Comments by "Flook D" (@flookd5516) on "Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 1: The Moon" video.

  1. Which is how the ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere.
    16
  2. How did the astronaut/camera come to be on the outside of the impenetrable dome?
    13
  3. Watch the earliest in his series. By this point he’s had countless replies from FE’ers who can’t understand the simplest points but who aggressively assert they’re better informed than everybody else.
    11
  4. They have problems grasping 3.
    11
  5. So you can’t actually answer him and you have no concept of what a distant moon would look like to multiple observers. Why should I consider your reply as intelligent?
    11
  6. Why waste time trying to zoom in on something that we know is completely blocked from view? The sun retains a constant angular velocity and angular diameter through the course of the day, disappearing below a horizon that arises from the measurable curvature found around the planet. FEers insist the sun never sets and changes angular velocity & diameter despite daily observation to the contrary; the onus is on them to demonstrate they can zoom it back.
    10
  7.  @skye_onair509 Density us not a force just the ratio of mass to volume. Since gravity is the attraction of masses and density is the amount of mass in a volume, the gravitational pull is greater on denser objects. Since air has a greater density than the helium, the gravitational pull on it is greater thsn the balloon; the air moves down preferentially, displacing the balloon upwards.
    10
  8.  @skye_onair509  The greater the mass then the greater the force required to reach a set rate of acceleration. Gravitational attraction is proportional to mass; the greater the mass, the greater the force. Since both attraction and force are directly proportional to the mass of the object, all objects exhibit the same acceleration.
    10
  9. Clocks & calendars are based (originally) on the sun & moon, not vice versa. The moon is also observable during the day and causes solar eclipses. Tides, not waves.
    10
  10.  @netrox81 ​​⁠You can produce a 3000 year old map that is navigable?
    10
  11. Produce evidence this dome exists. Explain why the sun & moon follow different paths to what we observe. Explain how you think a sundial works.
    9
  12. Please explain how everybody sees the sane face & phase of the moon on a FE?
    9
  13. The attitude is due to the response of FE'ers in earlier videos, i.e., a lot of abuse, a lot of claims of knowledge but zero feasible explanations.
    9
  14.  @urkingsking Eratosthenes “assumption” was based on the deductions made 200 years earlier from the motion of the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses always having a circular cross-section. 2500 years on we are still waiting for FE’ers to explain. Eratosthenes experiment can and is repeated with three or more locations (yes, there are numbers bigger than two) if you wish to distinguish between flat and globe. Refute and ignore are not synonymous.
    8
  15. Are you going to supply it since you have a copy?
    8
  16.  @joshuataylor3523  The (usual) FE model is that the Earth is stationary (because they don't feel dizzy), the "firmament" is a dome that is/isn't over the Earth (no agreement which) which does/doesn't rotate (no agreement which) while the moon travels in a horizontal circle roughly above the equator at an altitude of 100 to 6000 miles (no agreed figure, just that it's measured & constant), either diametrically opposed to the FE sun (which means it would be visible only at FE night) or independent of the FE sun (collisions never occurring for unspecified reasons). In that scenario(s) we would see differing faces & phases according to location rather than one face & phase worldwide. The only way to get a single face would be to have the moon so for away it couldn't appear to rise & set and too far away to be seen at all by their claims of how far your eyes can see. You still wouldn't get the same phase. If it orbited a FE (above & below) then everybody could potentially see the same face but not phase and would have the same rising & setting time worldwide (obviously not true). "In my head I can see how it would work" So all FE'ers say, usually declaring how obvious it is, but we are still waiting on any of them to divulge this model instead of repeating the same old, same old.
    8
  17.  @jwhoward3611  The aim is more to demonstrate how dumb they are to anybody who is wondering if there is anything in what they claim. This started when Prof Dave made a normal educational video about how we know the Earth is a globe; he suffered a deluge of abusive comments with canards to back their claims and Globebusters made a video with no substance to it. We’re tallking about people who aren’t fazed that their inability to answer simple questions contradicts their belief that they possess all the answers.
    8
  18. He was polite in his earlier videos and received a lot of vitriol from FE’ers who can’t explain their reasoning or meet basic challenges. This & later videos point out the simple things they are wilfully too dumb to notice.
    8
  19.  @skye_onair509  I realise the concept will be very difficult for you to grasp but there can actually bd more than one factor involved in by something’s motion. The air displaces the helium ballon upwards; it exceeds gravitational attraction, not replaces it. In the absence of all factors (no air, no rockets, nobody holding it) all objects fall with the same acceleration.
    8
  20. The sun is 93 million miles away, very big and very bright. The moon is far far smaller but close enough to be readily seen when sunlight reflects off it. The planets are larger than the moon but much further away; they appear the same size as stars.
    7
  21. Hea referring to people who profess how their profound cogitations on the subject have plumbed depths of profundity untouched than the most profound of profound thinkers but who still can’t see the problem even when you walk them through it.
    7
  22. When he made this video he had had over a year’s flak from abusive FE’ers endlessly repeating the same handful of canards and incapable of explaining themselves or understanding basic science. Dealing with them is far more annoying that anything Dave says.
    7
  23.  @skye_onair509  That’s the reasoning step from which you made your statement. You did actually try reasoning before typing?
    7
  24. “arrive at that location” Why would a large object above a wide plain only be visible to a small area of the plain? Why an object visible12hrs a day not be visible to both of two people positioned 5hrs apart?
