the science (except for what confirms your bias), they're the boogeyman, they're the evil villain you need to crush, so they can't win...even if they have never been lying to you.
The signal was a radio communication from Neil to base Houston, who then relayed that message direct to Nixon...it's not difficult, we do it all the time. Takes about 3 seconds for a radio signal to reach from the Moon to Earth, it doesn't require a very powerful transceiver, it does however require a powerful receiver dish...which Houston had, radio telescope technology has been around for decades. Then, relaying the message to Nixon is as easy as connected a phone line to that radio receiver...not hard at all, completely within the realm of doable. Spend some time with a communications expert if you really want to know for certain, otherwise, don't speculate on things you don't know anything about.
"lunar model traveling almost half a million Miles across the "galaxy" loll ( but cannot explain how the preserve fuel)"
It's very easy to preserve fuel in space actually, there's no air, this means no air resistance to slow you down. So this means conservation of momentum is absolute. First law of motion is as such, "all things in motion stay in motion, until acted upon by an opposing force or mass". So since there's no air in space, there is no drag force, so nothing to slow them down...so all they have to do is get themselves into the desired velocity and then turn the engines off, and conservation of momentum will do all the rest. There's also the Moons gravity well and the Earths, which if calculated properly, both can be used to increase velocity without the use of boosters.
So there is basic physics here that you just don't know anything about. You can verify the first law of motion, of conservation of momentum though, at anytime, through simple experiments anyone can reproduce here on Earth. If you'd like to learn more, I can show you, I don't mind sharing. Your failure here, is that you assume space operates the same as the environment YOU are used too...that being Earth. So you have no concept of conservation of momentum, because gravity and drag force friction slows every vehicle down here on Earth. Without these things slowing your velocity, then you will maintain whatever velocity you put yourself into, no boosters required once you've reached your velocity.
"but did u notice the video was shot from outside the ship?? So who was there B4 them??"
The first footage was taken from a camera mounted outside of the lunar module pointed at the door of the module. The second footage of Buzz was taken by Neil. The descent footage was taken by the command module, which stayed in orbit around the Moon, and the footage of the launch from off the Moon was filmed by the rover which was left behind and remote piloted by Houston.
I'd say, it's important to know exactly how the mission went down, before you comment.
But I'll give you this much, I don't personally like delving into the Moon landing conspiracy, because there's very little of which I can verify for absolute certain. I can know the physics, I can calculate the amount of fuel and go over the schematics for the modules and find the cameras and see if the technology was there. But even then, at the end of the day, all I or anyone can do is speculate. I can point out how it would be impossible to fake it back then, without CGI, but even then...it's just a whole lot of nonsense I rather prefer not speculating on.
You know what I prefer? The Flat Earth conspiracy, because THIS is a theory I can absolutely falsify with 100% certainty. Because I live here, I can test this physical reality whenever I want. Little hard to lie to me about the planet I live on, when I can put that geometry to the test for myself. So that's why I prefer discussing the Flat Earth conspiracy. Because I can falsify this with certainty...and it doesn't take much effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheOricine You gave me very vague details, not enough for me to complete a review for your observation, to test it for myself. So I asked for more details, that are very important for the observation to be reviewed. Such as height of the observer, exact location, math used, etc. These are simple details to provide, but you've so far not provided them. Photos and proof of experiment are of course required to make a proof of claim, but even with just the details, I can at least test your claim mathematically.
I'm trying to keep the discussion focused...but you're deflecting to new topics in every new post. I've been chatting with people on this topic for years now, I'm aware of pretty much all the same information you are. Not many arguments from FE I haven't reviewed at this point...but I'm not here to chase gish gallop, I'm here to review a single claim that you're making and you're being very difficult about it. Shouldn't be hard to at the very least provide the basic details.
Observer height, exact location, direction you were looking, math being used, these are some of the details you've yet to provide, that are required for me to even begin a review of the claim. To make it even more conclusive, yes, photographic evidence to confirm what you're seeing, is essential as well. But for the most part, at this point, I'd be happy with even just the details.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheOricine You mean the argument where “stars” are supposedly seen through the dark side of the Moon? Ok, I can provide some information to that. Ever heard of image noise? It is something that occurs during the processing of images, both in film and digital, resulting in white or oddly coloured dots to form on the final image, often coming through the most, in darker portions of an image. It’s common in low quality film and in low resolution images...which is why photographers shell out big bucks for quality equipment and software. There’s also burnt pixels to worry about, double exposure effects, there are many things to consider.
So that’s some explanation, but can we test it? Certainly, first of all, you can confirm image noise with a good enough camera with dpi controls. Just snap a picture of an object at varying resolution settings, then watch as the lower the setting, creates more and more noise.
But a better thing to do, cause people claim it’s stars they’re seeing through the Moon, how about actually get a star chart...and find those stars you’re claiming to see? It’s not difficult, the stars are charted, so you can find their current position, and see what stars they could be. Has anyone in FE thought to do that? Or just observe the night sky for a bit, the stars parallax around the Moon a lot more...shouldn’t take to long to see if when the moon isn’t in that spot anymore, are the white dots still there or not? Or just take several pictures, with separate cameras, cause if it is just image noise, then the noise shouldn’t fall in the same positions. You can also increase the exposure, and get this effect https://www.flickr.com/photos/138889787@N03/49827139353. Notice how the Moon shadow is now visible? That’s called Earth shine, showing that the Moon doesn’t just disappear when in shadow. It’s still very much there. If they are really stars...then cranking the exposure should make them shine even more.
