Comments by "Flook D" (@flookd5516) on "Professor Dave Humiliates Flat Earther David Weiss (DITRH Debunked Live)" video.

  1.  @huismus111  I could joke about NY air pollution obscuring them; I couldn’t see the Chrysler building from the Twin Towers.
    33
  2. Try actually rebutting each instead of saying “Nah!”
    13
  3. If he would only just listen to 2+2=5 then he would see the light?
    11
  4. Evidence?
    11
  5. Because misinformation helps nobody and causes harm.
    10
  6.  @pieterb3449 What does that have to do with religion? What religions teaches that belief rewrites reality?
    10
  7. What do you understand by “open-minded”?
    10
  8. Science, not “science”, and the Earth has been mapped, measured & photographed repeatedly.
    10
  9. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation & observation. It is to a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. Do you understand that stars emit light?
    10
  10. There’s no point in asking questions if you’re simply going to deny the answers and these people start with denial.
    9
  11. Which government? None of them (or the UN) forbid travel to Antarctica. There is a booming tourist trade with trips to various places, all which enable confirmation of a 24hr sun by FE’ers swear is impossible. Why don’t any FE’ers go?
    9
  12. What do you think he got wrong and why?
    9
  13.  @sullainvictus Interrupting with sound reason.
    8
  14. He’s one of the FE gurus, supposedly possessing the evidence, knowledge & understanding to categorically prove without doubt that the Earth is flat. The purpose of the video was to demonstrate to his acolytes that he didn’t.
    8
  15. Weiss doesn’t do anything to demonstrate his case despite being hailed as one of the FE gurus with all the evidence & explanations whereas Prof Dave has the evidence and answers all Weiss’s “unanswered questions”. Why shouldn’t Weiss be belittled?
    7
  16.  @DarrenSaw ordering two items might be too complex for him…
    7
  17. And yet we are still waiting on FE'ers to demonstrate the "indoctrination" is wrong (as opposed to simply screwing up) and produce the evidence of a FE that you all supposedly possess. Do you want to try?
    7
  18. Flat Earth Dave is hailed as one of their experts, possessing the knowledge, understanding and evidence to conclusively prove that the Earth us flat.
    7
  19. Do you want to try correcting him?
    7
  20. Did Prof Dave’s explanations pass you by?
    7
  21. A scientific theory, not the vernacular meaning. You were taught the difference in school.
    7
  22.  @huismus111  I was making a joke about the NYC pollution.
    7
  23. The point was to demonstrate to FED’s acolytes that their guru can’t make a case.
    7
  24. You realise that asking questions leads to answers?
    6
  25.  @an.d.m.a  A few of us spent two weeks working through one FE’er’s claims explaining each point (frequently more than once) and pointing why his ideas wouldn’t work only for one of his final few posts to be a puzzled “you need to tell which of my points you think is wrong”.
    6
  26. It’s believable because it appeals to your ignorance on the subject. Above FED had the opportunity to provide counter-arguments abd didn’t while relying on “unanswered” questions that ignore key factors. In his solo videos he just needs to sound as if knows what he is talking about.
    6
  27. Atmospheric rotation came about from friction with the Earth's surface; the two are in synchrony.
    6
  28. You realise that you don’t need a special licence to look up at the stars or buy a telescope?
    6
  29. What does it tell you?
    6
  30. He knows the folks he wants to fleece have poor spatial reasoning.
    5
  31. He didn’t provide anything concrete to disprove; he just produced a list of “unanswered questions”, was given the answers and avoided explaining why he disagreed with them. How do you conclude Weiss came out on top?
    5
  32.  @paulb7412  You’re conflating sex & gender.
    5
  33. How many time by how many people in how ways do the 200 proofs need to be debunked to satisfy you that they have been debunked?
    5
  34. There’ a whole world outside the US, the government is not the only source of funding and Uncle Sam has been around only 250 years.
    5
  35. Evidence?
    5
  36. FED’s one of the FE gurus who supposedly possesses all the knowledge & understanding and can wipe the floor with any debater.
    5
  37. “Luminaries”, which translates to “don’t use a telescope” or “don’t focus a telescope”. FEers aim is to see things as they Really Are rathern how they really are.
    5
  38. Dubay doesn’t debate anybody.
    5
  39. So where does sunlight come from?
    5
  40. Possible you're thinking of natural philosophy which assumed that the working of the natural world could be determined by observation & thought. It was the ancient Greek philosophers who first deduced that the Earth was a sphere from considering the observed motion of sun & stars. Today the shape of the Earth is measured by geodetic satellites.
    4
  41. Obviously just gotta be CGI. Strap him to the outside and it would obviously just gotta be VR.
    4
  42. Let me guess, you’re expected to work and you don’t get paid for it?
    4
  43. Wonderful - another Great Witness…
    4
  44. “There are real facts that are hard to deny.” So FEers keep saying but neither you nor they ever say what those hallowed facts are.
    4
  45. Gove an example of an unknown variable?
    4
  46. What is there in a vacuum that can be constrained?
    4
  47. ….and myocarditis still remains rare.
