Comments by "Flook D" (@flookd5516) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. 9
  2. 9
  3. 7
  4. 7
  5. 7
  6. 7
  7. 7
  8. 7
  9. 7
  10. 7
  11. 7
  12. 6
  13. 6
  14. 6
  15. 6
  16. 6
  17. 6
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 6
  21. 6
  22. 6
  23. 6
  24. 6
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 1a: Explain why you think 1970 technology, materials, computers etc are compatible with those of 2020. 1b: Explain why you think the Mars Rovers would require human life support. 2a. Because the stars are distant, generally in the 10-1000 light years away, and moving in the same direction as the sun. 2b. Explain why you think 10,000 years worth of change would be apparent from day to day. 3. Explain why parallel train tracks shouldn't appear to diverge as they approach you. 4a. For the stated purpose of avoiding military competition in an inhospitable climate. 4b. It's readily downloadable. Specify which clause supposedly forbids travel to Antarctica. 5a. By dividing circumference by time as anybody can do. 5b. Explain where you think arithmetic should change with time. 6. It isn't and they don't. 7a. Explain how you think a prominent white grid on said screen would not interfere with it being a blue screen. 7b. If you it wouldn't, then explain why studios all use blue-only screens. 8a. Blue Marble (1972) and Earthrise were taken in single frame shots on an analogue camera. 8b. Himawari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC collectively produce multiple full hemisphere shots per hour. Explain why you think they would need to use a wide angle shots from their orbital distances. 9. How much curvature would you expect to see from a globe on the inside camera at that altitude and why? 10. The atmosphere alters the light as it enters it; it's how we get a blue sky during the day time. 11a. Provide an example of such editing. 11b. Explain why you you think video compression errors wouldn't occur. 12. Free-fall, lasting about 30 sec. Explain how you think it is possible to shoot a 30min video in 30 sec. 13a. The rocket slowed and stopped when the engines shut off as programmed. 13b. Explain why you think a camera impacting a dome at a few hundred miles an hour wouldn't even be jarred. 14a. It's the International Space Station, not National. That is why it is referred to as the ISS, not the NSS. 14b. Explain where you saw a can of tuna on the ISS. These are the obvious questions that FE'es are never able to answer. Prove me wrong.
    5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 5
  51. 5
  52. 5
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. ​ @StephenJelinek  "refraction bends the subject image around the curve into our view" It bends the light coming form the object. Refraction occurs with atmospheric density decreasing with altitude. Mirages arise when there are abrupt change in density between different layers, ie., the weather a cold wet layer in. How a mirage appears depends on the exact layering at that moment; since there is movement of air in the atmosphere (winds) the image wobbles. "5 x 5 =25 x .6667 = 16.6667' of curvature" It really passed you by, didn't it? Quote: How far you can see is determined by curvature, elevation & refraction. All factors have to be accounted for in calculations. You can't ignore factors and expect to be using the right equation. You can't ignore elevation & refraction and expect to get an accurate prediction of where the horizon is. "I'm only interested in curvature" is not going to magically nullify the effects of elevation & refraction. Making a prediction requires that you use all relevant factors. Devising an experiment means you need to take into account all factors. You can't make testable predictions by ignoring key factors. If you want to test how gar you cases then you need to make accurate calculations for your predictions. Elevation & refraction have to be included - is that clear? Do I need to say it again and in how many different ways? "Go ahead trust NASA and all the CGI they feed us" NASA is not the only space agency. Blue Marble (1972) was shot on a single frame of film, long before CGI; just how difficult is it for you to check that? None of you seem to understand what CGI actually is and none of you have been able to say what your technique is for identifying. Why don't you try? "If the earth spins at 1000 mph?" Measurably so. "Orbits the sun at 66,000 mph?" Measurably so. "speeds that are beyond our comprehension" Certainly yours.... "we do not experience a single one of these motions" Because the body is sensitive to acceleration, not motion. We deduce motion from what we observe around us, not directly sense it. "You think we could hang a plumb bob over a mark on the floor, put a 24/7 camera on it and measure some kind of motion." Foucult's pendulum. Not surprisingly, you underestimate that factors need to be taken into account. You are not a Great Witness. Your thoughts & observations are not the definitive factors determining reality, just your self-centredness. Why would an omnipotent Dei require a Servus exactly?
    5
  58. 5
  59. 5
  60. 5
  61. 5
  62. 5
  63. 5
  64. 5
  65. 5
  66. 5
  67. 5
  68. 5
  69. 5
  70. 5
  71. 5
  72. 5
  73. 5
  74. 5
  75. 5
  76. 5
  77. 5
  78. 5
  79. 5
  80. 5
  81. 5
  82. 5
  83. 5
  84. 5
  85. 5
  86. 5
  87. 5
  88. 5
  89. 5
  90. 5
  91. 5
  92. 5
  93. 5
  94. 5
  95. 5
  96. 5
  97. 5
  98. 5
  99. 5
  100. 5
  101. 5
  102. 5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 4
  106. 4
  107. 4
  108. 4
  109. 4
  110. 4
  111. 4
  112. 4
  113. 4
  114. 4
  115. 4
  116. 4
  117. 4
  118. 4
  119. 4
  120. 4
  121. 4
  122. 4
  123. 4
  124. 4
  125. 4
  126. 4
  127. 4
  128. 4
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. "Van Allan radiation belts" With adequate shielding and passing through the weak periphery at speed; the astronauts radiation exposure was the equivalent to a couple of X-rays. "the immensely low pressures of space" "How did the space craft not get ripped apart due to the low pressure of space" The difference between 1 atm pressure and vacuum is 1 atm pressure, a paltry amount; planes handle about 20% that and gas cylinders contain about 100 atm pressure. Not a problem . "How did they land on the moon without causing a massive crater" The bulk of the deceleration was done at high altitude, the landing modules ran at about 1/4 power until prior to landing and shut off immediately prior to touchdown. You're assuming the reverse of a Saturn V take-off that starts from stationary and has to produce the power to accelerate a huge mass upwards against Earth's gravity. The landing modules were already moving slowly, had very little mass compared to a Saturn V and were in lunar gravity. "what battery technology did they have to run their life support systems" Hydrogen fuel cells for most things, silver oxide-zinc batteries for the Landing Module. "How did they cause the camera film not to be destroyed by radiation." Lead-lined containers. "earths curvature can not be measured, observed or detected" And yet is routinely measured, observed and detected. That FE'ers turn a blind eye to how this is done does not magically make it impossible. "no mathematical equations are conducted to facilitate for earth’s curvature" A 25,000 mile circumference means 360/25000 = 0.0144 degrees/mile. Each individual section is set for level at that locality; the angle difference between sections is less than the corrections needed for the terrain. "The 8 miles ^2 by the distance is totally disregarded" Given that it is not for calculating curvature one would hope it is ignored. "Please look into this further. " Why don't you? None of the above answers are secret or rely on arcane mystical knowledge so why don't you know them? "one always observes the same Stella Constellation throughout the year" No, one does not. That is how the zodiac system comes to have 12 constellations that indicate how their presence changes. "want is occurring is due to electromagnetism, pressure and buoyancy." A Faraday cage has no effect so it isn't EM, buoyancy is dependent on gravity so it isn't that and air pressure is due to gravity, i.e., no gravity, no pressure difference. "second law of thermodynamics explains a pressurised system cannot be next to a vacuum without a Barrier" No, it does not. A pressure gradient can be maintained by a force countering the expansion due to pressure, e.g., gravity. FE'ers have yet to explain why there is decreasing pressure with increasing altitude when they're claiming equal pressure throughout their dome (of which they have no evidence itself). Why don't you try learning something instead of ignorantly parroting stuff?
    4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 4
  187. 4
  188. 4
  189. 4
  190. 4
  191. 4
  192. 4
  193. 4
  194. ​ @yestervue4697  "Then I was shown transcontinental flight maps/routes, all these curves in odd directions seeming to avoid the ocean" You're prepared to believe in a millenia-long, extremely expensive and totally pointless conspiracy but it didn't cross your mind that someone could cherry-pick flights for their demonstration? Direct flights between the southern continents cross Pacific & Atlantic oceans (and, no, the existence of indirect routes does not preclude the existence of direct routes not does the current limitations due to Covid mean the direct flights never existed). Also, what would be a straight line on a globe appears as a curve when projected onto a flat surface. "They are straight on there!" Somebody draws a straight line between two points, tells you that's where the plane goes and you believe because you are gullible. Doesn't occur to you that they cherry-pick the locations and flights? You don't ask what about the flights in the southern hemisphere that would be beyond the flight range of aircraft on a FE map? "I investigated MUCH deeper for a year and found no proof for globe earth" Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles: you can check all for yourself. Try actually doing it rather than listening to FE ignorance & incredulity. The curvature is measurable with a land surveyor's theodolite though I imagine you will claim they are rigged by the <insert bogeymen>. I know you will deny photographs, preferring to believe single-frame shots taken with an analogue must have been done with CGI several decades before CGI existed, and will ignore the ISS passing over head, preferring to believe it a balloon that has somehow remained aloft for 20 years while unaffected by ambient weather. So, be novel and try explaining how the FE fits to observations: how does the sun a constant angular diameter and angular velocity when the FE predicts they vary; how does the sun rise & set; why is there a horizon when the FE predicts several hundred miles vision that disappears in a haze; how are there two celestials poles when FE says there is only one; why are different constellations visible in the southern hemisphere; why does the angle to Polaris disagree with that predicted by the FE; why can't any of you produce accurate maps when you now accurate distance? The moon does not have to outrun the Earth's rotation for a solar eclipse to work. You're thinking the of the change in angle when the key is the speed with which the moon moves out of alignment. Do you really think that only FE'ers think about these things? "the model failures in action" That is the inability of the author to get his head around diagrams. Given the relative sizes sun, moon & Earth and the distances separating them it isn't practical to produce a to scale model: distance to the sun 93 million miles, umbra 166 miles.