    7
  25. FE doesn't have a horizon so the fact that they can see a horizon at all negates the claim. They are clueless to scale so they assume the globe is far smaller than in actuality (they seem to visualise it in the 25-250 mile circumference range) in which case there would be a noticeable drop in viewing angle with sufficient altitude. They believe eyeballing is the only form of measurement and can't handle the concept that you can have a measurable drop that isn't blatantly obvious to the eye. Thus they don't notice the drop when in an aircraft. There is no reason why the horizon would rise to eye-level on a FE; it's one of those claims made by FE gurus and unquestioningly accepted by the Thinkers. There would be no horizon on a FE. If, as they frequently claim, the eye had a maximum viewing distance then they would actually see less into the distance as altitude increased (difference between hypotenuse and opposite sides on a triangle, where the adjacent side represents the altitude) and their "horizon" would indeed appear to fall below eye level. It sounds like your nephew is a Thinker; a lot to say how much he has thought about the subject when in actuality the thinking is extremely superficial.
    7
  26. In what way do you think he failed to demonstrate the impossibility of seeing the same face of the moon across the FE?
    7
  27. Thinking outside the box does have the prerequisite of thinking.
    6
  28. Look at a 3D globe itself, not a flat projection of a globe.
    6
  29. They don’t think.
    6
  30. You would be far more convincing if you could explain why the moon looks the same to everyone. Try doing it.
    6
  31.  NXVI  Why do you think rotation is a straight line?
    6
  32. On a FE, it wouldn’t be able to rise & set because it was permanently too high in the sky and would still mean it was fully visible to everybody all the time rather than half the day.
    6
  33. That would be natural philosophy, not science.
    6
  34. Such is the power of the penguins!
    6
  35. What's your technique for identifying fake photographs?
    6
  36.  @boterlettersukkel  Who appears to be trolling himself...
    6
  37. Alex Boller Explain how you think density can act as force and why in a consistent direction.
    6
  38. Laws of thermodynamics prove what and how exactly?
    6
  39. Did he think the interstate highways existed in colonial times?
    6
  40.  @skye_onair509 ​​⁠Then explain how density can act as a force and why in a particular direction.
    6
  41. How long do you think the batteries should last on "Elon's roadster"?
    6
  42.  @urkingsking  Hipparchus. Modern star charts abound.
    5
  43. Karndean Slasher You’re professing to have the profound insight on how life, the universe and everything really works so answer Pets Pro’s question.
    5
  44. Snite “Based on its distance” What would you say that distance was?
    5
  45. Good heavens! You're supposed to Ask Questions, not ask questions. 🙂
    5
  46.  Devilcorn123  Don’t malign the Neanderthals 😊
    5
  47. They insist it is small & close. A distant moon would have the problem of not rising & setting and the viewing angles from different locations would disagree with observation.
    5
  48. Try sorting by newest first.
    5
  49. How would it set?
    5
  50.  @jwhoward3611  You’re making the same mistake as FE’ers: presuming all information comes from the government. NASA was formed in 1958 AD. The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a globe c. 500 BC. Magellan circumnavigated the Earth in the 16th century. Enough of the surface had been mapped by 17th for geographic globes to be practical. The co-ordinate system was standardised worldwide in 19th. The Soviet Union launched the first satellite in 1957 AD. NASA does not and has not controlled all information pertaining to the Earth’s shape. The ancient Greeks deduced it from observations anybody can make: motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & seasons, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow. 2500 years on we are still waiting in FE’ers to produce explanations. Instead we have claims that the horizon is too far away based on their using the wrong maths and ignoring elevation & atmospheric refraction; somehow this is supposed to prove there isn’t a horizon at all. This video doesn’t require any calculations or measurements, just thought; still no answers. The evidence is very much one-sided. It’s why flat-earther is a by-word for idiocy.
    5
  51. Get it to rise & set. Do you think we haven’t heard that before?
    5
  52.  @C_Becker Far more information coming in than in any time in history with routinely conflicting opinions from experts, “experts” and any Tom, Dick & Harry. It leaves some with the sense that the world is full of uncertainty. There is a supposed ancient Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times.” It seems appropriate for the situation.
    5
  53. No answer to the video then?
    5
  54.  NXVI  The shape of the Earth is not a matter of opinion. It's measurable and has been measured countless times. FE'ers are running around claiming ignorance is knowledge.
    5
  55. Your statement would have more weight if FE’ers produced the proofs you refer to. Meanwhile you can prove the Earth is a globe with sticks & shadows.
    5
  56. Half the world can view the moon at any given time. If the Earth was flat then everybody always would.
    5
  57. There’s asking how the heliocentric model works and what the evidence for that it is and there is starting with “it just gotta be wrong” and digging for garbage to support your belief.
    5
  58.  @skye_onair509  Your asserting scalars are forces wirh direction and vectors lack direction?
    5
  59. s w The difference would be 4 degrees of 180 degree view of the moon, which has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees in the sky at best, and occur at the edges where the view of the surface is already slanted with respect to the observers. Why do you think that difference would be huge? Are you just assuming it must be?
    5
  60. Why is it so difficult for FE'ers to calculate degrees curvature per mile?
    5
  61. Some insist it is flat and some claim it emits its own light though none can exclaim why shadows from mountains are readily observable.
    5
  62. Because they conveniently fold or roll up.
    5
  63. Start with his original astronomy video, work through the FE subsequent videos sequentially and note the FE comments. FE’ers go out of their way to be dumb.