    4
  48. Their algorithms downgrade some subjects, not censor them.
    4
  49. It’s why scientists focus on disproving hypotheses.
    4
  50.  @NinjaMonkeyPrime  One hopes…
    4
  51.  @bill2181  cartography & seismology. Who did the measurements for a FE when FE’ers have such difficulty with the concept of measurement?
    4
  52.  @seanknight2516  Sarcasm doesn't carry well in a text-only environment, especially when you get people making the same statement in all seriousness.
    4
  53.  @SirBentleyDoodle  The aim here was demonstrate that their FE guru didn’t have the evidence & explanations that they proclaim him to.
    4
  54. Weiss is/was hailed as one of the steelmen. That’s the quality of FE reasoning.
    4
  55. "I’m definitely not a flat earther" When somebody starts with that then it's a pretty fair bet that they are a FE'er. FE'ers agree on two things: that the Earth is flat and that they are agreed on the details. Each one seems to have their own version of FE, all of which they hail as the definitive, agreed upon model. They don't provide explanations for how any of it could actually work or why observable reality differs from what they predict; they concentrate merely on being different. Generally their assertions are based on brief, simplistic, intuitive reasoning; I suggest you watch one of Prof Dave's early videos on the subject, 10 Things All Flat Earthers Say, for the errors in their fundamental reasoning. David Weiss is one of their gurus who supposedly has all the answers & evidence to totally blow away our current understanding of how the Earth works. As this video demonstrates, that is based on him making vague claims that science is wrong and posing "unanswerable" questions that have been answered for centuries or even millenia, not actually producing any explanations & evidence. It was necessary to demonstrate to his acolytes that he couldn't do so.
    4
  56. The FE sun emits light in all directions (it’s always circular) but only downwards; the light can only travel a set but variable distance before it gets tired so only a limited misshapen area is lit. The area illuminated remains the same but varies for no reason so it just appears ghat the sun is illuminating half a globe. You did ask… 😊
    3
  57.  @kurtinklern3262  He’s not an idiot when it comes to persuading people.
    3
  58. I thought one bite and you were hissstory?
    3
  59.  @robinroberts7398  Because be said a good deal of the opposite.
    3
  60. Did you consider actually thinking that through before posting?
    3
  61.  @whatif3500  They released films of unidentified objects; that the objects were alien was something assumed by viewers.
    3
  62. They seem to believe we spend our careers endlessly rereading school textbooks and listening to the same lessons taught by the same people for decades on end. They don't seem to have made any association between us and labs or (despite talking about knowledge being kept from them) that we could actually know something they don't.
    3
  63.  @micheldubeau5076  Echos reflecting of different layers essentially. I think the idea was determine whether it is solid throughout or has a liquid core like Earth.
    3
  64. He’d come back talking about optical illusions, how the windows were actually screens playing real-time CGI and how the prolonged weightlessness is simulated.
    3
  65.  @MrQuaiven Can you imagine a grenade-injured guy on M*A*S*H denying the existence of grenades and insisting the doctors are just telling him he is injured?
    3
  66. They vaguely remember the concept of ideal containers from school science lessons and assume actual containers are mandatory for everything in science.
    3
  67. Demonstrating that, contrary to what his acolytes claim, FED does not possess answers & proof.
    3
  68.  @jwsmom1076  Like centrifugal force it is an apparent force; an objects behaves as if a calculable force is being applied to it though the effect arises from other factors.
    3
  69.  @entropy8634  Using only two points you can't distinguish between a flat surface and curved one. Eratosthenes used only two points in the original because the Earth had been deduced to be a sphere two centuries earlier and he was only interested in measuring the size. With three or more points (well-spaced) the two can be distinguished, especially when the FE claims insist on a small local sun rather than a distant one. On a FE the triangulation between each pair leads to the FE sun being in multiple positions simultaneously; on a globe the limitation is the exactness of the observation makes a precise distance difficult to calculate but will be very distant (essentially the lines of sight would be parallel).
    3
  70. Airlines are businesses; they have flights where there is sufficient demand. If there’s not enough demand to make a direct flight economically viable then they won’t schedule such a flight.
    3
  71. So you would expect but apparently there is a good explanation that all FE'ers know and understand but, for reasons they never divulge, none of them will say what it is.
    3
  72. You mean prior to the Big Bang?
    3
  73. @Sike The record photo was taken from the top of a mountain; like being in a hot air balloon, a mountain gives you elevation. The photo shows just the tip of another mountain showing above the horizon; horizons are due to curvature. It was shot at dawn to maximise the atmospheric refraction; a similar shot a few minutes later didn’t show the mountain tip. I realise multiple factors are beyond your mental grasp but they can’t be ignored. The maths works fine.
    3
  74. There is polite and there is respectful; polite is how we should be to everybody but respect is something to be earned. Weiss believed he could hold his own and win, mostly because his experience is with badgering people who arent familiar with FEer warped thinking. There’s a debate with prominent FEers taking on physics postgraduates; the postgrads were flummoxed because they weren’t familiar with FEers warped thinking.
    3
  75. They have a retort for everything.
    3
  76. The combination of “sideways” momentum and sunwards attraction is the planet circling the sun.
    3
  77. FED didn’t present an argument. He reeled off a list of “unanswered questions” and was promptly given the answers for each. He couldn’t argue against those answers, just tried to move on to his next “question”.