    4
  195. 4
  196. 4
  197. 4
  198. 4
  199. 4
  200. 4
  201. 4
  202. 4
  203. 4
  204. 4
  205. 4
  206. 4
  207. 4
  208. 4
  209. 4
  210. 4
  211. 4
  212. 4
  213. 4
  214. 4
  215. 4
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. 4
  219. 4
  220. 4
  221. 4
  222. 4
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 4
  227. 4
  228. 4
  229. 4
  230. 4
  231. 4
  232. 4
  233. 4
  234. 4
  235. 4
  236. 4
  237. 4
  238. 4
  239. 4
  240. 4
  241. 4
  242. 4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 4
  251. 4
  252. 4
  253. 4
  254. 4
  255. 4
  256. 4
  257. 4
  258. 4
  259. 4
  260. 4
  261. 4
  262. 4
  263. 4
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289.  @1FeistyKitty  1a. You're assuming any change must be quick & huge; stars measurably change position and you can check the change in the nearest for yourself with a good telescope. 1b. Smart people comprehend that 500k mph is trivial in the scale of intergalactic distances. 2. And I bet you haven't questioned those videos or even thought to try measuring it for yourself, ie., put a solar filter in a camera and track the sun. 3a. That you can't comprehend time & distances beyond what you personally drive is dumb, not insightful. 3b. So you have no comprehension of the angle of light changing the further you move away from the equator. Again, that is dumb, not insightful. 4. You haven't bothered checking how pendulous vanes work, have you? 5. Selenelion eclipses. 6a. Still waiting on FE'ers to explain how the FE sun is supposed to work. 6b. The moon goes through 1/28th of the phase cycle per day; again, you are expecting change to be huge & quick rather than considering what would be seen. 7. Dubay quotes Rowbotham who made it up on the knowledge that people he was preaching to mid-19th century were highly unlikely to travel outside the country, never mind make it to the southern hemisphere. This is the 21st century with worldwide communication and travel readily available and about 800 million people permanently living in the southern hemisphere. Which do you considering is more likely and why: A: nobody has noticed the star charts are radically wrong B: your guru is telling porkies 8. Telescopes aren't self-focussing. Explain why you think not focussing will give you a clearer picture. 9. FE'ers are crap at experiments. None of you think controls are necessary or that you need to take confounding factors into account. 10a. What defines up & down on a FE? 10b. How does density act as a force and why in a consistent direction? 10c. What don't you understand about attraction being proportional to the mass? How the heck could you NOT understand such a simple concept? 10d. You're assuming nothing has changed in the solar system because you are again assuming any change must be huge and quick. 10e. Tangential velocity, not centripetal force. 10f. Most moons are tidally locked; it's not novel to our moon.
    3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. "claims of authority should be rejected" If the airline tells you that the plane is safe would you insist on checking it personally? We can't do anything & everything personally so many things we do have to be accepted from someone or something perceived to have the authority to do the checking. Errors will occur because nothing & nobody is perfect but that doesn't automatically mean somebody is deceiving you or that there is a massive fundamental understanding of something. "The medical industry is notorious in pushing out new studies, that fail to be reproduced" One of their responsibilities is expanding knowledge of medicine and you don't do that without studying the subject. No study is going to be comprehensive; you can't look at everybody in the world simultaneously. The smaller the group used the more likely there will be a statistical weakness that leads to inapparent errors. There were accusations about only some studies on any specific subject being released so only the favourable ones were seen; more recently (depends on the country) all such trials have to be registered beforehand and specify the methods & analysis to be used. "some toxic chemical widely used, that is later banned, or at least get labeled as unhealthy, only to be later declared as a health food again" Knowledge increases. Somethings are not initially recognised to be toxic (insufficient dosage or exposure) and it later becomes apparent they are. Occasionally the risk is found to be overblown or specific to a certain subset of people. Since anybody & everybody can flog "health foods" I'd be careful who you point a finger at. "getting FDA granted immunity for liabilities" Vaccines specifically. They pay a premium to the FDA that goes into a compensation scheme for anybody suffering serious side-effects. It was set up by the US government in response to most companies pulling out of manufacturing polio vaccine in the early days; the risk to the public was greatly outweighed by the public benefit but companies didn't want that risk. "There are lots of examples of "scentific community" holding on some ungrounded dogmas, that are overturned only after the old professors eventually retire" Not exactly. There are ideas postulated with minimal supporting evidence. That accumulates with time, by which time the older people have retired.
    3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 3
  337. 3
  338. 3
  339. 3
  340. 3
  341. 3
  342. 3
  343. 3
  344. 3
  345. 3
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. 3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. 3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. ​ @clintonhart2652  I know where it comes from and what it can be used for; I'm curious if you know or you are just assuming that it will accurately calculate curvature and how far you can see. Evidently you are just quoting it as another FE canard. Lake Baikal is crescent shaped and surrounded by sheer mountains; nobody can see the length of it. (You did say "do the research", remember?) Salt Flats lack variation in elevation, not in curvature. Conflating elevation & curvature is another FE canard, essentially because your minds can't think beyond a flat baseline as a starting point. That you can see the ground that is close to you at the Salt Flats and can see the mountains at the edge of the Flats does not mean you can see all the Flats between you & the mountains. We are discussing a 25,000 mile circumference, not the 25-250 miles that you are envisaging; you will be able to see ground for far further than you think on a 25,000 mile circumference sphere. Motion of the sun, horizons, two celestial poles, angle to Polaris matching latitude (below the horizon when in the southern hemisphere), constellations changing with latitude; all indicative of a globe, all testable by any Tom, Dick or Harry, all incompatible with a FE. Still waiting on any FE'er to explain how they could be compatible with a FE (you refused to answer, remember?). If I take a picture of a basketball, does the basketball appearing round mean I must be using a fisheye lens? Does the existence of NASA preclude the existence of other space agencies? Does the ability to fake a photo mean all photos are fake? What's your technique for identifying fake photos?
    3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363. 3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. 3
  368. 3
  369. 3
  370. 3
  371. 3
  372. 3
  373. 3
  374. 3
  375. 3
  376. 3
  377. 3
  378. 3
  379. 3
  380. 3
  381. 3
  382. 3
  383. 3
  384. 3
  385. 3
  386. 3
  387. 3
  388. ​ @JonALewis  "you could never, with any degree of accuracy, predict a location" Like most FE'ers you have little concept of scale. The stars are so distant their positions are not going to change sufficiently enough to confuse a sextant. You do need date & time of the reading to cater for rotation & orbit. "you need only look at modern newspaper" Prove it. "foucalt pendulums require motorization" They don't. Some of the display ones use a ring electromagnet to keep them swinging but a ring confers no direction. "If the Earth were rotating then Airy's failure would have been a success" Airy used the Earth's rotation to look for evidence of luminiferous aether. Difficult as it is for some people to grasp, failing to find evidence of aether does not prove its existence. Sea-level is a measure of elevation and level does not mean flat. Water rests at gravitational equipotential which on a globe means a layer with even distance from the Earth's centre of gravity. "How come Navy ships can Target a hundred+ miles away with missiles and radar" Planes and satellites. That ships are equipped with cameras & radar does not magically preclude anything else from possessing them. "How can ships captain's see lighthouses from dozens of miles at sea?" Lighthouses are towers or built at higher elevation to ensure they can be seen from that distance. For the same reason, ship's bridges are elevated and the old sailing ships had a crow's nest. "Why do we see so far if we are actually on a globe?" Because how far you can see is determined by curvature, elevation and atmospheric refraction, not by curvature alone. "If the Earth is 70% water" Once again, it is 70% covered by water, not 70% water.
    3
  389. 3
  390. 3
  391. 3
  392. 3
  393. 3
  394. 3
  395. 3
  396. 3
  397. 3
  398. 3
  399. 3
  400. 3
  401. I've already explained to you how it was done using that procedure. What do you think is wrong with it other than you personally can't do it? Try a heliometer and some travel, measure the angle to the sun at noon on a set date each year from distant locations and calculate the distance to it. It's too crude to calculate an exact distance but it will be obvious it isn't a few hundred or thousand miles away, which is what you are actually asking for. "There are zero tests that the common lay person can perform" There is no requirement for each & every person on Earth to make an observation before any one observation can be accepted as valid. If you think there is then explain why. "We can all take a zoom lens camera and discover the absence of the curve" How far you can see is determined by curvature, elevation & refraction. All factors have to be accounted for in calculations. You can't ignore factors and expect to be using the right equation. You can't ignore elevation & refraction and expect to get an accurate prediction of where the horizon is. "I'm only interested in curvature" is not going to magically nullify the effects of elevation & refraction. Making a prediction requires that you use all relevant factors. Devising an experiment means you need to take into account all factors. You can't make testable predictions by ignoring key factors. If you want to test how gar you cases then you need to make accurate calculations for your predictions. Elevation & refraction have to be included - is that clear? Do I need to say it again and in how many different ways?