Lots of things you can do...so has FE ever bothered? Not in my experience they haven’t, they just jump straight to conclusions, no further analysis required, the Moon is just transparent and that’s that. I’ve never seen any adequately test this claim, just spout it as a proof...one of many weak arguments, they stack upon other equally as weak arguments, to make they’re core argument appear stronger. But it’s just part of the gish gallop.
I’d urge you to test this sometime...it’s pretty simple to test. Let me know what you find out.
1
-
@TheOricine I can make a similar claim, I’ve been to the Southern Hemisphere, several times now, New Zealand being a country in the South I’ve visited the most, I’m originally from Canada. While there, I joined an astronomy group that was taking long exposure shots of the South rotation. They took one for the North, one for East and West and one for South. This was back in 2012, long before I ever even heard of FE, or got involved with it in any way. I was in a small university town on the coast known as Dunedin, which is on the South Island of New Zealand, near a port town called Invercargill. While I can share my many photos taken from the town during my trip, the long exposure images were not my photos, so I do not have copies of them, but I did see them completed.
I have personally confirmed, that there are indeed two rotations...though even just going to the South and seeing the Southern Cross, while never spotting the Big Dipper, was really good enough to confirm there are in fact two hemispheres, but seeing that rotation of stars, was just amazing.
I’m not about to sit here and tell you to believe me though, if I don’t have those photos, the claim means nothing...that’s just how it is.
But what I CAN do, is share images from others...at the very LEAST, that would be good evidence still. I can search the Southern rotation any time, and find you an observation others have made. So do you got any examples YOU can share, for the claim you’re making? Mars is pretty bright in the sky at night...so should be tons of photos online of what you saw.
So go ahead...find me an image of Mars through the Moon, and share the source.
1
-
1
-
@TheOricine Thank you. Now your first video is just a photo being analyzed, so it’s a bit to inconclusive, as he could easily have double exposed or just photoshopped. So I would conclude that as inconclusive. Had he shared video footage and made several more observations, it would have been better. The second video is better, as it is video, the trouble it has is that the star is not really being observed through the dark side, it’s close, but you can clearly see it’s on the edge.
To make something like this MORE conclusive, could have used a tripod or mount to steady the camera/telescope, a good mount would be an Equatorial mount set to pan with the moon, and it could have been exposed more to spot the Earth shine which would have also over exposed the star.
Good attempts, but are still far too inconclusive to reach a conclusion from. But thanks for finally providing something.
The biggest problem here, it’s not very great evidence. No definite conclusion can really be made here and it’s certainly nothing that is enough to toss out all of modern science over.
This is the problem...they are weak efforts, enough to convince a general layman maybe, but there’s very little that’s scientific about these...very poorly presented and conducted. Which is typical of FE.
1
-
1
-
@jeffgillard4865 The math is wrong, because 8 inches per mile squared only gives you curve drop tangent from surface. What this means is, those figures it gives you, are only accurate, if your eye rests at sea level. It is a limited equation, that does not factor in the other variables you need to make an accurate observation. It does not include height of the observer, height of the object, line of sight, arc length or the science of refraction...which is a real thing that bends light and it occurs in our atmosphere, especially low to the ground and over water where humidity is greater.
Here is the correct Math. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ Included here is a handy diagram that shows you what's being calculated. This gives you two calculations, the geometric calculation that ignores refraction and then the geometric calculataion plus an average refraction index. Of course, refraction changes by temperature and humidity, but even an average index of refraction is going leaps and bounds beyond what 8 inches per mile squared provides you. Hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
@squidly2112 But it is greater, with a consistent source of new energy…the reason temperature is in equilibrium in a goldilocks zone is because energy is being shed just as quickly as it’s coming in, it’s in balance. But if you increase the insulating layer, then the balance is disrupted for a moment, until equilibrium is reached again…that means a temperature increase from where it was before. You keep ignoring the source of energy for some reason…we’re not talking about a cup of coffee removed from a source of heat, that’s a false equivalence, we’re talking about a thermos held to a flame, and you increase the insulating layer.
We all know what happens to a container held too close to a flame…it can’t shed energy quicker than it’s coming in, the heat and pressure inside increases, it explodes. Obviously we wouldn’t explode, but it would be similar in some ways, if we slightly increased the insulating layer of our atmosphere, temperature would increase slightly as well. And perhaps C02 has more transparency to short wave radiation, than long wave…that I’m uncertain of currently (worth researching though), but all I’m saying is, I feel there are variables you are ignoring…namely the constant source of new energy.
So by your argument, if Mars were to get a denser atmosphere by terraforming it (assuming we could jump start its magnetosphere or substitute it somehow), the surface wouldn’t warm up and melt its ice?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@squidly2112 You don’t understand how holding a sealed container to a flame eventually causes an exponential rise in temperature inside the container, until it explodes? 🧐 Odd…don’t need to be a scientist to understand that…figured it was pretty common knowledge. Are you sure you’re a scientist?
The point is that it’s the insulating layer that helps to cause the rise in temperature, if a system can’t shed new energy faster than it’s coming in, then overall temperature rises…pretty simple, in fact it’s common sense. My point is, the energy coming into Earth from the Sun is GREATER, it’s not equal to, or less than. You’re trying to argue that it’s equal…yet you even agree the surface of the Moon is hot in the day (by hundreds of degrees). Is our system hundreds of degrees? No…so obviously the energy coming in from the Sun is greater. 😳 Not equal too, or less than….greater. If you can contain more of that energy for longer, faster than Earth can normally shed it, then temperature will rise. This isn’t difficult to understand I feel.