    3
  78.  @michaelyagodmorris  They all move onto the next claim.
    3
  79.  @rickmartin7596  Possibly he would tell them that snow isn’t made of water.
    3
  80.  @whatdupa2454  Possibly you’re referring to light being slowed as it passes through a medium then reaccelerating when it reenters vacuum; somebody presented that as light accelerating to FTL.
    3
  81. Watch the original video in his astronomy section then work forwards through FE videos in the debunking section.
    3
  82. I don’t know if they even realise they are doing it but they mentally insert a horizontal line baseline into every diagram & explanation.
    3
  83.  @homeworkfolder2117  He would find it illuminating…
    3
  84. Out of sight, out of mind.
    3
  85. After this many shots I keep missing my face 😞
    3
  86. Newtonian physics sees gravity as an attractive force. Spacetime is from relativity which sees gravity as an apparent force resulting from the spacetime curvature affecting the path of a moving object; nothing pulls or pushes the object.
    3
  87.  @HellomuSic1296  There is a tiny deviation away from a perfect sphere. Yes, it is possible for deviations to be slight, not just ginormous. Polaris lies on the rotational axis. It’s like asking why the centtepoint of a clock doesnt move around on the clock face. The rotational axis a slight wobble with a 20,000 year cycle to it. (Do note there is a difference between 20,000 and 2; those zeroes are very impirtant.) Polaris will appear to very slowly drift away from the centre just like Thuban did before it.
    3
  88.  @DaGr81_DCnBMore  You asked what the FE'er explanation was; I did refer to them in the third person and said that they don't notice the contradictions.
    2
  89. What do you think is wrong with the text book explanations?
    2
  90. They can’t think beyond one observer.
    2
  91.  @Matuse  FE stuff’s so far out you need starship sensors to see it 😊
    2
  92. Until recently their algorithms made no distinction, simply feeding people what they wanted to hear and essentially fanning the flames to make money. They wish to be seen as not encouraging misinformation.
    2
  93.  @rilfinspa8844  Near enough - FE’ers think a great deal but there’s very little thought.
    2
  94. FED is one of the FE gurus, supposedly capable of answering everybody’s questions and explaining everything about the FE.
    2
  95.  @diamondaxeyousay7805  Schools act in loco parentis. "Every year they are told to do the same exact thing over and over again for 14 years" Only of you endlessly repeat the same year.
    2
  96.  @diamondaxeyousay7805  Only if you endlessly repeat the same year.
    2
  97.  @kalanivernon7273  I shouldn't worry too much. There's no winning when it comes to how much detail to include; somebody will always complain there's too much or too little and frequently both. You were close to correct and much much closer than many.
    2
  98. He’s one of the FE gurus.
    2
  99.  @rickygrimes6054  You need to distinguish between theories and hypotheses; the former will have a degree of guesswork because they are still being developed while theories have been well-established and won't contain assumptions & unknown variables. Both then and now, theories have been based upon the accumulated evidence that was available, an accumulation that has never ceased. The possibility is always open that something turns up as research continues to expand that will indicate a flaw in a theory, which is what you are referring to. That possibility is frequently used as an excuse by Thinkers to simply dismiss what they don't want to hear, which is what you appear to be espousing.
    2
  100.  @TheDanceDetective  Centrifugal force is an apparent force, quite real & calculable, and the result of inertia. You can’t nullify it with a hand waving “not a force”.
    2
  101. He’s a con artist. His question ties two things together via to a common factor because he knows some people’s brains won’t advance beyond that simplification.
    2
  102. Why not? How much of the Earth would the sun light?
    2
  103. To make money.
    2
  104. @Sike You can see about 200 miles at most from a hot air balloon; a 400 mile diameter equates to around 5 degrees curvature, not something that would be obvious. It definitely isn't high enough to be able to see the horizon curve.
    2
  105. @Sike Explain how you think an equation with one variable is going to accommodate three factors.
    2
  106. @Sike My explanation came before the “insult”.
    2
  107. Not a new moon.
    2
  108.  @TonydaMoovah  The sun illuminates the side of the moon that is facing it; depending on where the moon is in its orbit determines the phase we see, ie., how much of that sunlit side we can see. At a new moon the sunlit side is totally facing away from us. If you look at a partial moon at night you can see the faint outline of the whole moon; that fainter part is illuminated by earthlight, ie., sunlight reflected from the Earth. Light intensity varies; it is not a matter of there or absent. During the day the brightness is about 30,000 to 130,000 lux. A full moon is about 0.1 lux. Your eyes are very adaptable to the ambient brightness. That you can see well enough read in a book in both is indicative of the adaptability of the human eye, not to comparable brightness of sun & moon.