    3
  402. 3
  403. 3
  404. 3
  405. 3
  406. 3
  407. 3
  408. 3
  409. 3
  410. 3
  411. 3
  412. 3
  413. 3
  414. 3
  415. 3
  416. ​ @robertfish4734  You're making the claims; the onus is on you to produce evidence, not me. " there is no need in our actual flat stationary world" The curvature is fully mapped; still waiting on the FE'er stop deliver the evidence that it is flat. The rotation detectable; still waiting on the FE'er explanation. Stellar "IF THERE IS NO SURROUNDING VACUUM there is an atmosphere like liquid the pressure at the top is less than the bottom. Try this in an aquarium and a pressure gauge. " You were quoting Boyles Law to say the pressure would be equal throughout the container. Why would the pressure be less at the top? Are you trying to say it's the weight of the gas? Weight depends on the existence of gravity which you deny so what is your explanation for mass having weight? If you are going to argue that mass=weight then explain how a constant mass can have a variable weight. If you are going to argue it is the container pushing it down then explain how. If you're going to argue it's electrostatic attraction pulling it down they you need to explain how that works regardless of the charge. If you want to argue it density makes it then you need to explain how density can act as a force. "If there IS A SURROUNDING VACUUM, there is no atmosphere to stack" Unless of course there is a force than can counter the expansion of the gas, e.g., gravity. "t naturally falls because it is more dense than the air. ' How does a difference in density make something move and why in a consistent direction? You all profess to understand so surely you can explain? Inverting the bucket is not going to impart the necessary kinetic energy and me filling the bucket only creates potential energy of there is a force pulling downwards to begin with. "the scale the heliocentric model uses It is unimaginable' What's unimaginable about it? "Stellar parallax estimates are foolish with all the stuff that must line up" Too many details for you to comprehend? "If we are traveling at the incredible speeds" All argument from incredulity. Demonstrate why you think objects can't travel that fast or why those distances can't exist. "Polaris has never moved for thousands of years" Unlikely since Thuban was the pole star 1000 years ago. You do realise the shift in star positions requires regular updates of the star maps? That with a good telescope you can measure the motion of some of the stars for yourself? "all the constellations also remain the same over thousands of years" Hw much should you think the stars should move around given the distances to them and the fact that the galaxy's rotation mans they are moving in the same general direction as the sun? You've presumably done the calculations and can show us. "The 66.6 degree earth slant" 23.4 degrees. "60 degree solar system slant should also play in the weeble wobble awareness of Polaris" Why the angle of the solar system to the galactic plane determine the wobble on the Earth's axis? "The fact that there is no change " There is measurable change hence the updated star charts. Polaris is measurably drifting away from the pole position. You do realise that eyeballing is not an accurate form of of measurement? "are freaking fixed" Yet measurably change.... "Visual propagation of light following the inverse square law also makes it impossible to see stars because they would exceed any possible detection if they are more than a couple of light months" Let's see your calculations. "physics departments don't bother because it is mostly impossible to replicate" Replicating it isn't a problem but it is time-consuming and there are more productive experiments than demonstrating the existence of gravity for the zillionth time. "That is why I made the comment about adult conversation" I'm not getting any answers from you beyond "just does" assertions. You just keeping waffling about electrostatic attraction with no explanation why objects would be charged or why the force would always be attractive or why the attraction remains constant regardless of the charge intensity. You can set up an experiment in a vacuum chamber with a ball suspended over a platform (both of which could be charged negatively, positively or neutral) and observe the ball falling at the same acceleration regardless of the different charges and their intensity. You need to explain how it works, not just keep saying it does. ."the tables are ignoring gravity which was my main point" Why would gravity be included on the periodic table when it does not define any of the properties of the elements? Its absence fron the periodic table is not significant. "with 5.5 density" You need to use units. ""Atoms with a lower atomic mass have a greater density than the atom with the higher atomic weight because the atoms are tightly packed together." A nice rule of thumb but not consistent. The atoms would be capable of packing closer together; it does not mean at a set temperature they would be denser than heavier elements and the atomic mass defines an elements density. "I mentioned anti-gravity using electricity like" If there is no gravity then there is no anti-gravity; you mean levitation. "A demonstration of Earnshaw’s theorem" Great; you just need to explain why everything falls in a vacuum chamber regardless of charge. "Electricity is the weak force that gravity was amped up to describe" Why do objects fall inside a Faraday cage?
    3
  417. 3
  418. 3
  419. 3
  420. 3
  421. 3
  422. 3
  423. 3
  424. 3
  425. 3
  426. 3
  427. ​ @robertfish4734  Explain how you conclude that the length of your air passage is the same distance as the that from ground to space (not a minor point). I just pointed out to you that gravity has to counter the drop in pressure over a set distance, that your air passage is short and that your inhalation produces a steeper drop in pressure over distance than the slow decline in pressure from ground to space. "'Boyle's law always works and never fails, ever, every time these conditions occur." Unless the factors change, e.g., a force present and there is not container. The reason we have a higher pressure at sea level and a low pressure at higher levels happens exactly because we have an atmosphere" You mean the Law of Just Does? That nothing actually causes it, that's just how it is? You are also saying that Boyles Law would cause an even distribution of pressure so why the exception for atmosphere (not a minor point)? "Water weighs .578 ounces per square inch" How do you think water (mass) has weight when you claim there is no gravity to give it weight (not a minor point)? Where does this weight come from? We need to as certain this before we continue. "if you can prove Boyle's law to be in anyway inconsistent," Boyles Law is specific to the behaviour of an ideal gas in an ideal container. An atmosphere has neither container nor ideal conditions; you still haven't provided any evidence of your dome (not a minor point) nor explained what forces are acting on the gas and how (not a minor point). If you thikn there isn't another factor involved then you need to explain how Boyles Law leads to a pressure gradient in your container (not a minor point), an explanation that is more convincing that the Law of Just Does. You're the one making the claims; you need to provide the evidence. Just gotta be and just does are not evidence. Produce your evidence of the dome, of electrostatic attraction of uncharged matter, that density acts as a force, how you get a pressure gradient in a container in contradiction of Boyle's Law etc You provide the evidence of a 250mph network of crosswinds (not a minor point) and then I'll continue watching the videos. "They just gotta exist" is not evidence.
    3
  428. 3
  429. 3
  430. 3
  431. 3
  432. 3
  433. 3
  434. 3
  435. 3
  436. 3
  437. 3
  438. 3
  439. 3
  440. 3
  441. 3
  442. 3
  443. 3
  444. 3
  445. 3
  446. 3
  447. 3
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 3
  461. 3
  462. 3
  463. 3
  464. 3
  465. 3
  466. 3
  467. 3
  468. 3
  469. 3
  470. 3
  471. 3
  472. 3
  473. 3
  474. 3
  475. 3
  476. 3
  477. 3
  478. 3
  479. 3
  480. 3
  481. 3
  482. 3
  483. 3
  484. 3
  485. 3
  486. 3
  487. 3
  488. 3
  489. 3
  490. 3
  491. 3
  492. 3
  493.  @incorrect2968  "100% of that velocity is turned into the structural damage of my toe" Velocity is simply a measure of metres per second; it isn't going to damage anything. The structural damage requires force. Force arises from the deceleration of the block as it makes contact with your toe. That is basic physics. "I got this quote: "It depends on the drag coefficient of the body." And the meaning and significance of drag coefficient passed you by. Again, this is basic physics. "Answer: Not sure that's the case" It takes force to pulverise the block. Force arises from the deceleration of the block as it hits the ground. With a high enough velocity there will be enough force. "My intuition could be wrong" Intuition is unreliable; that is why you need to actually calculate the forces, not intuit them. "Answer: My friend, this line of argument should alarm you of your own biase." It's basic physics. "Explosives where used in all three or none depending on the view) started pulverizing almost emediatly" The generation of dust does not mean everything has been pulverised or powderised; that is your erroneous assumption. "Explosives where used in all three" Mysteriously working silently. "There are several videos displaying a significant earthquake shortly before the collapse" Which mysteriously were not picked up by any seismic monitors. The picture shows a sheared beam. That simply requires sufficient force, not sabotage. The buildings weren't constructed like a bird cage. "the buildings where designed to withstand fires" etc You're assuming that because the structure was designed to handle excess force or a fire that it would be able to handle anything. As I have said a number of times, you need actually deal with the numbers, not make intuitive generalisations.
    3
  494. 3
  495. 3
  496. 3
  497. 3
  498. 3
  499. 3
  500. 3
  501. 3
  502. 3
  503. 3
  504. 3
  505. 3
  506. 3
  507. 3
  508. 3
  509. 3
  510. 3
  511. 3
  512. 3
  513. 3
  514. 3
  515. 3
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519. 3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589.  @bmanmcfly  Nobody ever produces this evidence of Nasa fakery, just keeps saying that it exists and quoting what is readily explainable. It's akin to the Real Evidence that FEers never produce but want debunked. The Eratosthenes experiment would work on a FE with multiple points if the sun was in multiple locations simultaneously. Same incidentally for the angle to Polaris on a FE. Newton noted the proportionality of mass & distance in the attraction and described the equation of F proportional to m1.m2/d^2. An approach to a unified theory inserted G later (gravitational constant, not gravity in case you're confusing the two) but the equation remained essentially the same from Newton's time. The maths was used to predict Neptune's existence. That magnetism also has an inverse square law does not imply that it & gravity are the same thing; the two have a different mechanism and magnetism has a selective effect and exhibits repulsion. Magnetic repulsion is weaker at very short distances, apparently due to the disruption in the molecular alignment caused by the repulsion. Beyond a very short distance attraction=repulsion. I did say that relativity doesn't work at the quantum level. I did say that relativity deviates at the galactic level. Relativity works just fine in the intervening period, a period that covers almost all of what we observe. (Newtonian physics is still routinely used for most calculations because that covers practically everything we observe in every day life.) That something doesn't work at extremes does not mean that it doesn't work in between. Dark matter & dark energy are hypotheses, not fixes. Science works by forming hypotheses and testing them. Hypotheses are not evidence that science doesn't work; they are part of the process. Revision of relativity is an active are of research. Answers aren't instant (it would be nice if they were). As Jim says, FEers (and science deniers generally) raise these points repeatedly as if they were revelatory, it gets explained to them every bloody time and somebody else still pops making the same "revelatory" claims. There's nothing novel or unthought of in your comments.