But you claim gases can’t insulate…yet at the same time you said that our atmosphere keeps the surface from getting as hot as the day side of the Moon, and as cold as the night side. Sooo, it insulates it…what’s the atmosphere doing if not insulating Earth? You’ve just described an insulator…and admitted that our atmosphere insulates the Earth.
Sorry, but you are overthinking this to the point of twisting it in your favour, your claims are very contradictory. On one hand you say gases don’t insulate…on the other you agree that our atmosphere regulates our temperature. Meaning it insulates it. 😳
What predictions have come true? I already told you, my area has been experiencing more extreme fires over the last decade, we now expect a smoky season every year, at least a month of smoke and fires in the area. We’ve always had fires, but in the nearly 40 years I’ve lived here, the last decade has seen a substantial increase, to the point where we now have a smoky season, of low visibility and low air quality…every summer now, not just some of them. And it’s not just here; California, Greece, Australia, the Amazon, all have experienced more extreme wild fires one after the other in the past decade, than they have in a centuries time.
That’s an example of the warning signs we were expected to have, more extreme fires…and ya, that’s been happening, have you been paying attention to the news?here’s another; reports I’ve read show that the Arctic regions are melting exponentially (which adds to greenhouse gases, as water vapour is far worse than C02), that’s another warning sign that has been occurring. More extreme weather has been occurring in the last 10-15 years…right now roughly a quarter of America is experiencing blizzard conditions the likes of which most of them have never seen before. I’ve never heard of a blizzard of that magnitude before…covering nearly a quarter of a continent? And parts around Asia and middle east last summer (India especially) got so hot that roads were melting and it was dangerous to be outside in the heat, because heat exhaustion was pretty much guaranteed away from any air conditioning…they were shattering heat records, not just by a little bit, they were way beyond any previous records.
So I don’t know what you’re talking about…but the predictions are coming true as far as I’m concerned. I’ve noticed it personally in the form of extreme forest fires…we never used to be this bad here, it’s increased in the last decade and shows no signs of slowing down.
Here’s the crux of this whole thing…if everyone else is wrong about global warming, nothing really changes, we go about our lives. If YOU are wrong, and we do nothing…then we are fucked. So I don’t really care if I am wrong, it’s the safer option. It’s logical to address potential threats to our planet and way of life.
But I think you are wrong here…I find some of your arguments very contradictory, and you’re quite literally the first person I’ve ever chatted with, who doesn’t think the gases of an atmosphere are what helps to warm the surface if a planet…but yet you agree it does, but it doesn’t at the sane time? I think you’re too hung up on the aspect that C02 is typically used as a coolant…and ya, so is water, but water can also insulate and heat…I’m sure you’ve noticed a wet muggy summer is far hotter than a dry one? Place an ice cube in a glass of water, it’s gonna melt a lot faster than if you just left it on the table. Point is, just because something makes for a great coolant in one application, doesn’t mean it can’t also have the opposite effect in a different situation. I’m sure you’d agree snow is very cold, but eskimos have been using them for igloos for centuries…because it’s also a great insulator, perfect for trapping heat in a system for longer.
1
-
@squidly2112 Here’s another point I’d like to make; I could care less if you are an engineer or scientist…if you are, then you’re not a very good one. I argue with Flat Earthers a lot (it’s a sad hobby of mine); in the flat Earth community there is a mechanical engineer named Brian Mullen. He’s a confirmed engineer, fully accredited, has worked in various industries as an engineer…he’s legit. And yet he believes the Earth is flat….you know how many people have tried to help him understand the law of conservation of momentum? Cause one of his big arguments is that Earth can’t be in motion, because planes wouldn’t be able to keep up with the surface if the Earth were in motion. This is an engineer saying this……someone who should be well versed in the laws of motion, law of inertia, conservation of momentum, and relative motion physics in general.
Now I’m sure you can agree Flat Earth is dumb as shit…yet an accredited engineer doesn’t understand the physics of the globe model, and thus is a Flat Earther because of it.
This is why I could give a shit if you are an engineer or a scientist…that does not make you infallible. If anything, it can tend to make a person over confident…happens a lot.
I feel you are wrong here, some of the things you’re saying are very contradictory. But at this point we’re now going in circles I feel, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
1
-
1
-
@squidly2112 No, seriously dude…you came here claiming our current understanding of greenhouse effect breaks the laws of thermodynamics…while demonstrating you don’t understand thermodynamics very much at all. I can explain to a child how when you put a container to a flame, temperature will increase within the container, and they will understand that it’s the containment/insulation that drives the increase, because a greater source of energy is providing greater energy in the system, and the system is unable to shed the energy quicker than it’s coming in, BECAUSE OF THE INSULATOR, which causes temperature to rise…this is basic stuff, but yet a person claiming to be a scientist can’t understand this? 🧐
It’s very simple…the Sun provides a greater source of energy, and atmosphere acts as an insulator. If the insulator increases, then the system can’t shed this energy quicker than it’s coming in, meaning overall temperature increases…it’s incredibly simple to understand.
If you are an engineer or scientist as you claim…then holy fuck.