    2
  109.  @TonydaMoovah  The phases of the moon are sunlit, not earthlit. That you can see a sunlit bit tells you nothing about the light intensity from earthlight. Earthlight is just the tiny amount of light the Earth reflects from the sun. When the sun isn't in the sky you can just about discern the earthlit portion of the moon. With the sun in the sky the difference in brightness is too great for your eye to handle. You do realise that very little sunlight is reflected from the moon & Earth? The moon is not like a mirror; it just reflects some light like every other object? That the earthlit portion of the moon is only reflecting a tiny amount of the earthlight reaching it? FED asked about photos from the ISS. The sun is very bright and requires a very sort exposure. Earthlight is faint and requires a much longer exposure. You can't have two different length exposures simultaneously. While your eye is more versatile than a camera at handling intensity there is still a limit in the range of intensity it can handle at one time. You can see the sunlit portion in daytime but not the much fainter earthlit portion which is what is being asked about.
    2
  110.  @TonydaMoovah  To be clear, anything & everything reflect light. You ca see something because it is reflecting light. Nothing is required to be a mirror to reflect light. The amount of sunlight reflected by Venus & Mars is also paltry. That you can see them at all is due to the versatility of your eyes, not because they are as bright as the sun.
    2
  111. He is intentionally deceiving, aiming at the people whose thought processes are superficial and can’t get beyond a single factor.
    2
  112. Asking another “unanswered question” rather than making a point.
    2
  113. When eyeballing is the only evidence FEers can comprehend, who do you think went to look?
    2
  114. How many photos need to be taken & shown to satisfy you?
    2
  115. If I got the same results as you then the recurrent cloud shape is the continent itself.
    2
  116. Prof Dave did debunk what he said. Pointing out that somebody is being idiot is only an ad hominem when the insult is the counter-argument.
    2
  117.  @jonelliott4985  Punctuation is there for clarity, not ornamentation. FE'ers accept there is 24hr sunshine in the Arctic Circle because they can think they can explain it on a FE. They deny it occurs in the Antarctic Circle because they can't explain it (or even longer days in summer) and claim Antarctica is sealed off to prevent people finding out there isn't 24hr summer sun there. You can go to the southern tip of South America (Ushaia) and observe a 19hr day. The radius of the globe is 3,900 miles. Mt Everest is 5.5 miles high. That is about 0.14% of the Earth's radius. Mountains don't contribute significantly to the shape of the Earth. The deviation from a perfect sphere, e.g., polar oblation, is similarly minute on a planetary scale. The Antarctica Treaty prevents military bases and requires visitors to adhere strict regulations for avoiding contamination of the environment there. It does not prevent anybody actually going to Antarctica. There is a booming tourist trade and various people have traipsed across it. The tallest Antarctic mountains are about 16,000ft (about 3 miles) high. The atmosphere is free-floating gases; there's no part of the atmosphere that doesn't have free-floating gases. No gas, no atmosphere. Gravitational attraction is proportional to the squared distance from the object's centre of mass. Earth's radius is 3,900 miles; the gravity on Mt Everest's summit is about 99.7% that at sea-level. Gases move according to whichever forces are acting upon them. They don't go looking for higher temperatures. There is no flat part of a sphere; the Earth is a sphere and orbits the sun. It rotates on its axis every 24 hours while doing so. The axial wobble has a period of 24,000 years. There is no substantial orbital decay at present. A vacuum is devoid of all matter including gases; it does not cause gases to liquify or freeze. Low temperatures do cause liquification which is probably what you're thinking of. No, you do not need to personally go into space to determine that the Earth is a sphere. The ancient Greeks deduced it from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow. There is nothing banning you from travelling around the world. Observe the moon for long enough and you will see about 60% of it over time; while tidal locking keeps the same face pointed at it the interaction of sun, Earth & moon means there is a slight jiggle. With a high enough resolution you can also observe the shadow of lunar mountains and how they change with lunar orbit. It's clearly not a disk. Light does not decay.
    2
  118.  @jonelliott4985  Photons don’t decay; they can be reflected or absorbed by matter which is what you are describing, ie, dust & vapour in the air dissipating the beam. You’re referring to the decay of radioactive elements, where the nucleus splits releasing particle or EM radiation. Decay obviously produces decreasing amounts of parent isotope but this is not what happens to photons or any other EM radiation.
    2
  119.  @jonelliott4985  I already told you the difference between decay and absorption. The two are quite difference. Photons do not use their own energy to keep moving. You’re conflating the dissipation of a beam of light (result of absorption & deflection) with what applies to individual photons. Individually they keep moving until their path is blocked regardless of the distance travelled.
    2
  120. A FE sun is (usually) a sphere shining light in all directions but only downwards.
    2
  121. What good points do you think FED made?
    2
  122.  @whatdupa2454  “It Could Happen To You” was based off a true story but was largely fictional.
    2
  123. "You can't just shut up and let him explain?" FED's explanation was skipping onto the next question. How big do you think the "space crap" is?
    2
  124. Some claim FED won because they feel Prof Dave’s attitude meant he didn’t answer FED’s questions, others are now calling FED “controlled opposition”.
    2
  125. He knows FE’ers visualise that size of sphere.
    2
  126.  @mrxmry3264  YT is currently playing up and delivering comments to an individual’s computer is a little unreliable. Probably due to server time outs as it collates comments from multiple sources. The main purpose of YT is to play videos; comments are secondary to that.
    2
  127. We don’t. You not knowing the evidence for evolution & the big bang does not mean that you know there is no evidence. Ignorance is not knowledge.