    3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. ​ @opxchaos5757  Fg is proportional to the product of the two masses e.g. Earth and object. Birds & oceans do not have similar masses; the gravitational force between them and Earth is proportional to their masses. If it was a constant value then everything would have the same weight, a point that Dubay skips over. Earth's gravity is near constant on the surface and is a persistent force. Neither persistent nor constant mean irresistible, another point that Dubay skips over. More than one force can act simultaneously, yet another point that Dubay skips over. Birds use their wings to generate life and, no, gravity does not switch off when they fly; the lift from the wings exceeds the gravitational attraction between Earth & bird. Since the bird is not attempting to lift an ocean, the oceans mass has bugger all to do with the bird's flight. Oceans do not possess wings; they can't generate lift to counter gravity which is why they can't fly. When you jump, the muscles in your legs provide momentary thrust upwards. If it's greater than the gravitational attraction then you rise off the ground. Gravity does not stop pulling you down which is why there is a rapid reversal of direction amd you land again. If there was no gravity then your momentum would not be countered by anything and you would keep rising. Have you never wondered how people determined that the Earth was a glove long before such technology became available? Was NASA beaming back in time to vast network of temporal agents? Motion of the sun, angle to Polaris, horizons and two celestial poles all tell you that the Earth is a globe. The FE'er gurus skip key factors and employ the wrong maths; as long as they don't say they are doing that then plenty of gullible people are prepared to think it is being done correctly. You presumably are among those who believe that visual acuity and horizon are the same simply because your the guru told you so; an object can pass beyond your visual acuity long before it reaches the correctly predicted horizon and zooming an object back into view before it reaches the horizon tells you sweet FA about the horizon. I keep asking FE'ers for a video os somebody zooming a set sun back into view; none of you seem to think it relevant that nobody has managed it.
    2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. ​ @brentwebster3751  I asked questions; I didn't present any arguments to rebut. Try replying without including Youtube links or similar. "How they fooled everyone using deceptive calculations" No hits. "math can be made to say anything you want it to" It can't if you know what you are doing. When you throw a ball, it continues moving when it breaks contact with your hand; that is conservation of momentum. Explain what you think keeps the ball moving if conservation of momentum doesn't exist. "Your first 2 can be dismissed simply using the red bull jump" You dismiss conservation of momentum and gravity by giving an example of both? "people right up till and into the 20th century believed and were taught that the earth was flat" Evidence? FE'ers keep claiming that so what is your evidence? The Ptolemaic system (c. 100AD) was based on a central spherical Earth and was the accepted model until the shift to the heliocentric model. "The proof for a flat earth is in the emergence landings with more than 20 in the past few years proving it." They demonstrate that FE'er can't comprehend what a straight route on a globe looks like when projected onto a flat surface, that such projection causes distortion. Tesla was referring specifically to theoretical physics, not science generally, and was speaking as engineer who looked for practical applications of physics. He did not believe in a FE incidentally. "Einsteins theory of relativity has been debunked over and over" A claim that would have some weight if any of you could actually back it. "there are records of teachers being persecuted for teaching the heliocentric model in the 1920s" Evidence? "Flat Earth Sun Moon and Zodiac Clock App" Still waiting on any explanation from a FE'er for how the sun maintains a constant angular diameter & velocity and rises & sets when the FE predicts they vary through the course of the day and the sun doesn't come within 20 degrees of the horizon.
    2
  655. 2
  656. 2
  657. 2
  658. ​ @brentwebster3751  Concerning the Litmus Test Firstly, the geocentric system is based on a spherical Earth, not a flat one. The transition from geocentric to heliocentric model was not a transition from flat to sphere. The assumption of the Earth being flat was displaced by the observation based deductions by the ancient Greeks around 500BC and the Ptolemaic model (c. 100AD) was the accepted model of the universe until the shift to heliocentric system. Geocentric & FE are not synonymous. He provides no explanation for how the sun observably retains a constant angular diameter & velocity through the course of the day; no explanation how it could approach the horizon while not approaching within 20 degrees of it (wholly inadequate distance for perspective to have that apparent effect); no explanation how the sun would only illuminate a select misshapen area of a FE; no explanation for how the moon can be a light source or how it can exhibit shadows on its features; no explanation for a monopolar magnetic field; he provides nothing to back the claim that the Antarctic Treaty forbids travel to Antarctica; no explanation for why gravity is unnecessary (a statement that there is a universal up & down is not an explanation); no explanation for how stars are believed to be close. Stating that FE'ers believe something to be true is not an explanation for how it could work, much less evidence that it is so. Why do you think that I should be convinced by explanations that he can't and indeed none of you can produce? Would you like me to continue pointing out his shortfalls?
    2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. ​ @brentwebster3751  Serah Lewin's article on Space website: "those precise eclipse shapes only made sense if he scaled up the sun's radius by a few hundred kilometers" Daisy Dunne's article in Daily Mail (largely copied from the above): "only if he scaled by the sun's radius by a few hundred kilometres" Neither articles says anything of 250 times larger or further away, just a modest increase in measurement of the radius. "how far the atmosphere goes" The minute traces of hydrogen & helium as distant as the moon were found to be a few particles higher per volume; there's no breathable atmosphere out there. "how rockets work in space" The same way they have always worked: Third Law of Motion. Only ignormi have ever claimed that you need at atmosphere to push off. "the shape of the earth from ball to oblate spheriod" That you hadn't heard of the <0.1% oblation does not make it new or immense. "pear shaped" A deviation even smaller than the oblation. How high you need to be to see a curved horizon depends on how wide an angle of view you have. An airplane cockpit can have nearly 180 degrees, a camera <50 degrees. Kaku's actual quote: "In cosmology, the cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and theoretical large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude, a state of affairs described by physicists as "the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science" and "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics." "Michio Kaku "i don't know anyone who even uses the scientific method."" An incomplete and out of context quote that changes the meaning of what he said. He was referring specifically to string theory, which is his field, that is totally mathematically based. "Which they can't even measure [lightyears] correctly" Example? With regards to Eratosthenes, since the Earth was already known to be spherical he only used two locations to estimate the size of Earth. Take in isolation, two locations would not distinguish between sphere and flat earth; at least three locations are required, something which has been done repeatedly with the same results - the Earth is a sphere. You realise that there is no obligation to post videos on Youtube? Since Google bought YT you need a YT account to pass comments and that account comes with a channel whether you wish to use it or not.
    2
  664. 2
  665. ​ @brentwebster3751  "nothing i have posted has been a lie" That you believe it does not make it true nor mean the person who told you wasn't lying. The P900 does not have infinite powers. Trying to film a planet is beyond its operating range in terms of required magnification & light intensity. Your camera's limitations are why the images look different to those from telescope-mounted cameras. You realise that anybody can use a telescope? That people have been looking at the surface feature son Mars for centuries? The parachute was deployed after Perseverance had been slowed, not before. "A star on orions belt stays on the equator all 365 days of the year" None of them do. Einstein was specifically referring to relativity and the effect on light hence his explicit use of "optical" in his statement. He was not saying it was impossble to demonstrate motion. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was using the known motion of the Earth to look for evidence of the entirely hypothetical luminiferous aether. They found no evidence of aether. Difficult as it is for some people to comprehend, no evidence does not equal proof. Only if aether existed would the absence of motion through it be evidence that Earth was stationary. They had calendars back then. 1 year is long enough to travel 500 stadia. It is also quite possible for there to be more than observer but I know FE'ers cant comprehend the notion. As the sun moves the length of the shadow would change; it would be shortest at noon when the sun would be highest so a series of measurements arond that time would determine the shortest length. The moonlight you're reading by is reflected from the full facing surface of the moon, not just the tiny area the Apollo craft landed on. The visors in the spacesuits were heavily shaded. Nobody taking correct measurements and using the correct maths has found any sign of missing curvature. "All amature Ballon footage of 100,000 feet or more shows a flat eart" Anything that actually reaches that altitude would see a curve though you would need to apply a ruler to the image for it to be apparent to the eye. People need to provide evidence the balloon was indeed that high and that the shot was taken at that altitude; a shot with the altimeter reading 60,000ft is not a shot taken at 100,000ft even if the balloon subsequently reached there. The Red Bull jump was from 120,000ft and neither camera was suitable for determining curvature of the horizon. Scale, a really difficult concept for FE'ers. The stars are very, very distant and moving in the same general direction of the sun; it would take 10,000's of years for changes in position to be readily apparent to the eye, not a few days. As it is star charts still need adjusting periodically for the tiny changes that are measurable. What a mystery. Just why would a pioneer in space exploration have a quote about stars on his grave? What possible connection could there be? And yet the tide prediction is infallibly accurate.... Multiple forces can act simultaneously, another concept FE'ers have great difficulty grasping. Everything you've posted is wrong and reliant on personal ignorance & incredulity. Do you not think to actually check anything before regurgitating it?