I hate being a dick about it…but this outlines the problem with this whole debate. Flat Earth nonsense doesn’t do much…nobody ultimately loses in that discussion, so it’s fun to argue. But this discussion on global warming is not one we can afford to be wrong about. :/ So if you’re wrong…you need to realize it, and you need to change your stance…because if it is happening and we don’t act because of the resistance it receives…then we’re fucked. Should I change my stance if I’m wrong? Sure, absolutely…but it doesn’t have as much urgency, because me being wrong doesn’t mean the world is at stake.
That’s what irks me the most I suppose…..if you’re wrong, and you successfully convince people this isn’t something to worry about…then we are fucked.
1
-
@squidly2112 If people are “stompy feet” with you, it’s because they’re stunned by your position and then frustrated with your inability to understand some pretty simple concepts…especially when you say you’re a scientist…it’s a bit scary. I was interested at first, because you were providing a new argument I had not heard yet, and I did learn more about the the science of greenhouse effect (I don’t argue global warming very often, so I’m admittedly very new too it, so anything new I can learn is interesting). But gases do insulate…and the atmosphere does do that for our planet, as it does for every planet.
The Sun provides a greater source of energy, it’s not equal too or less than our system, it’s greater. So it’s understandable that if more of that greater energy is contained for longer, it will cause an increase.
I don’t care about a person’s credentials, but there’s nuance, I will respect their opinion a little more…as I did for you for a time, until realizing your argument is…dumb. At that point the veneer of a persons credentials loses its sheen, but my ability to question someone is never rattled by credentials.
1
-
1
-
@scottbaker9337 I think you’ve spent a bit too much time in the flat Earth echo chamber of misinformation. You’re being scammed by con artists, experts at lying who convinced you to listen blindly to what they’re selling you, but never check it for accuracy. 8 inches per mile squared is a basic parabolic arc equation...it does not represent your line of sight, horizon distance, or a sphere. It does not include variables for height of the observer, height of the object being viewed, arc length, refraction index, etc...it is the wrong math to use, for the observation flat Earth is trying to make.
Flat Earth knows most people are not very well versed in mathematics and general Earth science...they exploit that lack of knowledge and fill the gaps with bullshit. Now you’re head is filled with mountains of gish gallop, that would likely take years to deprogram.
There is no working model of flat Earth...that is for a good reason. I know you’ve lost a great deal of trust in modern science (due in large part to these con artists lying to you endlessly), but you really need to pull your head away from your computer/phone screen for awhile and join reality again. Billions of people aren’t lying to you here...nothing in the modern world is built on the foundations of flat Earth science and geometry. That’s a fact, not an opinion. I get that a lot of it doesn’t make sense to you, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong simply because you don’t get it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nizamersoftware So you watched ONE rocket stop at a point, then concluded it hit a dome? 🧐 Did you ever stop to consider it could have been something else stopping the rocket? You don’t think a rocket moving at that velocity hitting anything at a dead stop would completely obliterate the rocket? Come on man…use your head.
I know the rocket launch you’re referring too, I also know a bit more about the mechanics and engineering of said rocket. Smaller rockets like that are usually put into a controlled spin, to stabilize their trajectory, using conservation of angular momentum, essentially turning them into a gyroscope. But eventually you’ll want to stop that rotation, especially if you got cameras mounted to the outside…like that rocket did. To do this they use a mechanism called a Yo-yo despin mechanism, go ahead and look it up sometime. It’s a very common device used to slow and stop rotational motions in rockets and satellites, using the same physics of conservation of angular momentum, but in a counter rotation and with a wider rotational span. The device will instantly counter a rotation once fired. You even see the mechanism cable firing in a few frames of the second camera after its rotation stops, watch it again, you’ll see it.
You’re jumping to conclusions from a lack of knowledge on the subject, and your bias is leading you to further those erroneous conclusions. Do some deeper research on the subject…but at the very least, maybe don’t jump to conclusions from single observations. If rockets were hitting a dome, don’t you think there would be many more videos, not just the one? Point is, it’s very flimsy evidence to reach such a sweeping conclusion from, especially after you learn how it really works…then it’s dead in the water after that.
I know you desire to win an argument here, but don’t let that desire cloud your ability to reason objectively.
1
-
@nizamersoftware I believe I’ve provided sufficient enough evidence to falsify your claim, certainly far more information to reach a firmer conclusion from, than your empty assumptions that are clearly driven by confirmation bias.
1) The rocket isn’t destroyed on impact, that’s your first clue it didn’t actually hit anything.
2) The rocket has cameras…but is put into a spin? Why would you strap cameras to a spinning rocket, unless you had a means of stopping its rotation at some point?
3) You even see the yo-yo despin cable firing in the second camera.
Further research reveals that these rockets are equipped with a mechanism to stop its rotation mid flight. So based on all those variables, it’s pretty clear it didn’t actually hit anything, its rotation was just stopped by that mechanism. Here’s a video explaining and demonstrating the device used https://youtu.be/ZKAQtB5Pwq4?t=415.
Again, this is the real problem with Flat Earthers as I see it; reaching a great many erroneous conclusions, from a lack of actual knowledge on the topics they’re attempting to falsify. You don’t know enough, to know how wrong you are…and worse yet, you stop looking once your bias is confirmed. The internet was supposed to make us all smarter…but it didn’t account for mankind’s tendency to chase biases. That’s the real problem we’re facing currently…our pattern seeking brains are robbing us of our ability to slow down and ponder problems a bit more thoroughly and objectively.
Anyway, hope that information is at least interesting.