    2
  128.  @whatdupa2454  I can't say I understand the physics but no photon travelled faster than light; the laser remained at light speed but there was a pulse effect that travelled along it that was exceeded light speed.
    2
  129.  @whatdupa2454  I read a synopsis of the original article.
    2
  130. He’s a conman making a living from the gullible; he needs to sound genuine.
    2
  131. He peddle's crap to the gullible to make money off them.
    2
  132.  @DrHannesSteinmann7857  How should a debate be conducted when one party has no solid arguments?
    2
  133. Dubay doesn’t do debates.
    2
  134.  @stylesrj  Chicken & pineapple is a good combination 😊
    2
  135. Look up the history of Zion, Illinois; that’s the origin of the claim.
    2
  136.  @chrismcgill8963  Not really - like many before he saw the derision from Prof Dave and mentally filtered out that he provided answers to FED's "unanswerable" questions.
    2
  137. Have you considered asking how a 24hr sun is possible on a globe?
    2
  138. FE’ers are unwilling to think beyond one factor, ie, curvature. FED knows that and his questions pander to that inability.
    2
  139. Try Prof Dave’s 10 Things All Flat Earthers Say.
    2
  140.  @Harpymoon-c5g Your guru had a chance to enlighten people about how FE is supposed to work. Why didn’t he when asked? Why did he just slide onto another topic instead of answering?
    2
  141. What reaches Earth has a variation of about 0.5 degrees.
    2
  142.  @michaeloebiye  It was to persuade Weiss’s acolytes that their guru does not have the answers & evidence they claim he possesses. Anything less than grinding him underfoot would have been interpreted as a win for Weiss.
    2
  143. Please reiterate what FED’s explanations were.
    2
  144. FED knows FEers generally can’t handle more than one variable at a time; if he doesn’t mention terrain then the thought will never occur to them.
    2
  145. Their thinking is lodged in the present.
    2
  146. Nothing’s inflexible.
    2
  147. The Church had never said the Earth was flat. That the Earth is a sphere was established c. 500BC.
    2
  148. I’ve had civil discourses online and it always goes the same way: I can explain how the globe is known and how they demonstrate it for themselves, answer each of their questions two or three times, can’t extract any of their evidence from by them, point out what is fundamentally wrong with each of their statements, they go quiet and start the conversation again with somebody else.
    2
  149.  @tjjones621  I usually put pressure in how the sun rises & sets or extract the secret knowledge on how density would make anything move. Do yours just go quiet or start claiming radio towers?
    2
  150.  @liviekumori  What I described is as simple as you can get; only one person, a pole, a watch and something to use as markers. Also there is only one variable to take into account. The aim of any experiment is to test a prediction made by a hypothesis or model. If the results differ from the prediction then the hypothesis or model is wrong. If it concurs then the hypothesis or model may be correct. The globe predicts a constant 15 degrees per hour, the FE a variable rate of change. If you find a constant rate of change then the FE is wrong; fund a variable rate (the changes I described earlier) then the globe is wrong. Prior evidence: every sundial for centuries has been marked in 15 degrees per hour.
    2
  151.  @liviekumori  Using a camera with a solar filter to track the size of the sun through the day; constant for a globe, variable for a FE. If the camera is equipped with a reasonable zoom then wait until the sun has just finished setting and try zooming it back into view; impossible on a globe, possible on a FE. (Don’t try it with a ship unless it is very big; you get the confounding factor of visual acuity making smaller vessels disappear before they teach the horizon.) You can recreate the Bedford Canal experiment using Wallace’s method rather than Rowbotham’s; the latter had the confounding factor of atmospheric refraction. The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere from purely observation and thought; 2500 years on the FE’ers haven’t explained what we can be simply observed.
    2
  152.  @liviekumori  The aim of an experiment is disprove a hypothesis, not prove it. It might sound counter-intuitive but you want to avoid doing only those experiments that you know will give results that support your hypothesis; it's too easy to do only confirmatory work and never actually test it. Ideally what you have are two possible outcomes; if the hypothesis is wrong then you will get one result, if it is right then you get the other. If your hypothesis stands up to the testing then you can test it further and build upon it. One experiment won't prove your hypothesis; there's too a high a probability of error or even sheer coincidence. FE'ers try shining lasers across lakes while ignoring confounding factors like atmospheric refraction, levelling error and beam dispersion. They are incompetent or at least having a good effort at being so.
    2
  153. FE’ers understand it even less.
    2
  154. Explain how density(a ratio) can act as a force and why in a consistent direction? You have no objection to using the products of science so why the objection to science?
    2
  155. Look at the main content of the channel.
    2
  156. Was there a cooker in front of everyone?
    2
  157.  @dbisbee09  We've seen the moon running through the phases once a month, every month ever since man first looked up. How much repetition do you need?
    1
  158.  @dbisbee09  Astrophysics is science and data is collected from stars in all stages in their life. There is no requirement for everything to be done in a lab.
    1
  159. They would but FEers prefer to believe in a universal down direction.
    1
  160. It lies close to the rotational axis. It also drifts over time.
    1
  161. The windows are obviously live CGI and they eoukd be groping for the invisible wires or trying to force the airlocks open to prove they were in a studio.