    2
  666.  @brentwebster3751  By approaching the Mars atmosphere at an oblique angle; even an atmosphere like Mars would produce drag and slow the craft. That you don’t understand that is not some revelation that physics is wrong, just ignorance on your part. I realise FE’ers have a serious problem acknowledging the existence of telescopes except when looking at ships but if you want accurate pictures of planets you require that level of magnification. The P900 can zoom a long way but it is insufficient to take accurate pictures of planets. People have been using telescopes to look at planets for centuries and later using mounted cameras to capture pictures decades before NASA came into existence. Some pillocks waving an inadequate camera and wailing “this is what it really looks like” is not going to change what any Tom, Dick or Harry can see for themselves through a telescope. Your comment on Tyson displays the usual FE incapability to understand scale. Nowhere on the globe is there 1atm pressure adjacent to a vacuum. I realise FE’ers also have serious problems comprehending the concept of measurement but it is straight forward for any Tom, Dick or Harry to measure the drop in pressure while climbing a decent size mountain. Pressure decreases with increasing altitude, something you can demonstrate for yourself if you can tear yourself from ignorance-promoting websites. Once again, the astronauts stood on a very very very limited area of the moon; they would not be illuminated by a full lunar hemisphere reflection any more than you are being fried by a full hemisphere sunlight illuminating only you. You’re waving a P900 around but have no concept of exposure time? Do any of you have a brain to employ?
    2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. 2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 2
  686. 2
  687. 2
  688. 2
  689. 2
  690. 2
  691. 2
  692. 2
  693. 2
  694. 2
  695.  @vanlookenroel7211  "you see all continents!" Then produce one such picture. "A weather satellite makes close ups from an area" Himawari-8 takes shots every 10 min, each covering about 90% of a hemisphere, containing only Asia & Australasia. "do you think every country has his own geostationary satelite" There's currently 402 satellites in geostationary orbit. "with the same orbit time as the earths rotation" Why do you think satellites in geostationary orbits wouldn't have an orbital time equal to the sidereal day? "That' s why you see them passing by sometimes!" Why do you think you would be able to see a 2 metre long object 36,000 km away? Why do FE'ers who prattle on about perspective think a far away object would appear large? "you are not capable to answer mine because you can't read! " You didn't ask any questions. "i.On a Fe where stars are ... why isn't it?" Try writing that in coherent English. "Why would the stars change size....distant. distance doesn't matter the movement makes the change!" If something moves away or towards you then there is an apparent change in size - that is perspective. When the object is distant there is less apparent change - that is perspective. When the object is moving in the same general direction as you then the distance doesn't vary significantly and there is little or no apparent change in size - that is perspective. You're claiming (with no evidence) that the stars are static & near and asking why you don't see change. "Is this a new and official trheory from the scientists are did you made that up by yourself?" It's the bloody obvious and something that has been apparent to man since he first looked up. Why are the people who think observation is everything so incapable of actually observing? All you have to do is spend the night outside.
    2
  696. 2
  697. 2
  698. 2
  699. 2
  700. 2
  701. 2
  702. 2
  703. 2
  704. 2
  705. 2
  706. 2
  707. 2
  708. 2
  709. 2
  710. ​ @GeorgeGeorge-yb2sz  "are you a climate activist or a climatologist?" The vast majority of people don't bang a drum either way. "I only used a couple of parameters like CO2 because it seldom does any good to be detailed with people who have already drank the cool-aid" You were misrepresenting the complexity of the system to try to convince people; that is presenting a straw man argument. "And as I said, I mistakenly said Tony was a meteorologist" Which I noted. I was taking issue you with claiming a BSc and some past experience makes one person a geologist while a PhD and decades of ongoing experience didn't. I would like to know what you think qualifies someone as a geologist. Debate is like chess; it depends on the prowess of the player, not the pieces held. It is not a way of proving anything. Debating Societies have debating contests; it's a sport. Reuters put together a list of the top 1000 climatologists; neither Kutney nor Gore appear on that list. You're confusing activists with climatologists. "it makes most rational people [ ] realize just how phony the claim is, . . .even if it isn't. " ? "Climate change activists skew the data to match their models" And I don't give damn what the activists say; what do the climatologists say? "Statistical analysis is the only method chronological theories can be solved, and we do not have that data!" Statistical analysis is a fundamental part of science; that statistics is used in a subject is meaningless as a criticism. You said the data could only be gathered by geologists and the geologists among the climatologist are collecting the data; how do you now claim there is no data? "only observation, controlled testing, and repeatability can confirm a phenomenon scientifically" The notion that science is limited to direct experimentation is a fallacy commonly touted by people who want to get out of explaining the evidence obtained through observation. Several branches of science are necessarily limited to observation. The topic of Hossenfelder's video is a flat earth; FE'ers are always claiming that observing the sun & stars isn't scientific and thus can be dismissed rather than explaining how they contradict what FE'ers are claiming. With enough observations you can make predictions; Neptune's existence was predicted from observing Uranus's motion.
    2
  711. 2
  712. 2
  713. 2
  714. 2
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. I wish people wouldn't refer to Semmelweis; he was laughed at because he couldn't explain why his idea worked. By a process of elimination he saw a correlation between pleurisy on the ward and student doctors having visited the necropsy lab. By further experimentation he found that medical staff washing their hands thoroughly in a particular solution correlated with a reduction in cases. Only with the advent of germ theory did it make sense. The video is aimed at a lay audience. "Settled science" in that context means subjects in which there is no longer an ongoing debate; alternatives have been eliminated, one explanation is holding true and predictive, consensus has been reached. The theory is accepted as a working fact. There is no need for further debate unless something new can be brought to the table. Tachyons are hypothetical; unless evidence can be found of their existence there is no useful debate beyond the academic. In this specific context the shape of the Earth is settled. It has a physical shape that is fully measured and observed from every angle. No amount of considering "alternative ideas" is going to change its shape. "If a scientist with a PhD or even Master degree can't teach, they should be stripped of that credential until they can" There is more to our profession than teaching; passing on the accumulated knowledge is the not the only aim. Restricting it to that is what happened during the Dark Ages. Do bear in mind that you are talking in front of people who equate debate on what constitutes proof in a theory with absence of evidence for that theory.
    2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729.  @kruse8888  Natural philosophy was the school of thought that the laws of nature could be determined purely from observation and thought. It became apparent in the 18th century that testing ideas would be necessary and science as we know it developed from that. " Christian universities are all over the world" And in the minority. "scientists used to seek refuge in churches for questioning the “consensus” in the science community" If science & the church were synonymous then if you were running from a howling mob of scientists, a church would be the last place you would run to. Do you have some examples of scientists seeking refuge in a church? "that fragmentation is what created modern science" Divergence rather than fragmentation. There is no "narrative" being handed down from on high. Consensus is reached through the accumulating evidence, not because it is being dictated. It's easier for some people to claim there is a conspiracy rather than actually explain the evidence. Nobody is going to be fired, be stripped of funding or shunted if they disagree with the consensus; they are expected to make a case for an alternative idea (and, no, "it's different therefore it's just gotta be right" is not a valid argument) and explain why already exists. They are unlikely to get funding specifically to pursue their idea; money is limited, not handed out like confetti and you need to be able to argue why the risk is justifiable. I have no idea what video you are referring to; there are a lot of meteorological societies and many people have been directors of each.
    2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. ​ @servusdei3923  "we DO see the same sky every night" A. They change over the course of the year; that is were the signs of the zodiac are derived from. B. The comment was "If the Earth were flat everyone on Earth would see the same night sky"; that you see similar stars each night from your location does not demonstrate the folks in the southern hemisphere see the same stars as you. "Tho we CAN see polaris from past the equator." You can't. The exception is a mountain close to the equator that provides sufficient elevation for an observer to see Polaris on the horizon. "THATS where ya sextant is used to CONFIRM earth IS flat. " On a globe the angle to Polaris matches latitude. For that to be possible on a FE, it would require Polaris to be at infinite number of altitudes above & below the FE simultaneously and visible through the FE. If the FE were correct and Polaris was in one location then the angle to Polaris would not match latitude as is observed (simple geometry). "any one gonna answer me on how a circle of equal altitude DOESN'T work on a flat earth when using a sextant ?!' If you think it works on a FE then you need to demonstrate how for the models you peddle around. Don't forget to explain how Polaris can be in an infinite number of locations simultaneously. "Al Biruni used a flat baseline for his 90 degrees" At any given point on a sphere the surface is perpendicular to the radius. It does not mean a sphere is flat. "you would create funnels all the time with ya globe match" Which us how you can use a sextant at sea to deduce your latitude from the angle to Polaris. For such to exist on a FE requires Polaris to be at an infinite number of positions simultaneously, something that you need to explain. You do realise that in a world of nearly 8bn people that there is more than one observer? "no one has given me a straight answer" That you can't understand the answer does not mean the answer isn't informative. The astronomical bodies would be in different locations in the FE sky from what is observed; try using a sextant with FE predictions and you would be lost. FE'er usually claim the sun is only visible at night but it is clearly visible during the day half the time as predicted by the globe and in a predictable place. The FE sun has a variable angular velocity relative to the observer rather than the constant angular velocity observed. The FE sun never comes within 10-20 degrees of the horizon but is observed to rise & set; the compass direction of the transition & time of year are used for navigation on a globe. Straightest answer - the predicted positions of astronomical bodies on a FE don't match the observable reality required of sextant observations. The sextant is not goin to work on your FE. How straight & simple do you need the answer to be.
    2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863.  @rebeccachambers4701  Immuno-compromised people are not given vaccines; mandates do include exceptions. Babies are not immuno-compromised. Their immune systems are naive but (usually) quite robust. Vaccines are 90-95% effective in inducing immunity. Surgery is done aseptically to minimise infection; it can’t be achieved with sterile conditions. Patients are treated individually. A politician on the TV can’t reel off individual instructions for each person in the country; by necessity they refer to generalities. They are not over-riding doctors’ decisions about individuals. Earth is measurable. The measurements are consistent only with a sphere. No medication is perfect; pull one string in the body and a hundred things move with every individual being a little different. That something does not work effectively on a small proportion or caused significant side-effects in a small proportion does not render a medication useless. “Bodies in the street” or doesn’t exist is a binary fallacy. Spread can’t bd prevented; it can be controlled to some degree. Total control or no control is another binary fallacy. I never said vaccines would work for everyone or that everyone should be given a vaccine. Social distancing & masks: another binary fallacy. Usually people complain about that level of control on food etc and being given advice. There is a surfeit of people in biological research; I’m paid markedly less than my equivalent in physical sciences. There are a high proportion of foreigners in academia (basic research) because we are lower paid than our R&D equivalents in industry.