1
-
1
-
@1FeistyKitty Of course you only read the first part, people who know they’ve been proven wrong in the first few sentences often do. 😄 You were wrong about the location, off by 6000 km, that’s a fact, so don’t weasel your way out of that, man up and acknowledge it. Should be pretty simple for you to understand that a whole half of the Earth sees the Moon at any given time, So a whole 180 degrees of the Earth. Fiji is close to the prime Meridian, which is only about 70 degrees off from NV…so actually pretty easy to see why they could see the Moon….and they’re 73 miles up…shouldn’t have to explain to an adult how looking over a curve works, we all know we see further the higher we are.
So I’m sorry, but your argument deflates pretty quick when you actually look at it closer…what do you want me to do about that? 🤷♂️ It is what it is. You should read the whole thing though, maybe it would snap you back to reality…however doubtful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bob Cat “Once you go flat there is no going back.”
Exactly, that right there is a mantra for proud confirmation bias. It tells me you’re just here to troll, that no amount of evidence will ever pull you away from your bias, so it’s a bit pointless to try...at least to any degree of real effort. Why waste my time? You’ve basically just told me that nothing I do will convince you otherwise, so your mind is shut to evidence. So, I’ll just point you in a direction, then the rest is up to you champ.
Tons of free online heliocentric model simulations, you can look them up anytime and figure out how this works. Solar System Scope is a good one, I suggest version 2, it’s a bit more polished and precise, you can even put an observer on the surface, for whatever time of year you want and any location. As I’ve already told you, Mercury orbits the Sun, so it’s going to spend a lot of that orbit expanding out, not in front or behind the Sun, but beside it. So in those points of its orbit, when Sun sets, Mercury will still be visible because your line of sight to the Sun is blocked...but that doesn’t mean the rest of that space beside the Sun is now magically blocked from line of sight as well. Seeing Mercury a couple hours after sunset is exactly what we’d expect to see occur on the heliocentric model...it’s seeing Mercury 3-7 hours after sunset that’s not very likely, but a couple hours, yup, the geometry is there to make this easily possible.
If you can’t figure that out with just a little thought, then you probably have a problem with your spacial awareness...which I’ve noticed most Flat Earthers seem to. Which isn’t really my problem. Plenty of heliocentric models online for you to examine, I’m not going to hold your hand and do it for you...not for something this easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree we should be more compassionate and understanding to avoid dividing ourselves further, but we should still be free to question and criticize, that’s part of a free thinking society. It doesn’t feel good to be criticized and it can lead to divisions, but the alternative I would say is much worse…that being a society where we are not free to voice an opinion or concerns, where we’re not allowed to question or make criticisms. I feel that would be much worse, so even though the constant bickering is overbearing at times, it is necessary for a free society. It’s patience and understanding that should be cultivated more, and that’s something we’re not really utilizing very well today.
On the topic of FE. Knowing the true shape of the Earth actually matters a great deal to industries such as air travel, sea transport, communications, infrastructure and space exploration, so people working in these industries and many others require accurate information, in order to do their jobs with any proficiency. This information may not matter to a majority, at least not on a personal level, it may seem inconsequential to most, but we all do benefit from that knowledge in ways we do not even realize. I think we should be at least aware of that, and we should be more grateful, that some people did care enough to advance our collective knowledge forward, so that we all could benefit.
That’s my biggest concern with the movement of Flat Earth…they are typically non-experts, who are arguing against things they really know nothing about. They should be free to question whatever they wish, that’s perfectly fine…but how much of that questioning is led by level headed reasoning and actual experience and knowledge, and how much is driven by empty speculations, assumptions, fear, distrust and paranoia? It’s difficult to tell…but sadly, many do fall into the latter and they’re often the loudest.
If everyone just travelled, if everyone had first hand experience with the world, if that basic knowledge and experience with Earth science and geometry, then less people would be reaching such paranoid conclusions like FE, or even more pressing issues like antivaxxing or climate change. This FE movement is a sign of a deeper problem…people aren’t just dividing, they’re walling themselves in and hiding from the rest of the world, they’re not experiencing enough of it, so they’re becoming more afraid of it. That fear is turning them irrational.
Personally, I began to notice it getting worse, in large part thanks to these devices we’re constantly shoving in our faces. If I had to pin point a root cause for this recession from life experiences, it’s social media and our phones. Ironic how the best tool for connecting us, has actually disconnected us more than ever before. People need to get out more, learn how the world works, experience it again…or at least be conscious of it again. Then maybe they’d be less afraid and then we’d have less divisions.
But that’s just my humble opinion. I agree that less division is what we need, but I don’t think ignoring conspiracy movements like Flat Earth and allowing them to fester unchecked and unchallenged, is the best way to do that. Criticism can be a catalyst for deeper division, but it’s not the root cause of the division…the root cause to me is fear and ignorance, fear that developed as we cut ourselves off more and more from the world outside and became more ignorant too it as a result. Further ignorance isn’t going to fix that, communication will. Being questioned can cause one to recede deeper into their rabbit holes, but only if approached with negative intent. I think if dialogue was approached with more patience and understanding, maybe then it would actually help.