    5
  64. No true FE’er would say it was a sphere?
    4
  65. The Church didn’t burn anybody for saying the Earth was round. The dispute was whether it was a geocentric or heliocentric system; as far as I’m aware nobody was burned simply for saying heliocentric.
    4
  66. I’ve been asking FE’ers repeatedly for the last few years how they distinguish real from CGI. No joy yet. No explanation how CGI was achieved before CGI existed and very little understanding of what CGI actually exists. Blue Marble (the original) and Earthrise were shot on film years before computing power was capable of photoshopping, much less CGI.
    4
  67. And thus would appear oval to most observers.
    4
  68. It’s the main cause of tides.
    4
  69. It was never in.
    4
  70.  @Chamorropinoyboi  Do you want to explain how you think NASA is photoshopping the content of amateur cameras?
    4
  71. Outside the box perhaps but not thinking. We disprove most of their claims simply by pointing out the factors they haven’t taken jnto account.
    4
  72. Why not tell us what this real definition of FE is? Even just one of you divulging the details would solve your complaint.
    4
  73. The space penguins that have genetically modified for squeegee flippers.
    4
  74. If you referring to what I think you are then the requirement is actually to prove the incorrect equation for curvature is the correct one.
    4
  75. Rowbotham was on a religious anti-science bender; being Biblical was far more important to him that matching reality.
    4
  76. In addition to Matthew’s comment, FE’ers seem to regard perspective as a fixed but unspecified distance beyond which your eye can’t see beyond for reasons they never explain. They don’t seem to have (and don’t want) any concept of perspective, angular size and visual acuity.
    4
  77. Read by newest first. There aren’t many FE replies though.
    4
  78. Denial.
    4
  79. How do they move? They don't tend to think through on what they suggest. If the dome is such hard material it can supposedly withstand nuclear detonations on its surface (apparently demonstrated by the spherical expanding cloud being unimpeded by said dome, though they won't explain how because that hadn't occurred to them) how can the protruding bulge move? How does it rise & set? Why doesn't it change size through the course of the day? Why doesn't the whole world have one time zone?
    4
  80. At this stage in the series it is long apparent that FE’ers can’t provide answers or actually think, just repeat crap sold to them by their gurus. This couches the simplest of questions in the simplest of diagrams in the knowledge there will be FE’ers still denying the obvious and proclaiming their mental prowess.
    4
  81. Valentín Karámanliev I cant stir my tea unless it is in a sealed container?
    4
  82. A pastry.
    3
  83. Others say density makes objects move or that things spontaneously move down (and some up and the sun & moon sideways but all definitely down).
    3
  84. The explosions ranged from 20 miles high to 200 miles high above the same location. At what altitude are you saying they encountered the dome?
    3
  85. The hole in their doughnut model is only being able to see polar stars when in the hole.
    3
  86. How do you think density could act as a force and why in a consistent direction?
    3
  87. Would you like your computer to work or would you be happy with just reading a handwritten scree on what a wonderful thing it is?
    3
  88. How large do you think the imperfection is?
    3
  89. If you think you have a FE map with accurate distances then why can’t any of you produce it?
    3
  90. Out of sight, out of mind.
    3
  91. Many replies but no answers.
    3
  92. It couldn't rise & set, the phases wouldn't be what we observe and which phase would vary across the FE. Difficult as it is for FE'ers to conceive since your minds can only handle more than one factor at a time, more than one force can act simultaneously. Additionally, gravity is a continual force, not an irresistible one.
    3
  93.  @AssortedGarbage23  Depends on which one of them you ask though most will be adamant they are in agreement.
    3
  94.  @rayopeongo  I think he means the differing balance on the pivot.
    3
  95. Exasperation. FE’ers insist they have the answers, the understanding, the model, the physics etc and remain convinced they possess them despite being unable to produce any of them and having had the assertions repeatedly disproved. By this video they’re being presented with a simple question that doesn’t require any in depth thinking to answer, they still can’t answer, they still remain insistent that they have the answer and still fall back in insulting people.
    3
  96. Vytas Kereišis The angular diameter of the moon would differ across the world. By inclining the orbit you could get it to rise and set but it would do so at the same time for everyone. Any possible solution for people seeing the same face makes something else impossible.
    3
  97.  @GodHelpHumanity Clotting was a risk of >100,000:1. No virus has a 100% infection rate. Do you understand numbers?
    3
  98. “Thinking differently” assumes they are capable of thinking. We’re talking about people who seemingly can’t grasp the concept of numbers.
    3
  99.  @rafaelhubbard66  FE’ers insist that the moon is close hence its position in the model. Many of them also insist it is inside a dome.
    3
  100. Matthew O'Grady I believe these are Washer’s penguins.
    3
  101. Adessah Cory It would be more convincing if any FE’er would produce the proof against the globe that they keep claiming they possess.
    3
  102. latifa ali That the Earth isn’t flat is so easy to demonstrate that you can do it yourself with sticks & shadows: https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ Preferring a belief over demonstrable fact is not open mindedness; it’s stupidity. FE’ers have no consistent model including how the moon moves; you can choose between always directly opposed to the sun, in its own circle and a loop that passes over & under the FE, none of which are consistent with observable reality.
    3
  103. “can reach” is the key phrase; it would take days to reach that temperature. The Apollo landings were timed to be “early morning” so the temperature was still relatively low. What do you think the flashpoints of the flags were and how would they burn in the absence of oxygen?