    2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. ​ @robertfish4734  The current flow consists of ions; the vast majority of gas molecules are not charged. You need to explain why electrostatic attraction would pull them down. You need to explain why there is no attraction inside a Faraday cage. I have researched Fishbowl. Answer my questions: A: If bombs explode at altitudes varying from 2000 ft to 2000 miles above the same location what altitude is the dome at that location if they are being detonated next to it? B: Why are the clouds spherical? Why are they not distorted if they are impacting a hard surface? C: Why do you think such details are inconsequential? "They just posted that they can't trust the number." And I've told you twice what the terminology means. With a set of measurements you will obtain a mean value and a standard error and you can say with confidence that the true value falls within a certain range either side of the mean value. It is not uncertainty that the measured object exists. Did you do maths in school? You seem to have problems handling numbers. "I can find things after digging, you just aren't worth it," I'm doing the research; I'm asking the person who think is he has it all figured. I'm getting very few answers. If you can't answer basic questions then quit saying you have it figured. ""sonoluminescence". It is how the stars work" "Just gotta be" is not science or brilliant insight. You need to provide a plausible mechanism by which stars could be sonoluminescence, e.g., plausible source of the acoustics, a plausible source for energy required, a plausible explanation for the very different scale.
    2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. ​ @robertfish4734  Still waiting on the FE evidence for a military presence in the Antarctic. "Just gotta be" is not evidence. It says the Buenos Aires to Darwin flights (which is an indirect flight - the direct route between Australia & South America is Sydney to San Diego, currently limited due to Covid) make use of a network of 250mph winds (max hurricane strength 150mph) but supplies no evidence of their existence (just gotta be is not evidence) or explanation why they have no effect on weather or why the pilots fail to notice them or why nobody notices they are flying over land rather than sea or why they are flying in the wrong direction realtive to the sun. Not minor points. Do you need me to work through them all and tell you what the logical fallacies and inaccuracies are or you prepared to think for yourself instead of gullibly swallowing conspiracies? Shortest routes between the southern continents is the great circle route. On a projection they appear as southward curves, none of which come near Antarctica. It's already been explained to you that gravity is a strong enough force to counter the gas expansion across that the distance that the pressure decline takes. At no point is there an abrupt 1 atm to 0 atm drop to counter. All you have done is stamp your foot and declare gravity doesn't exist. You claim it is due to electrostatic attraction but can't explain why it would affect uncharged objects (not a minor point) or be strong enough to counter the decline in pressure (not a minor point); you've tried density but can't explain how density would act as a force (not a minor point) and also claimed the weight of the air with no explanation of how weight would occur in the absence of gravity (not a minor point). Your final claim was that being in a container would generate a pressure decline in direct contradiction of your initial claim that the gas laws would mean there would be even distribution in said container. You still haven't explained why a container is necessary when a force is generating the gradient (not a minor point). Yet centuries of navigation found that the lines of longitude do converge in the southern hemisphere. You need to explain how all the navigators could be so abysmally wrong (not a minor point) and still reach their destinations as plotted (not a minor point). You still haven't produce a working FE map (not a minor point). The pressure difference of you inhaling while lying on your face (that is what your example calls for) would occur across a small distance; the steepness of the decline would exceed the strength of gravity and the not motion would be into your lungs. No mystery. The distance over which the drop occurs is a factor whether you like it or not. The shallower the gradient the less pressure difference there is between any two points. I've already run you through experiments that could be carried out in a vacuum chamber to check your ideas; you haven't replied to them.
    2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. ​ @robertfish4734  For the third time, the decline in gas pressure per unit distance "there isn't anything else" Which brings us down to Boyle's Law; how do you explain air pressure declining with increasing altitude if you think Boyle's law is the only factor in play? "how much mutual attraction is there?" A planet has substantially more mass than the average gas molecule and gravitational attraction is proportional to the product of both masses. "Why is gravity so selective and not liquefy the air with the same force that it uses to keep the water curved on your rapidly spinning globe?" Earth is a planet, not a black hole. In the absence of an irresistible force it is temperature that defines which state a molecular occupies; the greater the temperature, the more kinetic energy individual molecules possess; if the temperature is high enough the kinetic energy of individual atoms/molecules exceeds the attraction from van der Waals forces and the substances achieves a gas state. "You can not prove that the earth spins" Rotation is measurable with Foucault pendulums and laser gyroscopes. "I don't feel dizzy" is not a measurement. "you can't prove that the horizon is curved" The setting sun disappears from the bottom up while maintaining a constant angular diameter. Still waiting the FE explanation for that. If you mean curvature from left to right then the Earth is substantially larger than you are envisaging; you need to be ip above 100,000ft before it start becoming apparent. "PROVING Boyle with every breath." Third time, the force required to counter the pressure drop depends in the unit distance over which the pressure drops. Your air passage is around 20 inches, not 20,000ft. Like all FE'er you have real problems grasping multiple factors, scale and measurement. MrSirhcsellor ran you through most of this in detail a few days ago.
    2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027.  @riandcaz ​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​⁠The video is about the FEers errors in reasoning, not the proof for a globe. The FEer long distance photos fail to take into one or both of elevation & atmospheric refraction. They have yet to produce any photos greater than the maximum calculable on a globe. Misidentified mountain tops are not valid. The photos are in the Apollo Archive website. (Look it up; YT kills comments with links in them.) Any correction needed by an aeroplane for atmospheric curvature is trivial compared to that required for the localised air movement. Pendulous gyroscopes correct for angle change (their purpose is to indicate the change that is happening in the moment) while laser gyroscopes compensate for location. The basic analogue tech didn’t possess and wasn’t dependent on the microcircuitry that is a fundamental part of vehicles today. The phone call was achieved through a radio link. The heliocentric model is long gone; the sun is not the centre if the universe. The geocentric model that preceded it was based on a spherical Earth. The sun “fading out at the horizon” videos are achieved by having clouds on the horizon that reduce the glare. We are still waiting on a FEer to produce the supposedly easy-peasy video of zooming a fully set sun back into view. Image is a generic term that applies to all forms of pictures, photographs included. The colour varies on cameras (analogue & digital) because of the variation in dyes & wavelengths used in each; it varies with all photographed objects.
    2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062. 2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. ​ @hershelpogue1745  "Not my concern." It is when you're underlying presumptions (whether you acknowledge them or not) affect your conclusions. A shadow is caused by the occlusion of light. A shadow is always directly away from the light source that is being occluded. The end of the shadow and the top of the object are always in line with the sun. If you have evidence otherwise then produce it. "the shadow from said object to shift opposite of placement of your pole" What is that supposed to mean? "By all accounts our sun shouldn't be over our head, according to the solar system charts in existence." Unless you are between the tropics of Cancer & Capricorn, the sun never is over your head. This what I mean about you presuming a shape to the Earth; you are assuming longitude to be perpendicular to the direction of the sun. "according to the solar system charts in existence. None show an above view of our sun," You referring to 2D representations of a 3D layout. You need to acknowledge the existence of 3D representations showing Earth's inclined axis and the declined orbit of the moon. "All angles times and positions speed changes" What speed changes? Both the sun & moon have constant angular velocities. "Their range an distance varies. " How would you calculate that from one observation point? "The sun the moon within each other earth proximity " Only in your imagination; eyeballing is not an accurate form of measurement. "uniquely different arrangements happening at the same time" Again, only in your imagination. "Where our earth hosting two celestial objects in the day sky, and the moon remains at night." The sun & moon can be up to 180 degrees apart in teh day time sky; why the hell would you think they would set together? "Moving extremely slow" The Earth rotates once per day; how fast do you think it should be going? " and can be seen 90 miles away." The moon is 239,000 miles way (measurable & measured) and hte sun is 93,000,000 miles away (measurable & measured). "Of course the angles depending on altitude." Latitude and that is what you expect from Earth being a sphere with an inclined axis, the moon orbiting the Earth in a declined orbit and the Earth orbiting the sun, ie., the current model works just fine for predicting their motion. "No one yet has ever explain anything that I consider conclusive. " What would you consider conclusive when you can't get your head around the existing model? "Even if it's full of flaws." Such as what because you have yet to describe any?
    2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. Density supposedly making things move displaced the FE moving or accelerating upwards. Still waiting on any explanation for how density can act as a force or why in a consistent direction. Do you have one? The stars are very distant (10-1000 light years away not 10-1000 miles) and moving in the same general direction as the sun as the galaxy rotates. Why is the people that prattle on about perspective can't grasp the effect of distance? They stars can be observed to rotate 360 degrees every 23hrs 56min and the Earth's progress on its orbit means there is a relative change in position through the course of the year, including which constellations are visible. "the fact that you can predict Barnards star shows there is not random movement of stars" Nobody is saying the stars move randomly. "science needs to be prove-able through repeatable experimentation" You mean like the Cavendish repeatedly demonstrating gravity? Laser gyroscopes repeatedly demonstrating rotation? Theodolites repeatedly measuring curvature? "for every 1 mile there should be an 8inch drop squared" That was a rule of thumb used by land surveyors in pre-sliderule days; it assumes constant elevation and not atmospheric refraction and thus is good for a few miles. I relasie it is incredibly difficult for you to grasp that there can be more than one variable in an equation but that is 8"/mile^2 is not how viewing distance is calculated. "Go out to a a lake or flat land and put someone on either side and tell if me if there is a drop..." You mean like repeatedly measuring the drop along the Bedford Canal? Still waiting on FE'er explanations for the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude. What's the hold up with the FE'ers professing profound understanding of how everything really works?