Anyway, I hope I was able to provide at least an interesting perspective on things. Have a good one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3MTurbo Everything you said is just pure speculation though. You've never been to Antarctica, yet you're making an absolute claim that when you go it can only be while guided. Where'd you learn that? My guess is from a Flat Earther who has also no idea what he was talking about, cause he was also just making empty claims he knows nothing about. And you believed him why exactly? Cause he's not government or NASA, so you trust him more? Is that a reason to believe a stranger online blindly? I don't think it is....people bullshit, it's pretty easy to do, especially online. You're also saying nobody can fly over Antarctica, yet you're likely not a pilot and don't actually know that for sure. These are not evidence of anything, they are things people told you, that you believed. Paranoid bread crumbs, that are likely not true but maybe could be, who knows, but that you have not verified, that could also just be bullshit to muddy your brain and cause you to doubt. What sucks is people form whole opinions, around bread crumbs like these...empty claims, that people just believe without question. I get it though, we're pattern seekers, we're almost wired to seek out a pattern even if it's not really there, it's not easy to stop yourself from doing that sometimes and we all do it to some degree, so I do get it, Flat Earth can be convincing.
With enough prep and planning and money, you can cross Antarctica, unguided and people have done it many times. They just prefer you don't do it without a plan, cause it's dangerous and they'd rather you didn't die, so they do make sure you're able and you have to let them know first. You have to explain what you're doing and give them your equipment details, but it's perfectly fine to do it, just takes more effort, planning and costs. You can also work there, it's not just scientists and military allowed down there, they have jobs for the average civilians too, that you can sign up for at any time. And who cares even if the tours are guided? If you can confirm the 24 hour Sun down there, then it's a done deal...the 24 hour Sun would not occur in the South on a Flat Earth. There are time lapse videos of the Antarctic 24 hour sun all over YouTube, they're not hard to find, people have recorded it many times. Here's a great one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcppf47VhrU&t=199s. What's important to note is the counter clock wise rotation and the buildings. That's the direction the Sun should rotate in this region and there is no permanent structure bases in the North, because it's not a land mass, it's just a sheet of ice, so they can't build one there.
People have also circumnavigated from pole to pole several times as well, the last one occurred last year, look up One More Orbit. Then look up the Pole Cat flights, which were the very first flights to achieve this. These are just a small sample of these flights for pole to pole circumnavigation that have been done, but there also do exist passenger flights that travel over the Antarctica, just a quick google search away to find these flights. They don't occur often, but that's for a good reason, the biggest population of people on Earth is in the North, so that's where the demand for flights is. That's where most of the land mass is, that's where pretty much all the major cities are, that's where all the paying customers are, so that's where the flights are. They're not going to have any international flights over ocean, if they don't have a steady flow of passengers to make it worth it. So there is not as many flights in the South for this reason, so that's why they don't fly over Antarctica often, cause they don't have too. But they do exist, so give them a search sometime. If you want to learn more about flights and navigation around the Globe, from an actual commercial pilot who's hobby has become debunking Flat Earth claims about flight paths, check out Wolfie6020 sometime, he'll point you towards a lot of flight information, that Flat Earthers lie about or simply won't tell you about. His channel is chalk full of flight information pertaining to Flat Earth and the claims they love to make, so it's worth a look. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wolfie6020/videos
I realize Flat Earth is convincing on the surface...but most of what they claim, is just speculation and empty conjecture. It's enough to raise reasonable doubt in those that are not scientists, pilots or experts of any kind, that never leave their cities and don't know a whole lot of science and who don't have any experience working directly with the geometry of the world, but it's important to remain just as skeptical and question what Flat Earthers say as well, don't just listen to them blindly and realize the difference between a speculative claim and actual evidence.
I realize everything I just said above is just speculation as well, I have never gone to Antarctica either and I am not a pilot either, but I did do more then just make a claim, I also shared some info and some video you can watch and learn about. It's still speculation though until one of us confirms it, which is why Flat Earth focuses on this sort of stuff...because they know not a single person is going to take the time, so they stew in speculations like this, they thrive in it.
I feel it's pointless to focus on them, focus on the science you can verify in your own back yard. Unless you're willing to go to Antarctica to confirm a few things, it's just a endless rabbit hole of maybe, that your mind can get lost in and that's how Flat Earth gets its hooks in people. So focus on the things you can confirm, here's a great one, how does the Sun set on a Flat Earth?
Seriously, how is that possible at all? They sure like to ram that square peg into a round hole by saying it's all perspective, but perspective doesn't work the way they're claiming it does...and deep down they know it. The sun would never set on a Flat Earth, it makes no sense. Here's what we'd expect the sun to do over a Flat Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg&t=88s We'd always be able to see it...it would never set.
So there's a good one to focus on, cause that is something you can confirm for yourself...everybody has seen a sunset and a sunrise, little hard to speculate about that.
That's just one example, there are hundreds of other things you can confirm about the Earth, right in your back yard, with very little effort. This is the sort of thing people should focus on I feel, it's fine to research these other things, but personally I hate how much people focus on maybes. Realize when something is just speculation and when it is tangible evidence, recognize the difference. Flat Earth thrives on bullshit, ignorance and incredulity. But we all know how a sunset works and no matter how much they bullshit, it will never work on a Flat Earth.
Anyway, I hope you find this info at the very least interesting. If you'd like help with anything more, feel free to ask. My goal is never to discourage or mock people for questioning things, it's perfectly logical to question things, just make sure you're not being taken for a ride while you do it...the internet is a perfect grounds for bullshit and misinformation and huxters to take advantage of people. People lie, it's not hard to do, so never take what people say blindly, that includes me.