    3
  104. s w In this video he’s explaining the stupidity of FE to previous commenters who apparently have no grasp of the concepts of angle and distance. Why do you think 4 degrees would be obvious to the eye?
    3
  105. LivingOnPurpose Sheer distance to the stars means the stellar parallax is unnoticeable to the unaided eye. Polaris remains in the pile position because it is in the Earth’s rotational axis and at 430 light years distance does not have a measurable stellar parallax. Since the distance to the sun varies between 92 and 94 million miles there is a small change in angular diameter but not large enough to be obvious to the unaided eye.
    3
  106. ​ @OnlyLivingOnPurpose  The Earth rotates on its axis once per day. The Earth orbits the sun once per year. The Earth's orbit is elliptical rather than a perfect circle but the deviation is from a perfect circle is minimal; the deviation is so small it isn't important for this discussion. Distance from the sun to Earth is approximately 8 light minutes. Distance from Earth to Polaris is approximately 430 light years or approximately 22.6 million light minutes. Simple trigonometry enables you to calculate the difference in viewing angle for Polaris between Earth & sun: tan(Angle) = 8^2 / 22,600,000^2 = 0.125*10^-12 Angle = atan(0.125*10^-12) = 7*10^-12 degrees. The angle across the orbit is twice that so essentially 14 trillionths of a degree. 14 trilllionths of a degree is too small to be observable. The Earth orbits the sun once per year. The sun orbits the centre of the galaxy every 250 million years. All stars in the galaxy orbit the centre, essentially meaning the galaxy rotates, with all stars moving in the same direction at similar speeds. The Earth moves with the sun. The galaxies move but given the size of the universe and the speed at which the galaxies move they are essentially motionless in this context. That there is a vacuum between celestial objects does not preclude the existence of solid objects between them, eg, comets. The same physical laws apply equally everywhere. The strength of gravity depends on the size & proximity of mass, but the law of gravity does not alter. You need to grasp the scale of space and the speeds at which different objects travel.
    3
  107. FE’ers insist that it is close which they need to be able to explain (albeit incorrectly) how the moon rises & sets. A distant moon would appear almost stationary high in the sky above a FE.
    3
  108. TheNeutralCat FE’ers profess to have all the answers; the video ask them to produce them. There have been a number again claiming the answers known but nobody has been able to produce these answers.
    3
  109.  @marcmontanaperramon9740  Which would result in the entire population seeing the sun rise & set simultaneously and change in its apparent size during the course of its orbit. It provides no explanation for phases of the moon.
    3
  110.  @marcmontanaperramon9740  The purpose of the video is to disprove the FE model which relies on the moon being small & close (though increasingly vague about how small and how close), not prove that the Earth is a globe. He ran through that on the first video he made in the astronomy series. The FE would (presumably) have a 40,000km diameter which would have some impact on the moon's angular diameter and, in the FE reality, human eyes can only see a limited distance.
    3
  111. kowalski2015 In what way do you think it should be changed to make it correct?
    3
  112. And FE'er insist it is close to try and explain how it rises & sets. Logically it can't be near and distant simultaneously.
    3
  113.  @stylesrj  He has the guy’s family jewels?
    3
  114. Have you never noticed that other FE'es say you're agreed that they are spheres?
    2
  115. You believe in a FE because you think it will make you immortal?
    2
  116. Aside from considering where it would be projected from, the angular diameter would vary across the Earth and the moon would be visible to the everybody at once?
    2
  117.  @sharkPause1  You seem a bit confused. The rotation of the Earth means you see the stars rotate through the course of the night. Over the course of the year which constellations are visible changes. There is a slight change in the apparent position of the nearest stars due to parallax that can be measured with instruments but that isn’t apparent to the naked eye. Since all the stars (sun included) are moving in the same general direction as the galaxy rotates changes in the orientation of the individual stars require 10,000s of years to be apparent to the eye.
    2
  118. Mohammed Nawaz It would require to resolution to decrease from the top to the bottom of the ship rather than be related to distance.
    2
  119. What exactly do you think defines the top, sides and bottom of the globe?
    2
  120. Corey elAYE Some insist they are just lights and either won’t look through a telescope or insist on them being unfocused.
    2
  121. That would be more convincing if FE’ers actually asked questions, were willing to think and could comprehend that other people can know something they don’t. A claim that the Earth was flat would correspondingly have more weight if there was evidence rather than “I don’t see how...” for every point.
    2
  122.  @عوع-س4ت  Since his belief (and not necessarily why he was executed) was that the universe had no centre and there were other worlds. He was principally in trouble for disagreeing with Church doctrines. I never said that the Church didn't have people executed; I specified it was not for heliocentrism.
    2
  123. Nardypants To add to AJ’s comment, there is the also the assumption that the less evidence there is for a conspiracy the better the idea is supported since the total local of evidence reflects the total control the conspiracists have.
    2
  124. uuaschbaer The moon rising & setting is rather the point. FE’ers have to account for it and thus claim the moon is small and close.
    2
  125. RGDjag0 What do you think we do in labs?
    2
  126. RGDjag0 You aren’t going to answer my question?
    2
  127. RGDjag0 You need to know the difference between the scientific and vernacular meanings of theory before you continue. What do you think is the purpose of designing and executing an experiment?
    2
  128.  @RGDjag0  What is so difficult about looking up the definition of a scientific theory as opposed to the vernacular meaning? You have had it pointed out to you multiple times they aren't the same. "you can repeatedly test stuff that confirms the explanation of your proposition" The whole point is to disprove the hypothesis.
