Comments by "Barry On" (@barryon8706) on "Johnny Harris" channel.

Flat earthers are generally stupid, but that's not the deciding factor. Most stupid people are not flat earthers. Most stupid people will at least try to learn, but flat earthers don't want to learn, and they tend to believe in a wide range of other conspiracies, having terrible thinking processes involving cherry-picking and arguments from incredulity. It's mental illness as much as it is lack of intelligence.
3
@dtraub1 Perspective will never make parallel lines appear to cross. if the sun was a small light source moving away it would appear to shrink and get closer and closer to the horizon. It wouldn't remain full-size and cross the horizon.
2
@Stiggy Vanderkskeen The same picture shows the real, twisted shape of cranes. Or maybe there's a lot of distortion.
2
No Turpin you'll just call the pictures of the earth fake, and you won't be able to prove them fake.
1
@davidsullivan3906 I know about perspective. It makes things farther away look smaller. The atmosphere can exist next to a vacuum without a barrier because of something called gravity.
1
You can calculate the lowest angle the sun would drop down to on a flat earth, and it's still like 13 degrees above the horizon. It's the same math that tells us where to look to see a streetlight or your friend's hat. Or why doesn't the sun look smaller when viewed through a solar filter as it sets. Or why stars circle around a celestial north pole and a celestial south pole. Or why stars rotate clockwise in one hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the other hemisphere. But the problem is if you tell a flerfer all this they'll probably try to change the subject, or they'll ignore the points entirely. That's how you know they're irrational.
1
@declanh2314 The shortest distance on a flat earth is a straight line, but the shortest distance on a globe is a great circle route, and long distance flights use great circle routes. Many trans-Pacific great circle routes go over Alaska.
1
what is the plane travelling at 400kmph relative to?
1
@fightthedeception2585 For the most part flying over a curved spinning ball is just like flying over a flat nonrotating earth if the plane is much smaller than the earth and the air is generally moving along with the ground. Do you know why the people explaining the model noted that it assumed a flat, nonrotating earth? it was showing where they diverged from reality to simplify things.They didn't need to put in that they assumed there weren't any unicorns or that passengers couldn't help the plane fly by flapping their arms.
1
@fightthedeception2585 The Coriolis force is a slight eastward or westward push on things moving away from or toward the equator.
1
@fightthedeception2585 They all do, it's just not intentional. Ever driven a car? Do you take your hands off the wheel and read a book for a while, trusting the car to go on straight? No. Well, you might, but smart drivers keep hands off the wheel or it'd run off even a straight road after a while. Now imagine that during that whole time a mouse has been running alongside the car and nudging it to the left. The driver compensates for the mouse without even knowing it.
1
@fightthedeception2585 Your reference for that stupid assertion?
1
@fightthedeception2585 Do you understand that "earth-fixed coordinates" doesn't mean the earth is fixed or stationary? And that the article includes "When cost or weight is an issue, using very accurate inertial sensors for 'true' (i.e. based on the Schuler effect due to a non-flat rotating Earth) inertial navigation is excluded."
1
@fightthedeception2585 Yes, it points out an assumption made to simplify calculations. It's an area where the math diverges from reality to make the math easier without changing the results significantly.
1
@fightthedeception2585 Not at all. The deflection due to Coriolis is a lot less than the random buffeting from the air, minor engine thrust asymmetries, etc.
1
@mikeflatbird729 And these jet streams are in just the right places to help fake the globe, work in both directions at the same time, and don't affect the weather. I'm convinced.
1
@toptube8986 You can see curvature by compressing the horizon over an ocean from left to right. There's curvature OK it's quite simple.
1
@manifestmagical Maybe you should try to understand coriolis. A hovering helicopter isn't subject to coriolis. An aircraft moving north or south is, but it's much less than everything else a pilot has to compensate for. Pictures taken at near sea level can show the horizon bend when compressed horizontally. Saying water never curves is another assertion, not evidence.