1
-
@3MTurbo Yes, they do make one think, and that's great! If there is one thing I'm all for in the Flat Earth movement, people are getting interested in science again. They're asking questions, they're actually taking interest in the world around them and trying to figure out how it all works. That's awesome really, and I do my best to never discourage anyone from doing that, which is why I try to refrain from name calling and mocking, just share information and let them decide. It's not stupid at all to question things, it's perfectly logical to question what you are told, that's science at the end of the day, asking questions. I just worry people are falling into the same traps scientists of old did, before they ironed out all the kinks in the scientific method.
Science recognized pretty early on, that mankind has several flaws we're prone to repeating. The biggest flaw we have, is confirmation bias...we are confirmation bias machines! It's easy to see why, we're natural pattern seekers, we can find a pattern in pretty much anything, even if they're not really there...especially when there is nothing there. We'll often invent patterns, just to help us feel like our time isn't wasted. Our emotions tend to lead us and we tend to put more value on information depending on the source...rather than the information itself
So we all have bias, the trouble is, most people aren't aware of that....and even less have any clue of how to reel that bias in and keep it in check. It absolutely will get in the way of finding objective truths, so it's very important to learn how to think objectively and remove bias...or at the very least, learn how to identify your bias and get better at realizing when it's effecting you. The general public is not trained in methods to control their bias, so they're now falling into its trap. So that's my biggest point in all of this, asking questions is great, but bias is something you have to be aware of...or it's going to lead you down some dark rabbit holes, of bullshit. And make sure you question even those you trust, Flat Earth taught me to question mainstream science a little more then I had been prior. See that was my bias I trusted science almost completely, which kept me from looking at it objectively, and I wasn't aware of it until Flat Earth came around, so I can actually thank FE for reminding me to keep questioning things. Now I am aware of that bias, so now I question even the people I trust, all I ask is that Flat Earthers do the same with the people they listen to on YouTube. Don't just listen to them blindly because you trust them more, question them too.
Anyways, I'm rambling a bit, glad you found the information helpful and thanks for the civil dialogue. Always good to meet people with a level head in these more heated topics, can't learn nothing from people if we never take our shields down. :)
1
-
1
-
"News flash there buddy, Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "Don't believe everything you hear"? "
Have you? I've been talking with Flat Earthers for a good 3 years now...and all you people do is repeat the same shit you hear verbatim, blindly and without question. It's ironic really.
Nobody is telling you to ignore anything...in fact we're asking you pay more attention, cause you're barely scratching the surface, usually just stopping all research once your bias is confirmed. We're just pointing out that your senses actually kind of suck, they're not accurate measuring tools and optical illusions are not something to ignore...they do occur, your senses are easily fooled. So it pays to THINK not just look.
It's perfectly fine to question things, that's the whole point of science after all, to ask questions and probe deeper into how the world around you operates. But Flat Earth isn't just doing that...they're speculating, bullshitting, chasing bias, cherry picking, misunderstanding and lying. Then when we try to review their work (cause peer review is an important step in science) and point out their errors, all we're met with is hostility, smug arrogance and ignorance. Question things all you want, that's fine...nobody is saying you can't, but if you're wrong, then we're going to check you, cause potential misinformation should never be allowed to fly by the radar unchecked or unchallenged. The sooner you accept that, the sooner we can have civil discussions where information is considered and listened too, rather than mocked and laughed at.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyornelas9374 It’s not just curvature you need to factor, it’s observer height, distance to horizon, arc length, height of object being observed, its tilt relative to you, etc. And that’s just the geometric calculation to determine line of sight, but then there’s also atmospheric refraction, which requires you first understand what that is and how it works. It is a real phenomenon that effects what we see, so it helps to verify and understand that first, before rushing into scientific observations. I feel a lot of flat Earthers jump right into things, equipped with shotty math with missing variables (8 inches per mile squared being the worst offender), with zero prior knowledge or understanding in the physics of light, optics and light refraction…then they wonder why their math doesn’t match with observation.
Here’s the correct geometric calculation, using trig functions.
r/cos( d/r - acos(r / (r+h) ) ) - r
r= Radius of Earth
d= distance to observation
h= observer height
Observer height is the most important variable here, because as we all know, the higher you go, the further you see. The biggest problem with the math people have been convinced to use (8 inches per mile squared), is that it doesn’t have any variable for observer height. It gives you the exact same figure whether you’re at 6 feet elevation or 10,000 feet, it doesn’t adjust at all. So that’s the biggest issue there, among many other important variables it ignores. So it’s pretty simple to figure out why the math doesn’t match observation…it’s the wrong math. Use the wrong math, and you will reach a false conclusion, it’s pretty simple.
And that’s just the geometric calculation, you then have to factor refraction.
So what’s the problem as I see it? People being easily conned by huxters, who exploit their lack of scientific and mathematical literacy. I don’t feel they are stupid, they’re just not trained in proper scientific practices, so confirmation bias reigns.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful, or at the very least interesting.
1
-
@tonyornelas9374 A benchmark only factors elevation from mean sea level…and sea level (like all elevations) is measured from centre of Earth. So they technically both account for curvature, because the benchmarks do…because they’re measured from sea level, which is an equipotential surface from centre of Earth. It works like this, stick a bunch of two inch pins exactly 1 inch deep into the surface of a ball, scattered all around its surface. What is the height of each pin, from surface of the ball, to top of each pin? 1 inch…that’s how elevation works as well, that’s where benchmarks measure from, from sea (similar to the surface of that ball), to the benchmark elevation. The sea is all at the same distance from centre of Earth, every point of its surface is at the same LEVEL from centre, held there by the field of force we call gravity, that’s an equipotential surface…a spherical bubble is another example of a equipotential surface, a surface that’s all at the same LEVEL from centre of the bubble, forming a sphere, the most perfectly rigid geometric shape found in nature. So the sea is basically like the surface of that ball example with the pins, it’s all at roughly the same distance from centre, making it a sphere at equipotential, making it the perfect reference point for benchmarks and surveying. Benchmarks just make it much easier to continue measuring from, because it’s difficult to determine sea level…with no sea around.