    1
  162. Barringer Crater.
    1
  163. What conditions has he put on acceptable evidence?
    1
  164.  @tjjones621  It will be something innocuous but prohibitory such as a particular scale that would make a physical 3D impractical.
    1
  165.  @tjjones621  That’s why I say perhaps a 3D map (a sphere) to a scale that would require a sphere of impractical size. I forgot that FE’ers think that maps can only be 2D. It can be difficult to think at prenursery (pre-kindergarten) level.
    1
  166. They don’t think beyond one observer so south is only one direction to them.
    1
  167. To fool you, to hide God or to hide land “beyond Antarctica” but nothing beyond the superficial.
    1
  168. Poor spatial reasoning and an inability to consider beyond on key factor. FED is appealing to those people to make money from them, not because he doesn’t understand himself.
    1
  169. Creationists don’t have to deny the readily observable, eg, the sun rising & setting.
    1
  170.  @ProfezorSnayp  The biological facts are not apparent to the eye; you can’t see genetic sequences at a glance and fossils aren’t throwing themselves at you. The sun visibly rises & sets every day.
    1
  171. FE’ers don’t have a theory. The aim us to demonstrate to FED’s acolytes that their guru does not possess the answers & evidence they claim he does.
    1
  172. What do you perceive “main stream science” to be and why?
    1
  173. What are they saying Jupiter is and do they say why?
    1
  174. Two bowls for burning oil, each with a cover.
    1
  175.  @kidsdomath1330  A hemispherical bowl with a hemispherical cover would be spherical, which is where the notion comes from. It was two oil-burning bowls with grill covers, not a globe depicting the Earth.
    1
  176. They have no grasp of scale and rely on intuitive thinking; they’re assume curvature would be as apparent as a basketball.
    1
  177.  @HellomuSic1296  ​ ​For the zillionth time: 1. Because it lies on the rotational axis. 2. Tidal locking (orbital & rotational period are the same length), not unusual in moons. 3. There aren’t. 4. An object can pass beyond the limit of your visual acuity long before it reaches the horizon (yes, there can be more then one reason that you can’t see something). Try zooming the set sun back into view.
    1
  178. Don’t look. Failing that there are personal star domes or claims that people are just being told what they see.
    1
  179. I wonder how many times they would need to go around?
    1
  180.  @kalanivernon7273  The vestibular system is sensitive to change; a constant motion wouldn't induce change. The brain infers the motion from the minor variations that do cause change. The earth rotates at a constant velocity (no variation) at a rate below the sensitivity of the organ to the rotational change. The optic nerve is off-centre; the fovea has central position and is the most sensitive part of the retina. The brain will attempt to correct for anything blocked by the optic nerve or retinal damage and routinely extrapolates from what you do see to give you the impression of high resolution over a wide field.
    1
  181.  @kalanivernon7273  I corrected you on a few key points.
    1
  182.  @kalanivernon7273  You thinking getting key points wrong is inconsequential?
    1
  183.  @danielvarga_p  The point was to demonstrate to FED’s acolytes that their guru did not possess the FE evidence & arguments to rewrite our understanding of the world. The shape of the world has long since been measured, mapped & photographed from every angle. FE’ers can’t even explain the observations of sun & stars that the ancient Greeks used to first deduce that the Earth was a globe. FED’s entire presentation was “unanswered questions” that have long since been answered, repeatedly. He is apoealing to those unable ir unwilling to thonk beyond a single factor and who like “different” explanations to what tgey were taught in school. There is no debate to be had.
    1
  184. If you stand on the equator you’ll feel yourself be pulled north or south? It’s a wind-up.
    1
  185.  @micheldubeau5076  The vibrations came from the satellites impact in the moon, not generated by the moon.
    1
  186.  @therealgeneralMacArthur  What could cause his eyes to jumble the stars and only the stars?
    1
  187.  @therealgeneralMacArthur  If everything around him was jumbled up then it would be apparent when he was infant and it would be extremely unlikely he’d be making this comment.
    1
  188. That was the Mercator projection. FE’ers keep claiming the Gleason projection is the FE map or simply claim there is a Real Map that they all possess but none can produce.
    1
  189. He’s one of the FE gurus.
    1
  190. The equator at the equinox. Look north then turn and look south.
    1
  191.  @Krugis  You have a lot of that white stuff I’ve heard about?
    1
  192.  @Krugis  Here its a few inches snow in years ending in zero. I was in Milwaukee for a few years; 11ft of snow the first year was a shock.
    1
  193.  @stylesrj  Depends on the style of monarchy.
    1
  194. A sensible approach towards those who have leapt down the rabbithole. However you can reach those who are merely looking down it; this “debate” was for their benefit.
    1
  195.  @daftwulli6145  Both QM & relativity are correct in the same way Newtonian physics is correct: each in their own range. There will be an overarching theory that covers both.
    1
  196. Not if the rustle in the bushes is a predator. Associating the rustle with a predator and running away tended to mean living longer, which is why evolution is biased against curiosity. We are still inclined to arrive at intuitive answers rather than contemplative ones.