    2
  129.  @RGDjag0  "They are accepted valid explanations, until proven otherwise" Because in science you can't prove something absolutely; you can reach the point where no evidence to disprove the hypothesis has been found despite extensive research and attempts to disprove it. At that point something is accepted as a scientific theory. That is the nearest you can come to absolute proof in science. If you think it is wrong then you need to demonstrate that; asserting it is incorrect without evidence is conjecture on your part. You can't dismiss it as "just a theory"; that would be an untested hypothesis.
    2
  130. RGDjag0 That the Earth is round is not a theory; it’s a fact. That any object has s specific shape is not theory but fact. It’s measurable and measured. It’s observable and observed.
    2
  131. Mr. Fake Belt An ad hominem argument is when the argument consists solely of attacking someone’s character. Insulting someone while giving a reasoned argument is not an ad hominem argument.
    2
  132. A lot of them insist the planets are just lights. They can’t make a connection between telescopes and looking up.
    2
  133. He estimated the circumference and distance to the sun; that it was a sphere had been determined 2 centuries before.
    2
  134. 3 or 4 new shots taken every hour https://himawari8.nict.go.jp How many photos do there need to be to satisfy you there is more than one?
    2
  135. Over time we see about 190 degrees of the surface. How do you explain the rest? The surface features shuffle around to fool us?
    2
  136. In moving the moon to fix that particular problem you make it impossible to explain rising & setting or phases.
    2
  137. You can’t figure out for yourself how to test water with a magnet?
    2
  138. It still wouldn’t be high enough and it would still be visible around the clock.
    2
  139. If you are above the equator the moon appears one way up, below the equator it is "upside down"; on a FE it would have to be circling above the equator.
    2
  140. Ask them why they think an ocean and a fly have the same weight. It’s the unspoken premise behind the question and the Thinkers don’t see it.
    2
  141.  @seand0112  The presumption is that the same gravitational attraction from Earth means the same force applied to ocean & fly, i.e., they weigh the same, something which is patently absurd and hence not explicitly stated by the guru. The fly has only to lift its own weight for which purpose its wings are sufficient.
    2
  142. The reasoning seems to be if they can see it then it must be close.
    2
  143. One of you actually needs to produce this working model you keep claiming you have. Step up to the plate.
    2
  144. J Daniels Something called writing existed long before then.
    2
  145. They seem pretty dense so presumably something is there 😊
    2
  146. Check the full series of what he has made, starting with the educational astronomy video. Referring to FE’ers as morons is justifiable.
    2
  147.  @dhirendrarajkumar1785  How do you reconcile gentle slope with sheer drop?
    2
  148. How does the sun maintain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day and rise & set without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon. Tell me what you believe the explanation to be.
    2
  149. The rotational period is the same as its orbital period so the same side is always facing us.
    2
  150.  @ericb3157  How did he manage to dream up the term “twistronics”?
    2
  151. This is the latest of number about FE; politeness doesn’t work.
    2
  152. mangojulie123 Within these videos the people asking such questions are usually FE’ers who think their inability to fathom the answers means they have discovered gaping holes in explanations of the solar system and therefore they have proof the Earth is flat. This kind of forum is its own microcosm, not a reflection of real life.
    2
  153.  @rayopeongo  Perhaps it’s a giant, one-way cat-flap? 🤔
    2
  154.  @rayopeongo  If we wait for the next large asteroid heading for Earth we could calculate its trajectory, get a FE'er to cough up the height of this dome and pinpoint the catflap's position.
    2
  155.  @steveadams7369  Demanding it back was a mistake; you should have insisted he kept it.
    2
  156. Watch the early ones on this series.
    2
  157.  @NaudotojoVardas  He’s being short with FE’ers, not shouting at them. Watch the series in order. The last three are aimed at the dumb clucks who are convinced they have all the answers but who can’t explain anything.
    2
  158.  @ssroudyss9432  It's not unusual for people to hang out in particular videos or authors, the same way we did on particular groups on Usenet when it was around.
    2
  159.  @DITRH  Then you should have no problems answering here.
    2
  160. LANIK They already claim it is small & close to enable rising & setting, though I’m sure they would not be fazed at arguing both ways. Large & distant wouldn’t explain phases, rising & setting or why only half the world sees the moon at a time.
    2
  161. Odis Croft And yet everybody south of the equator sees the moon towards the north.
    2
  162. Unfortunately it’s the only coherent answer produced.
    2
  163. Don't look.
    2
  164. Krehmall Dotsenko You would have considerably more impact, as would other FE’ers, if any of you would provide this working FE model that you claim you have. Want to try it?
    2
  165.  @ibraheemkhan6660 Close is supposed to be a few thousand miles (they stopped giving any actual distances years ago) above the FE surface and following a roughly equatorial path. We would see different phases & faces. What path are you envisaging for a distant FE moon?
    2
  166.  @ibraheemkhan6660  Flat Earth. I’m pointing out that we aren’t ignoring the actual distance to the moon or suggesting that it close but that the locality is the assertion of FE’ers and what this video aims to disprove. I’m asking what path you think a distant FE moon could follow that would match what we observe.
    2
  167.  @ibraheemkhan6660  You’re not the first who has said a distant moon would solve the conundrum but none have explained how this would agree with the moon’s observed motion.
    2
  168. herrschlupf They don’t. Nor do they explain how they move but they’re quite sure the explanations they can’t provide are correct.