Benchmarks use sea level as their reference point, which works just fine on a sphere. But most surveyors have to factor curvature…that’s why they use the quick reference math of 8 inches per mile squared, which helps them determine drop so they can factor it in topography calculations, and cancel out curvature. If Earth wasn’t curving, then they wouldn’t require that math. Surveyors in long road or bridge construction, also counter errors due to curvature, by taking backsight and foresight measurements, which cancel out errors due to both curvature and refraction. Are you aware of this method used in surveying? You should be, if you’re going to make claims about surveying, it’s a pretty crucial part of surveying for any construction done over several miles. A simple building construction surveyor though, doesn’t need to worry about curvature, cause there’s not enough degrees of change in a few hundred or thousand square feet, to affect anything. Earth takes 69 miles to arc 1 degree of difference, how much do you think is in a few hundred square feet? Not enough to matter, so building construction surveyors, probably aren’t really taught anything about factoring curvature…but geodetic surveyors certainly are, it’s right in the job title.
Also…why would we need geodetic surveyors at all, if the Earth was flat? 🧐 Pretty pointless to create a whole different practice of surveying work, that focuses on Earth curvature…if Earth wasn’t really curving, wouldn’t you say?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NASA is pretty transparent about its images, they will always tell you when an image of theirs is computer generated, or a composite. Fakery requires they made an attempt at hiding some details from you…but in most cases, what people claim as fakery, was just them failing to read the little tag of information under the image, where they explicitly state what the image is and how it was taken/created. Seems to me like it’s more a case of people jumping to conclusions out of paranoia and poor research, than of actual confirmed fakery by NASA. I’ve yet to see any real clear evidence of them faking something with intent to fool people, they’re pretty clear about what’s what.
There is a land treaty around Antarctica, signed by several nations under the UN, that came to an agreement that Antarctica should remain a shared continent, for scientific research only. No single nation is allowed to claim it, no military is allowed to occupy it, and no private industry is allowed to mine it. This may change as the treaty expires and becomes up for further discussion in the future.
It’s basically just a peace treaty at the end of the day…and it’s smart to have some clear written out guidelines, so there’s no confusion. It was drafted shortly after WW2, during the height of the Cold War, it just made sense to come to some kind of shared agreement on this land mass, before countries started putting military bases there and attempting to claim it. Which they were trying to do…before that treaty was signed, America was scouting it for potential military bases and they were testing military ordinance there as well. So it just makes sense to sign a land treaty, before things got messy…which is what happens when there isn’t any agreements between nations on land and minerals. That’s how wars happen…we’ve had enough of that nonsense I’d say, imagine how they felt just coming out of a devastating war though. Must have felt pretty nice to have one less thing to worry about.
Again, the conspiracy minded take something that was logical for the nations of the world to do, to avoid future conflicts, spinning hysteria and paranoia around it, simply because it may seem a bit odd from the norm. From a geopolitical standpoint though, if history has taught us anything about wars and how they start, that treaty makes perfect sense.
Anyway, just my opinions on some of what you’ve said. I feel there’s a bit of nuance there that doesn’t get mentioned enough…and that’s largely why people run with these things down rabbit holes that aren’t really true in the end, more like paranoid traps of our own invention.
1
-
@sgt.freyrpepper1871 You’re sure assuming a lot about what I know, and you’re making a lot of empty claims and speculations. Any actual examples of people being turned away by the military for exploring Antarctica? Cause I’ve talked with hundreds of Flat Earthers at this point that all make the same empty claims about Antarctica…you know how many of those people actually had evidence to support their claims? Not a single one….so why exactly should I agree it’s a thing that happens? 🧐
The treaty isn’t a long read, I’ve read it several times now, it clearly states that no military is allowed to operate there. No military bases are allowed to be built on Antarctica, no military ordinance is allowed to be tested on Antarctica, or remain on Antarctica, it is a military free zone. Clearly stated.
It’s a very big continent though, I’m sure it wouldn’t be too difficult to hide a military research base or two…but if you’ve found any military personnel on the continent, or if you have military turning you away for exploring Antarctica, you can bet the UN would want to hear about it…because they’re not allowed to do that. It’s in the treaty. Sure treaty’s are broken sometimes, but that doesn’t mean they don’t still try their best to enforce them. A military occupation that turns people away from Antarctica…ya, they’re gonna wanna know about that. But I don’t think that’s reality at all, that’s just something you choose to believe….for some reason.
Either way, you’re running with wild speculations and expecting me to believe them without any evidence. Do you have any documented examples of people who tried to go there, but were turned away by a military? Cause all I’m hearing so far is empty conjectures. I’m so very tired of people making claims on the internet, and then honestly thinking I should just agree without question. So tired of it. :/
Did people just forget the difference between speculation and evidence? 🤷♂️ Like what happened to people? Fuckin internet rabbit roles man…where any bias you have can be confirmed, just chase the speculations until it’s all true in your head. What a nightmare world we live in, where misinformation rules. 🤦♂️I am beyond sick of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1