    1
  197. Use three or more points and the sun can’t be triangulated at all. FE’ers get around it by refusing to consider more than two points and ignoring triangulation completely.
    1
  198.  @stylesrj  Plus H&S inspections regardless of whether anybody goes or not 😊
    1
  199. Why do you envisage it being different times? When you throw a ball does it leep moving when it leaves your hand?
    1
  200. Flat as in no distortion in other dimensions, not flat as in 2D.
    1
  201. To demonstrate to FED's acolytes that FED does not have answers & evidence at his fingertips.
    1
  202.  @TheDanceDetective  The combination of inertia from the tangential velocity of an object and the gravity from the central planet/star results in the objecg circling the planet/star. The continually falls towards the planet/star but by the time it would reach it the tangential motion means the object is off to one side. Hopefully that makes it easier to visualise.
    1
  203.  @TheDanceDetective  As a combined body the Earth & moon couplet have a near constant speed around the sun.
    1
  204.  @beatsbybood  Prof Dave couldn’t get Weiss’s reasoning out of him.
    1
  205. How accurate is the levelling and how you propose to take beam dispersion and atmospheric refraction into account?
    1
  206.  @tjjones621  If he does nothing to deal with the confounding factors then what is the point?
    1
  207.  @tjjones621  We’re coming at it from different directions; I check methodology before trying to reproduce anything.
    1
  208. They all rotate east to west in the same way a clock’s hands move through ascending numbers. The clockhands move clockwise when viewed from the front but apparently anticlockwise if viewed from behind. Similarly the stars’ rotation apparently varies depending on whether you are looking northwards or southwards.
    1
  209.  @TyroneFarley-ki6fn  You realise that from the back the clock’s hands move right to left at the top?
    1
  210. The Earth is a globe not a cylinder. The angle of the sun's motion as it approaches the horizon will vary with latitude. At equatorial latitudes the sun will move near vertically which I think is what you are visualising.
    1
  211. A stable orbit is a balance of the gravitational attraction between planet & moon (or star & planet) and the velocity of the moon. Essentially the gravity pulls the moon towards the planet while the moon's velocity shifts it sideways resulting in it circling the planet.
    1
  212. Did you not see his original video about the shape of the Earth in his astronomy section?
    1
  213. Invite him during your summer and see if he can explain why the days are longer than winter days rather than shorter.
    1
  214. "What is the point of this supposed deception" So far: 1. To fool you. 2. To hide an omnipotent, omnipresent god. 3. To take economic advantage of the inaccessible lands beyond the insurmountable ice-wall & impenetrable dome. 4. To establish total mind control.
    1
  215. I’ve had several long discourses with FE’ers; their reasoning is very intuitive & superficial, they don’t think through on what their claims predict about readily observable reality, they are very dismissive of evidence, being different from the “official narrative” is their main yardstick for an idea’s validity, they din’t see any problem with intuitive jumps and they rapidly forget what they’ve been told leaving you answering the same question multiple times. They can get very condescending and even abusive (some have nothing but insults) but they can’t actually produce the Real Map, Real Model, Real Evidence or explain the Real Physics etc
    1
  216.  @theheart1154  Quite likely; I’m for ever asking people to provide the evidence they claim to possess. Everything carries a risk. Staying in bed is risky and getting out of it is risky. That risk is involved does not make something detrimental.
    1
  217.  @theheart1154  Explain how a vaccine containing only a small part of one protein from the virus shell could possibly cause a viral infection.
    1
  218. His basis is that FE’ers can visualise either the moon orbiting Earth or the moon orbiting the sun but can’t visualise the moon orbiting the sun while orbiting Earth; it’s a step too complex for them so he knows they will automatically dismiss it.
    1
  219.  @dogwalker666 Seriously?
    1
  220. They usually tout the Gleason projection these days rather than the Mercator projection; they still haven’t produced their oft claimed FE map.
    1
  221. Technically the magnetic north is down south.
    1
  222.  @clarkmeyer7211  ​ @Clark Meyer I can't be bothered to play it through again to see what FED said, but if you're simply repeating what he said then he is just trying to confuse the issue by conflating the polarity of the field with where the magnetic poles are geographically.
    1
  223.  @georgegiwrgakis6359 ​​⁠What exactly is different about the motion of the Earth’s moon? It stays in orbit through gravitational attraction between Earth & moon. Simply because it is bigger than most moons does not mean it can simply swan off on its own.
    1
  224. He’s not just any idiot; he’s one of the FE gurus who supposedly possesses all the evidence & explanations in favour of FE. The point of the debate was for him to make a fool of himself.
    1
  225. FED as attempting to argue that the sun should pull the moon away from Earth and orbit the the sun because it is bigger. FE'er have difficulty mentally handling more than two objects or one key factor and assume it to be a legitimate point rather than look at the actual relationship between the three: moon orbits the earth, both orbit the sun.
    1
  226. They have largely abandoned an up & over path in favour of a horizontal circle though they still have no plausible answers how it would work or match observable reality.