    2
  169. Curtis Tisberger Has it occurred to you to actually read what it says in those papers? There’s a list of mathematical simplifications employed to keep the calculations down to the aerodynamics alone. The shuttle took off vertically, remained vertical until it reached thin atmosphere then entered into a curve that would result in an orbit.
    2
  170. Pets Pro It’s just something going around and around in his head?
    2
  171. jordan p The magnetic tapes went the same way as floppies. Are you aware that data is transferable?
    2
  172. jordan p Have you seen your brain?
    2
  173. Can they view the stars directly where they live?
    2
  174. Try removing it from your viewing history.
    2
  175. No logo.
    2
  176. kowalski2015 According to FE’ers the Earth only has one side.
    2
  177. https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ Not difficult. How many times by how many people does it need to be done to satisfy you that it can be done?
    2
  178. b h This the latest in a series of videos about a FE. His attitude is a result of the invective & idiocy in FE’er comments about those videos.
    1
  179. FE’ers are afflicted with Morton’s Demon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon
    1
  180.  @MW-qv5ox  If the planets don't exist what is reflecting the light?
    1
  181. He’s already explained nicely that 1+1=2, has demonstrated that it doesn’t equal three and has asked them to demonstrate 1+1=3. A lot of insults, no evidence but all quite certain 3 is the answer because it just gotta be. He is surprisingly patient compared to most.
    1
  182. The Law of Just Does.
    1
  183.  @Peter_1986  "should be reserved for the people who stubbornly insist in an overconfident way that they are right and refuse to change their mind." Which is who he is addressing. There has been abundant number replying to his earlier videos, keen to demonstrate such personal qualities.
    1
  184. Which would appear oval to most observers.
    1
  185.  @kc328  Because you are giving serious consideration to "the government" running a totally pointless conspiracy to fool people for over 2000 years with total power over anybody capable of doing research. https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ It's not difficult to verify.
    1
  186.  University of Truth  Explain how you think density can act as a force and why in a consistent direction. Produce some evidence your ice wall exists.
    1
  187. "all prior civilizations were similar in their renderings which support a flat earth design" It was a common assumption; assumptions are not evidence. "encyclopedias prior to the 1950s speak to a dome" That assertion is a generalisation of Antarctica being described as dome-shaped; the description is unequivocally about the landscape of a continent, not a dome over a FE. "multiple aeronautical and government documents which reference a flat & unmoving earth" In experimental aircraft design where several assumptions were made to limit the maths purely to the actual aerodynamics rather account for such things as decreasing weight as the fuel is used and lack of weather. One such simplifying assumption is the landscape being flat. None declare, secretly or openly, that the EArth actually is flat. "laws which keep private citizens from traveling any further south than some 60 degree" etc There aren't any; FE'er claim it but can never provide any references. "One can't help but wonder why." Then you need to check the validity of FE assertions. "speak of "flat earthers" in such a condescending way" Because they continually bang on about how well informed and enlightened they are but can never provide any of the evidence or answers they claim to possess in abundance. "There may actually be some conspiracy fact here though" A conspiracy that FE'ers can provide no reason or evidence for.
    1
  188.  @عوع-س4ت  Reread What I wrote, slowly.
    1
  189.  @عوع-س4ت  I suggest you read more than the first hit. Most search engines don’t return the same results for everyone; what you’ve asked for in the past is included in the algorithms.
    1
  190.  @gertrude574  A bugbear I agree, but if we don’t have accuracy in communicating facts then we reach the point where we don’t know anything anymore; we just think we do.
    1
  191. Pets Pro I wonder whose face the man in the moon has in North Korea...
    1
  192. BurrosSWE You consider critical thinking to mean ignoring evidence you don’t want to hear?
    1
  193. uuaschbaer I said they have to account for rising & setting; I did not say their explanation was valid. As has been repeatedly said here, any explanation has to account for all aspects of the moon’s behaviour, not multiple conflicting explanations for different aspects.
    1
  194. uuaschbaer 2:04 - 2:10
    1
  195. Mr Cirino Which continents does the the equator pass through?
    1
  196. Snite FE’ers claim the moon is within a few thousand miles of Earth, that its proximity would somehow explain it rising & setting due to perspective. If you wish to disprove a model then you need to test the properties of that model.
    1
  197. The moon is tidally locked: its rotation period matches its orbital period. If the orbital period matched the Earth's rotational period then the moon would occupy a fixed position in the sky. Gravitational force is dependent on both mass and separating distance. The sun may have more mass than Earth but is substantially further away. The moon is slowing drifting away from Earth. All mass has gravity. The well-distanced moon can move the water on Earth but the water itself is held to the Earth's surface by Earth's gravity. The water rotates & orbits with Earth. Earth's gravity is in a constant position relative to the water; it isn't generating any movement that would create a tide. Space is big, the fluctuations (you're talking quantum level?) miniscule and fleeting.
    1
  198. Duck Sawse How high do you think the pressure is around the moon and how do you conclude it is sufficient to produce a substantial amount of resistance to Apollo craft?
    1
  199.  @blueflowers6738  "I don't know." "would be significant" "the math COMPLETELY falls apart " If you don't know then how do you conclude the effect would be significant and large enough to make the maths fall apart? Which is it? Are you assuming that the drag just has to be huge? "(although the records are "lost")" No, the tapes the data was originally stored on went the same way as floppies. Some people have serious difficulties understanding that data is transferable and so run around telling people the data is lost despite it being downloadable. "I'm looking for other perspectives on the above" You need to do the calculations first, then draw conclusions, not jump directly to the latter.