1
There's like dozens of different flat earth ideas. He can't cover every kind of nonsense in one video.
1
You've confused people who disagree with you for people who disagree with reality. Wanting illegal immigrants kept out is not objectively wrong. Thinking the earth is flat is objectively wrong. Learn the difference and then you can join the adults in conversation.
1
@davidbrown8303 And you didn't understand my point, either. smh. My point is that it isn't stupid to disagree with you on points that don't disagree with objective reality. Do you get it now?
1
@davidbrown8303 Why am I surprised you still don't understand?
1
@davidbrown8303 I don't think the earth is flat. FFS you're as stupid as they are.
1
Globe heads have maps that work.
1
@АлександрОрлов-к7ь LOL yes all the flat maps have distortions. That happens when you project a 3d globe onto a 2d map. But the real map is the globe and it always works. What flat earth map works? None.
1
@АлександрОрлов-к7ь the globe doesn't use a projection. Projections are made FROM the globe to make flat maps.
1
@АлександрОрлов-к7ь No working flat earth map yet. :)
1
@АлександрОрлов-к7ь You're quite sure but you have no evidence. OK.
1
I've seen people in comments say it should be pronounced "sheer", "sure," and I think "shore." I think you lot are having a laugh at our expense. It's a good 'un, though.
1
Charities, preservation of knowledge, and political pressure to support the poor?
1
Someone was wondering how an airplane moving at 575 mph could take the same time to cover the same distance flying east or west if the earth is spinning at 1000 mph. He didn't like the answer I gave him and it looks like he deleted his thread for some reason. :) The answer is really, really simple. Those speeds are relative to different frames of reference. That 575 mph is relative to the ground, and the 1000 mph is relative to the axis. In the frame of reference where the plane is moving 575 mph, the ground is moving 0 mph. In the frame of reference where the ground is moving 1000 mph, the plane is moving 1575 mph (going east) or 1425 mph (going west). The people and instruments on the plane will report a ground speed of 575 mph the whole time because that's their speed relative to the ground. The airspeed will vary depending on headwind or tailwind, but the air will be moving within a few hundred mph of the ground even in a jet stream. I can't walk at 65 mph, but I can walk forward at 1 mph on a train moving at 64 mph. If you could get the air to move with the train, I could do that even if you removed the walls and ceiling.
1
the sun sets. On a flat earth the sun wouldn't set. Perspective never makes parallel lines cross in reality.
1
Can't tell if this is a joke.
1
@alkivari9491 Because science doesn't know everything yet. Now let me explain why that's a stupid question. People don't have to know everything to know what they do know. Newton knew how gravity acted, but he didn't know why. He admitted that. But that doesn't mean that his observations and experiments were invalid. If I see a car in my driveway I don't have to know how it got there to know that there's a car in my driveway. I don't even have to know if the car runs on gasoline. There's the car, in my driveway.
1
@alkivari9491 That wasn't a stupid question this time. It was two stupid statements. The graviton is admitted to be hypothetical and not observed, but very likely to exist. Gravity doesn't have to be observed on a quantum level to exist. It's been shown to exist on a macroscopic level and predicted to be too weak on a quantum level to detect.
1
@alkivari9491 Masses being attracted to each other. Cavendish type experiments, masses showing greater weight when another mass is put under them, gravity sensors being used in oil exploration, I can go on.
1
@alkivari9491 Yes, gravity is strong enough to hold solar systems together, but too weak to have an effect on the quantum level. Electric charges are more powerful per particle, but matter overall is electrically neutral so that cancels itself out over larger distances and masses. Gravity just keeps adding and adding with more mass. There's no contradiction, just your limited understanding and lack of intelligence.
1
To be fair, if a dog told me about global warming I'd be skeptical too.
1
Yes, it can. If the sun shines farther in some directions than others for unknown reasons like an invisible lampshade, speeds up or slows down for some reason, and does it in a way that people don't actually see happen. So yes, but really no.
1