    2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. ​ @thomasspeed3390  Both Matuse & I score 4 on this subject; most FE'ers fall into 2 while professing 4. "Your naked eye CANNOT see the earth's arc" You can see the effect of the arc, e.g., the sun rising & setting. According to FE predictions it won't come within 10-20 degrees of the horizon, would show highly variable size through the course of the day and would always be visible. A globe predicts a constant angular diameter & velocity and rising & setting which is what we observe. FE'ers claim clouds reducing glare is the sun shrinking though they can't explain why it only happens when the sun passes behind clouds. They claim perspective mysteriously squashes objects at the horizon and only at the horizon though they can't explain how this would be or how the FE sun would get near the horizon. The FE sun would never be far enough away to be not seen and there is no evidence that light spontaneously stops at any distance, never mind the highly variable one claimed by FE'ers. FE'ers keep claiming they have the knowledge to explain it all but none are willing to divulge it (not even their gurus) despite apparently wanting everybody to be persuaded by it. This is what we mean about their ignorance & stupidity. "the bend is not significant but it is there" It gets increasingly significant with distance, the sunlight having to travel through an increasing amount of curvature in the atmosphere between the source (emitted or reflected) & observer. It has to be taken into account when calculating where the observer's horizon will be. It would not give the illusion of the Earth being flat. "Your steadfast approach to given knowledge..." As I pointed out earlier, it isn't possible for someone to test everything personally. When similar data is collected by multiple sources it is unlikely I would get something different if I did try; I can accept the conclusions made by others as accurate. In this instance, a massive and totally pointless conspiracy running undiscovered for 2500 years is not a plausible alternative. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles & constellations changing with latitude indicate the Earth is a globe; that they can be observed disproves a FE. The curvature can be measured with as little as sticks & shadows. The ISS passes overhead on a rigid schedule; with a good telescope its outline is clearly visible. You can get on a plane on one continent and fly to directly to an airport on another; that isn't possible without accurate maps. We all see the same face of the moon, not the different angles predicted by FE. You're making a philosophical argument that the limit of current knowledge leaves alternative open. However that only means you can't prove something absolutely; it doesn't prevent something from being disproven. When FE claims don't match observable reality then they are not and never will be a valid explanation for that observable reality.
    2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298.  @bmanmcfly  You replies are almost all FE talking points that have been explained copious times. Are you just being rhetorical for the sake of debate? 1. It would appear to be stationary & immovable to someone standing on it, ie., no relative motion. Their feeling it to be so would actually make it so. 2a. I should have been more specific; the 19th century saw the increase in precision and comprehensiveness of world mapping that would enable to the shape to be derived from the mapping rather than simply mapping onto a sphere. It was the forerunner of modern geodesy. 2b. South of the equator the lines of latitude would increase in length on a FE and decrease in length on a globe. While you can indeed circle the north pole by walking in a tiny circle around the south pole that is not going to stretch the south pole from a single point to a long circle. To be accurate, both pole lie on the rotational axis and by circling the axis anywhere you would be circling the poles. 3a. What does the Antarctic Treaty have to do with it? Why do you think the only link between space agencies and the rest of the world is through "visuals for public consumption"? 3b. You mean video compression errors? Astronaut suits include an internal bottle & straw for drinking; one leaked, the water coalesced on the nearest surface which was the astronaut's face, blocking nose & mouth. I'm still waiting on anybody to explain to me how training pools would preclude space flight. I've seen compilations; I have yet to see a compilation that didn't rely on audience ignorance & gullibility and actually showed purported evidence. 3c. Religious debate perhaps but not scientific debate. By philosophical I assume you are referring to debate about subjective & objective perceptions? Do note that in science the emphasis is on disproving hypotheses to get closer to objective truth, not trying to justify predetermined conclusions. And the objective relevance of "an inconsequential speck of dust in an uncaring universe" is? 4. The Eratosthenes experiment has been frequently reproduced. Atmospheric refraction is not going to be great enough to account for the difference and there is no evidence of a huge lens hanging over a FE. Using three or more points distinguishes between globe & plane; it's an example of FEers refusing to think beyond two. The Einstein quote is not the usual misquote but I can't find any indication that he said what you referred to. If it does exist then I would note that the key word is earthly. I'm quite aware science requires reproducibility; FEers do seem unaware that everything is tested and experiments & observations reproduced over and over, endlessly asserting that nobody has reproduced key results. Please explain how the spiritual & immaterial would affect the material universe.
    2
  1299.  @bmanmcfly  1. It would need something far better than vague Something Else Forces and, most importantly, would have to be consistent with all the measurements that have been made. 2. The oblation is polar (reduces the radius by about 10 miles) and there is an even smaller deviation just south of the equator. That the Earth is not a perfect sphere does not support the notion of a FE; as is frequently pointed out, the Earth is closer to a perfect sphere than a pool ball. Time zones are artificial constructs; they are irrelevant to this subject. 3. Satellites are not typically designed & built by space agencies, just launched by them. The ISS is visible from the Earth's surface. Signals from space are detectable by anybody with an aerial. Telescopes are freely owned. What makes you think the space agencies only contact with the public is through pictures that they release? Still waiting on somebody to produce this fakery. Umpteen claims of "just gotta be fake" concerning something that isn't understood is not evidence of fakery. Musk's comment of "genuine because it looks fake" refers to people's accusations of such as the Apollo craft looking fake because they didn't resemble a sci-fi craft. 4. Equivalent if only two points are used. There's nothing to stop more than two points being used and more than two points are typically used. It was more to replace vague explanations of "the gods" or "just does". You said you were an electrical engineer; do your systems work by continuous divine intervention or is there order to their construction & operation? You appear to be appealing divine intervention to anything we don't yet know, e.g., dark matter hypothesis. I'll check the Physics Girl video for what you refer to. Can you give me a pointer as to which video it was?
    2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401. 2
  1402. 2
  1403. 2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414. 2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. 2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. ​ @GeorgeGeorge-yb2sz  "Tony Heller is a practicing geologist" He has a BSc in geology and subsequently spent an unspecified length of time at the Los Alamos labs. He then obtained an MSc in software engineering. Climatologists will have PhDs in various branches of science (including geology) and most will have spent decades actively involved in research. So, again, what do you have to have done or be doing to qualify as a geologist in your mind? "If you look at the requirements for the field of climatology, they have no geological background or knowledge of the past history of the earth" I have. Climatology relies on multiple branches of science; many people will be geologists, many won't. "They are not meteorologists who seldom believe in climate change because they know how fickle the weather is." Again, you're referring to people who specialise in make short term predictions. 3 days, 3 millenia and 3 million years are all quite different time scales. "we don't have any records of past climate except for geological studies" That geologists are involved in collecting data does not mean that the data is limited to geology. "They also know there have been long periods of weather in the past with far more CO2 in the atmosphere, and a warmer average temperature" So? What make you think something is limited to two variables? "We also don't have the computing power to predict climate, we can only predict weather about 72 hours in advance, the rest is based on statistics." Different time scales and different geographic scales requiring input of different data; the two aren't comparable. All predictions of complex systems (including both climate & weather) are reliant on statistics.
    1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517.  @coreym162  "You teach by showing ways to replicate the same results accessibly." "Most people work long hours or don't have access to the research, labs to replicate the results in, the money or time to work out the same conclusion presented on face value. That should be the scientist's job." You don't notice the contradiction? If there was a simple or even quicker or cheaper way to arrive at the same results we would already be using it. "Start simply and work your way up" And it takes years, even decades to get to the level of understanding and expertise where you can replicate much of what has gone before. What gets taught in schools is the very basics, is not doubted and there is no evidence suggesting it could be wrong. The chances of any of it being wrong are remote. That the basics can be taught in a school lab does not mean every bit of knowledge can be reduced to that level or is there any likelihood of the fundamental principles changing. You do seem to be advocating what is actually done (work your way up through undergraduate & postgraduate degrees and build a full-time career in science) but want it to apply to everyone who might be tangentially interested. Most people don't have the time; there is no simple way to transfer the knowledge & understanding beyond the relatively superficial without the years of full-time commitment. "They also assume scientific consensus is unified" Near as damn it unified; it wouldn't be regarded as consensus if it wasn't. That there will always be someone who wants to differ is not evidence there is something fundamentally wrong with what is accepted or that everybody is ignoring some vital piece of information (or that there is some shadowy power group telling everybody what to think). "where and how research broke off from basic scientific principal" It doesn't; it just gets more complex. Two forces acting simultaneously is a still simple but there are people asking why the net result differs from the action of a single force; the principles haven't changed but there's people think they have. "That is just lazy and unnecessarily complicates the learning process" I can't impart years of knowledge & understanding in a short conversation. Unless they wish to commit to years of learning then they have to be satisfied with simplified, truncated explanations that require accepting much at face value. Sagan had the talent I referred to; not many people do. Nevertheless, what he wrote was very much introductory, aimed at a lay audience, not simple yet comprehensive explanations for anything and everything done in science.