    1
  200.  @blueflowers6738  You are assuming the drag would make a substantial difference; that is why you need to calculate it. If the correction needed would be a burn time totally masked by the in flight corrections then who would notice and how? "It would have been obvious " Something you are assuming. Do the calculations.
    1
  201. Raziel Sarafan You would need a minimum of three sticks to disprove the Earth is flat; Eratosthenes was obtaining measurements of something that was known only spheres have circular cross-sections from every angle). It’s why FE’ers refuse to think beyond using two sticks.
    1
  202. max5250 True but we’re dealing with people who can’t handle more than concept at a time. They can visualise a whole range of clouds but ask how much sunlight can shine through clouds and all clouds suddenly take on uniform properties.
    1
  203. I think that when it comes to considering multiple observers their brains hit the same obstruction as when they need to consider multiple factors.
    1
  204. What “valid arguments that are difficult to deny”?
    1
  205. jasonc0065 You need to produce numbers.
    1
  206. Sam Doherty It’s not the people who believe it, who are not going to be convinced by reality, but those who think there is something in the FE assertions of basic science being wrong, accidentally or deliberately.
    1
  207. I, Spartacus How would it rise & set in the course of each day while maintaining the same phase?
    1
  208. composerdoh Check Prof Dave’s earliest videos on the subject.
    1
  209. Janice L Nobody’s bothering to answer everything because you’re a troll and/or (given the questions) too dumb to understand the answers.
    1
  210.  @krzysztofneubauer2390  You underestimate their insistence on it being small & close.
    1
  211. Good luck getting one.
    1
  212.  @Bnslamb  Its possible that YT is removing links to anything it views as misinformation even if it is their own site.
    1
  213. chari Muvilla Not when the moon is 239,000 miles away; the difference would be a small fraction of 1 degree.
    1
  214. Why do I hear the Hallelujah Chorus when someone mentions Tesla?
    1
  215. https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ Rotation requires the use of quality gyroscopes.
    1
  216.  @dastaube1700  He's already provided evidence in earlier videos. FE'er response was quoting their "evidence". Video explaining why their claims are inherently incorrect. FE'ers response of abuse, repeating the claims he just disproved and claiming there is other evidence that they mysteriously can't provide. Another video posing challenges they ought to be able to easily meet (like producing the map they claim to possess). FE'er response was more abuse, repeating the earlier debunked claims, claiming they have other evidence and zero attempts at actually meeting any of the challenges. So finally onto this video....
    1
  217.  @milectarx6561  The moon rotates but the rotational period is the same as the orbital period so the same face is always towards us.
    1
  218. JD The OT books were written nearer 3000 years ago, well predating the Greek philosophers and hence reflecting what was generally believed then.
    1
  219. What compelling FE evidence? They keep saying they have it but none produce it.
    1
  220. Reading, writing and online meetings. Frustrating when you normally spend most of your time at the bench.
    1
  221. J Daniels Dead Sea Scrolls. Has anybody ever seen your brain?
    1
  222.  @Learnguitartoday  Asking you how you think it could work is pseudoscience? You sound like a FE'er.
    1
  223. Explain how you think people 20,000 miles apart would see the same face of a moon 2000 miles above the surface of a FE.
    1
  224. ​ @jy1178  1. The flight paths are obviously curved when portrayed on a flat projection of Earth. By your reasoning they would have to be continuously banking. 2. NDT specified at the time that the deviation would not be noticeable. At the time is not someone else retrospectively. I realise that numbers are a difficult concept for FE'ers but do you understand the difference between 0.3% and 30%? 3. The closer the moon is to a FE then the greater the difference in viewing angles between well spaced people on that FE. 4. The moon orbits the Earth and each orbit takes a month; consequently it spends half its time on the sunward side of Earth. 5. There's over 200 governments on Earth and (North Korea aside), no government is regarded as the holder of truth. 6. Produce this undistorted projection. Try explaining why moving a map from between flat and curved surfaces wouldn't create any distortion. 7. What would qualify as this "confirmation from space"?
    1
  225.  @donniev8181  Area of a circle is pi*r^2: the larger the area to be monitored the more ships you would need to do the monitoring.
    1
  226.  @donniev8181  The USN would not have been covering Port Arthur.
    1
  227. Nasa means raise or lift (verb); nassa means to deceive (verb). People eager to know The Truth aren’t interested in correctness.
    1
  228. 2:47 Depends on which FE’er you are talking to.
    1
  229.  @dhirendrarajkumar1785  How would “13000 foot high mountain” be read as starting at 13,000 feet?
    1
  230. Sort by nearest first.
    1
  231. Explain why you think everybody sees the same face of the moon.
    1
  232.  @marksmit6718  Sorry. Seriously stretched patience from Thinkers who can't see the self-evident problems with their "solutions".
    1
  233. Flat Earth predates all that, originating with Rowbotham going on a religious anti-science bender. That’s a pretty garbled list that you have.
    1
  234. Curvature or viewing distance? The two are not the same.
    1
  235.  @aaryajain9771  I would have thought their brains could be described as dense...
    1
  236. abigail tirabassi Gravity pulls towards the centre of the Earth, not some mysterious plane “below” the South Pole.
    1
  237. christian nordin Are you asking why you can see a blue sky through the moon?
    1
  238. FE'ers can't agree how far away the sun & moon are but generally claim somewhere between 1 mile and 6000 miles. Working with 2000 miles in the video seems reasonable.