    1
  227.  @garydoyle1467 The covid vaccines (plural) do work. Efficacy slowly decreases with time as the body produces less of those antibodies. Over time viruses slowly mutate and the protein sequences used for creating the earliest vaccine may be changed. Modified vaccines become necessary to keep up, hence booster shots. Vaccines have a two pronged effect. Individuals have some acquired immunity, keeping them gralthy when exposed and reducing the chances of passing on an infection. In a population, fhe more people vaccinated means fewer capable of passing on an infection to the people around them; without vulnerable people, a virus can die out ina population.
    1
  228. Air & water circulate heat. The varying land/sea layout affects the motion of the former while the rotation of the Earth determines the direction of ocean currents. This results in the same latitudes having varying climates.
    1
  229. Believe it it not, they favour a giant monopole at the north pole.
    1
  230. A very long sentence, most of which is factually wrong.
    1
  231. How did the CIA influence Rowbotham?
    1
  232. The race begins and ends in Sables-d'Olonne, France.
    1
  233. Who is they?
    1
  234.  @C_Becker  They choose to ignore an improving understanding of reality.
    1
  235.  @huismus111  Very presumptuous conclusion on the basis of one comment.
    1
  236. That requires multiple observations; too complex for FE’ers.
    1
  237. What evidence do you have that Twitter was being censored? Please don’t quote the remuneration from the FBI for fulfilling warrants.
    1
  238. Too complex for the people FED is seeking to convince.
    1
  239. You aren’t fazed by a FE guru failing to provide any evidence for a FE, just a string of “unanswered questions” that have long since been answered?
    1
  240. How do you think a vaccine works if not by activating the immune system?
    1
  241. FED is one of the sources of disinformation.
    1
  242. "the cult of Brexit" Not the cult of EU? We supposedly joined a trading bloc, one of many that now exist around the world, that has been morphing into the federal state that 1975 voters were told wasn't going to happen. Ask why and the answer is always along the lines of "you'll understand one day".
    1
  243. The ancient Greeks deduced “the truth” 2500 years ago. The world has sincw been fully mapped, measured & photographed from every angle. Meanwhile FE’ers are denying the sun rises & sets.
    1
  244.  @whatdupa2454  There were multiple videos and you aren’t saying which it is. I checked with what the original work was; do you consider that an invalid source?
    1
  245.  @whatdupa2454  Seems a reasonable question: is the original source an invalid source?
    1
  246. Was he English speaking?
    1
  247.  @stylesrj  Mac System 6 required 7 floppies 😊
    1
  248. FED knows full well that the Earth is a globe and he makes his living scamming the gullible; he’s not going to accept any evidence or explanations.
    1
  249. Samuel Rowbotham mid-19th century on an anti-science religious bender. In recent years it’s down to the successors to his society taking advantage of social media.
    1
  250. That was decades ago in pre-PC times.
    1
  251. His “cred” is simply being one of the FE gurus. He’s one of the big shots who can supposedly explain anything & everything about FE.
    1
  252. He’s appealing to those with poor spatial reasoning. FE gurus work that way.
    1
  253. There’s a difference between politeness and respect.
    1
  254. Gravitational attraction is proportional to the product of both masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separating distance. The moon orbits Earth because it is closer but both orbit the sun.
    1
  255.  @theselector4733  Possibly you mean Greater Sapien and I doubt Dubay actually did.
    1
  256. See Morton’s demon.
    1
  257. Running a cable from each terminal to each foot would lead to common ground 🙂
    1
  258.  @user-be1it9zi8v  It seems clear once you have figured out what he was trying to say. I had to play it back a few times to decipher it; not something that is possible in live debate.
    1
  259.  @MrQuaiven  They haven’t come out of the closet yet? 😊
    1
  260. FED is trying to reel in those who perceive gravity as an irresistible force that either sun or earth exert but not both.
    1
  261. FE’ers have problems thinking beyond one factor; his strategy is pointing to one factor and letting their brains not do the work.
    1
  262. Why is everything faked unless everybody in the world has personally checked it?
    1
  263. To demonstrate to the guy's acolytes that their guru with the explanations & evidence couldn't produce anything.
    1
  264. See Prof Dave’s earlier videos on the subject. Running total of challenges met (or attempted) stands at zero.
    1
  265.  @trygveblacktiger597  During that period the Church was one of the main sources of educated people in Europe.
    1
  266. Like put a pole in the ground and track the 15 degrees per hour change in the direction of the shadow?
    1
  267.  @liviekumori  What do you think we do in labs?
    1
  268.  @liviekumori  Put a pole in the ground and track the direction of the shadow. The globe predicts a constant 15 degrees per hour, the FE a variable rate that is markedly greatest at noon.
    1
  269.  @liviekumori  Do you mean a scientific experiment that actually tests the FE, one of the botch jobs by FE’ers or FE’ers actually executing a competent experiment?
    1
  270. The court case dealt with contract law, not the shape of the Earth.
    1
  271. You need more than two to distinguish between a globe & FE. However if you specify using three or more then you just get a kneejerk “won’t work” response anyway; numbers pass them by. With one stick you can demonstrate the sun moving at 15 degrees per hour simply by tracking the shadow but that seems too complicated for them.
    1
  272.  @A15degreeperhourdrift  I think that should be aimed at the OP.
    1