    1
  239. Do you think we find it difficult or that they lack explanation?
    1
  240. Try disproving the role an omnipotent god in such events :-)
    1
  241.  @minihalkoja590  I was referring to unfalsifiability.
    1
  242. william halim It was pictured that way because FE’ers insist it is small and close.
    1
  243. https://youtu.be/s0UsPhVTE8Q Try listening to what Byrd actually said rather than what somebody told you he said. In terms of Fishbowl, I’m still waiting for any FE’er to explain how they believe there is one impenetrable layer at multiple heights over the same location.
    1
  244.  @johnmargetson4711  Why we would want to go the moon? What would the benefit be from the expenditure?
    1
  245. Paul M Already tried that with preceding videos.
    1
  246. Reread the title.
    1
  247.  @petspro3453  I had somebody describe the trend as “spiked and still increasing” which does reflect their grasp on detail.
    1
  248. That Amazing Girl The Ptolemaic system was based on a spherical Earth. 500 years ago was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric. Do none of you bother to check anything?
    1
  249.  @joegeneric7973  Swedish krona apparently.
    1
  250.  @joegeneric7973  SEK is the abbreviation for Swedish krona. You asked which currency he donated in.
    1
  251.  @robbo6689  Start with his first video on the subject (astronomy series) and see how matters unfolded.
    1
  252.  @samuelkellogg9152  He’s only “hostile and combative “ in these videos.
    1
  253.  laptop electric  Was that intended fur me?
    1
  254.  @flatearthdave  Really? No explanation for how the sun would stay up, what makes it move, what makes it change course, what makes it change speed or how it causes long days in the southern hemisphere while being further way from most of it at any given time.
    1
  255.  @DITRH  They don't. Explain how the south has elongated days in the summer rather than the shorter ones predicted by a FE.
    1
  256.  @Petethebuilder  You're assuming there is only one observer in the world. There are nearly 8 billion observers scattered across Earth.
    1
  257.  @cheesemanthe2nd Supposedly it makes everyone sun-worshipers.
    1
  258. FE’ers will then fall back on “light can’t travel that far” when the moon can’t be seen.
    1
  259.  @ibraheemkhan6660  You say the moon being distant would solve the problem for a FE but all you’ve referred to is everybody seeing the same face. For that to be reasonable you need to give a plausible position. You have referred to both a polar and a peripheral location, neither of which match the observable motion of the moon.
    1
  260.  @ibraheemkhan6660  Which brings us back full circle: FEers insist the moon is no more than a few thousand miles above the FE surface.
    1
  261. Is he still posting there?
    1
  262. Representing the distance on the screen would reduce the size of moon & earth to the point you wouldn’t be able to perceive light & dark sides.
    1
  263.  @jay2theloo  Greater distance on a FE means limited motion and the inability to even apparently rise & set.
    1
  264.  @rayopeongo  Even that many shots of uncarbonated water would be detrimental.
    1
  265. Why exactly do you think it couldn’t be continuously observable for 12hrs? What exactly do you think would block the view and why? You consider yourself the thinker so you should be able to answer those questions easily.
    1
  266. You realise that (Covid-19 aside) it is possible to travel?
    1
  267. I don’t suppose he said how he thought it could be any position other than close to the zenith?
    1
  268. Also get her to look at Prof Dave’s earlier videos.
    1
  269. Limericks about the tree in the Quad at Berkeley University. There once was a man who said "God Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad." Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd. I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since observed by Yours faithfully, God
    1
  270. XuCh Sun Some say it is an endless plane, some a free floating disc, some an endless column; the one thing they agree upon is that they agree on which.
    1
  271. It was deduced from the motion if the sun, horizon, angle to Polaris and eclipses two centuries prior to Eratosthenes.
    1
  272. kowalski2015 Your OP was a bit ambiguous; while the video could have included that point it didn’t fail to demonstrate that the observed moon contradicts a FE.
    1
  273. S 2 da 685 11.12.11 You can see the stars rotate in the course of the night and which constellations are viable each night gradually changing over the course of the year. The Earth spinning is not going to rearrange the stars or flip the Earth over.
    1
  274. Alexander Great Why not try it yourself? https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ There’s umpteen debunks of Dubay/Rowbotham’s claim floating around; Google is not difficult to use. Perhaps you would like to explain, funded in 1958, was funding the ancient Greeks and every bit of science since?
    1
  275.  @brucetrappleton6984  That the phases are caused by the Earths shadow is a common misconception. The phases oftheFE moon would depend on where you were standing, contradicting the reality of everybody seeing the same phase.
    1
  276.  @brucetrappleton6984  I was explaining why Yuki assumed that you were, not suggesting that you had.
    1
  277.  @Mathematiqs  The most recent one I conversed with didn't find phases relevant to the subject of the moon's illumination. (No explanation why since that would be irrelevant.)
    1
  278. You totally miss the point of 3:04
    1
  279. adam ek It’s more like 50 face-palming claims; it doesn’t require much mental effort to realise they don’t hold any eater. When the cowboys ride off into the setting sun they become smaller but remain fully visible while the sun remains the same size and disappears from the bottom up. Explain why you think this is the same effect. Sports pitches are cambered to provide drainage. If you think the human appeared 20bn years ago then you evidently have no understand of the basic principles of evolution.
    1
  280. adam ek You realise that evolution affects all life forms and is evident from genomic sequencing?
    1
  281. Or communication between conspiracy theorists. If they seriously believe they are constructing a correct model then communication is vital.
    1