    1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. ​ @nickkorkodylas5005  How do you expect me to have a rational discussion with people who believe ignorance is knowledge and incredulity is insight, have no concept of multiple factors and measurement, who demand I consider evidence that none of them ever present and who don't feel it is necessary for their explanations of observable reality to be in agreement with observable reality? That the sun rises & sets should be mutually agreeable evidence since everybody with eyesight can see it happen on schedule every day but they won't accept it. We're talking of people who wave a picture of the upper half (and only the upper half) of Chicago's skyscrapers projecting above the horizon as proof the harbour is visible. You can't satisfy denialists. If SpaceX took them up they would just claim the the windows were CGI screens. The aim of a scientific experiment is to disprove a hypothesis, not obtain evidence to support a worldview. An experiment does have to be well-planned with predefined parameters & analyses to avoid such bias. Reinterpretation of results has its uses but it's used to formulate another hypothesis that needs to be independently tested (its own experiments). Because there is still room for error nothing is taken for granted; something would have to be demonstrated by multiple parties using different approaches, something that can take years. No system is perfect but we do work to avoid such errors. From your earlier comment I suspect you are looking at work in progress. Science is not short and tidy like a high school experiment; it's a very long iterative cycle based on eliminating what is wrong. Dead ends do occur, arising from accumulating evidence being consistent with a particular hypothesis, one which is ultimately disproved as the range & type of experiments expands.
    1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770.  @eyestoseefe7618  "If you walk an a moving Surface yes, you must move at the speed of the Surface" You would move at the speed of the surface simply by standing still; an escalator demonstrates that. The bionic man running at 60mph on a treadmill was moving at 60mph relative to the surface, 0 mph relative the mechanism as a whole. "You say relative to the Earth as if that means anything" It's called frame of reference. If you are driving a car and the odometer says 30mph then you are moving at 30mph relative to the ground but also 0mph relative to the car, 20mph relative to the cyclist you overtook and -50mph relative to the sports car that overtook you. You're trying to declare Earth as providing an absolute frame of reference, which it isn't. "why doesn't this exert force on you?" If gravity didn't exert force then I wouldn't remain attached to the surface. The force is towards the centre of the Earth, not in any compass direction; it's not going to move me eastwards, westwards, northwards or southwards, just pull me towards the centre of the Earth. In the absence of any force trying to move me eastwards, westwards, northwards or southwards, inertia means I continue move according to the speed & direction of my momentum; that is conservation of momentum. "it spins 1000mph under your feet" If it was spinning under my feet then I would be moving westwards relative to the Earth, not stationary relative to the Earth. Since me, Earth & the atmosphere are all moving eastwards at the same speed then the Earth does not appear to move under my feet nor does wind blow my head off. "walking East and West miraculously takes the same amount of steps or the same mph to travel the same distance in any direction" When my momentum carries me eastwards at the same speed as Earth & atmosphere, my walking simply modifies that momentum slightly so that I move a little slower or faster than Earth. "The ground acts as if a surface that's Stationary because it is Stationary " It appears stationary because you, me, the atmosphere and everything on the ground is moving eastwards at a similar speed. As I said, you are having a problem understanding frames of reference. There is no absolute frame of reference; tryign to declare the Earth has an absolute frame will not make it so.
    1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. ​ @StephenJelinek  Which simply brings us back to an earlier question: why do you think every last person on the Earth has to have done a particular experiment for the experiment to have validity? You can do the experiment for yourself if you wish but it is not necessary for you do it for the question to have been answered. It has been done so many times by so many people with consistent results for a globe that there is no good reason to assume results any different if someone else tried it. I'll try to put a link in another post; YT frequently removes link or blocks comments with a link. "In the flat earth model the sun simply fades out of view." Rather the point. When the sun observably retains a constant angular diameter, rises & sets and the decrease in light intensity is consistent with rising & setting, the FE model(s) claiming the angular diameter changes, it doesn't rise & set and the light intensity would never decrease anywhere near zero does not match reality. Someone making a video of the sun setting through clouds on the horizon that reduce the glare is not evidence that the sun is fading away. Put a solar filter on a camera and film the the sun in the last hour of light; check the size & light intensity on the pictures. When it's set try zooming it back in to view. If you're going to argue that the "light gets tired" then you need to come up with an explanation for how that could happen. And no, there is no limit on the distance your eye can see; it's a passive receptor that detects whatever light reaches it. "The Oligarchs who rule the earth have been bending the truth to hide reality" Explain how your Oligarchs manipulate the sun and how shadows are cast.You're not the first to claim it but be brave and be the first to try explaining it. There are no restricted areas in the Antarctica; if you think there are then provide evidence. If you want to wave the Antarctic Treaty then point out exactly which clause you think bans travel (and, no, the Treaty is not restricted document). There is observably 24hr sunshine in December/January and longer days generally in their summer, in direct contradiction to the FE model(s). If you fear you will be blown out of the water if you go too close then take a trip to Ushuaia, Argentina and personally witness a 22hr day down there. "Why would they scrub video of people shooting video of oil platforms 10 miles out to sea?" Actually they are video of cretins who can't grasp elevation & refraction having a role in how far they can see and couldn't explain why the oil rig was visible for only a few hours when they're claiming it's always visible. YT changed its algorithms to downgrade misinformation; they didn't delete the videos. It's the same cretins who can't explain why seeing something would be considered newsworthy.
    1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801.  @ethandarcy5940  "look to for critical survival knowledge" Masks were in limited supply. If there was panic-buying then there would be a shortage where they were immediately needed. Hospitals needed a plentiful supply immediately; the public could wait until after lockdown. The lockdown period gave time to manufacturers to ramp up production to be able to meet both demands when the lockdowns ended. If hospitals didn't have sufficient masks then Covid would rapidly spread most of the staff. They would need time off and many would die. If they were off or dead then they couldn't staff the hospitals to deal with incoming Covid patients. At that point it was unclear how many patients there would be in total from the period prior to lockdown or what proportion would require hospital support. With limited staff, more of the the incoming patients would not survive; they would die. Prioritising staffed hospitals would save more lives. The public like short, simple answers. From your written English you sound intelligent but I've just had to spell out the bloody obvious to you. The short, simple, effective answer to that problem would be "no need to buy masks". Tell people "don't buy them yet" and they would have sold out like the toilet paper where people wanted to be among the first to have them even though they did not yet need them. "information coming from scientists generally" Conclusions are drawn from the accumulated evidence that exists at that point in time. Time does not stand still. We are continually probing wider & deeper. The evidence continues to accumulate. Since conclusions are drawn from the accumulated evidence at that point in time the conclusions can change with time. The conclusions are not set in stone. Where changes in conclusions are necessary then you wouldn't want them to be set in stone but people get shirty if they do change. When some people think the conclusions ought to change because of something they've heard then they get shirty. The main reason people get shirty is because they don't like change or they want inappropriate change. People will get shirty regardless of how well we do our job.
    1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811.  @stewiesaidthat  No, it is evidence that the clocks apparently run slower at high velocities than lower velocities; it does not in itself demonstrate a cause. It is evidence that can support a hypothesis about a cause; you have yet to put forward a hypothesis. You have just made the same unsupported assertion repeatedly. I did ask you how you conclude compression of space in spacetime is possible but not time dilation; you haven't answered. You have the clock's signal being transmitted at a slower rate but also the length upon which it is been transmitted shrinking. Why would the two not cancel out? You do realise in your running track analogy that the starting positions are staggered to ensure the same distance for each runner? The experiment you referred to had four clocks (two eastwards, two westwards, compared to clocks that were stationary relative to Earth), losing time eastwards and gaining time westwards. "the ball being thrown within the train is traveling independent of the motion of the train" The means of propulsion is independent; you are ignoring the first law of motion (conservation of momentum) and the fact they are in one frame of reference. Indeed, since you are claiming that train's motion will compress space (shortening the length of the carriage) and the ball would be unaffected by that motion then it should take less effort for the ball to reach the end of the carriage. "This is all documented by the numerous 'light clock' expirements." Comparing two relative frames of reference. Please would you get frames of reference sorted out in your head before continuing or I'll be repeating myself endlessly.
    1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936.  @steelyatron  I can't tell you what you perceive to have changed. A draft paper is submitted to a journal; an editor makes an initial decision on accept, review or reject. Those selected for review are sent to to 2 or 3 external reviewers, usually with authors' names visible (some journals remove them). The criteria vary but essentially reviewers check for sound reasoning, methodology & conclusions. They return written reports to the editors who decide between reject, accept & revise. If revision is requested the reviewers reports (anonymous) are sent to the submitting author; the editors stipulate minor or major corrections be made (or the reviewers' criticisms rebutted). Once accepted the paper is scheduled for publishing. Passing pre-publication peer review is not seen as a quality assurance or stamp of approval; it means the editors/reviewers found nothing seriously amiss. It exists to filter out what is bad and the system is by no means perfect at doing so. Once the paper is published it enters post-publication peer review; everybody can see it and critique it. It's at that point that reproduction occurs; if the paper has something you can use it then you need to check it does indeed work before applying it to your own work. The main weakness is the scientists are human rather than Vulcan (personal opinion of subject & author crops in) and 2-3 reviewers is a limited range of people. I don't know of any point in history when reviewers' reports were published with the paper. That is why I am asking you what you perceive to have changed. "That corruption afflicts it's institutions seems to be undeniable" It would be if anybody provided evidence of rampant corruption rather than simply extrapolating from scandals.
    1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082.  @incorrect2968  "That leaves the rest, 0%, to pulverize the building" Drop a concrete block on your toe; you're arguing that the block won't apply any force to your toe to crush it. Does that seem realistic to you? Terminal velocity is the point at which the gravitational acceleration is matched by the resistance provided by the medium through which the object is passing. It's irrelevant in this example; the distances are inadequate to achieve terminal velocity. Free-fall is the simply when an object is moving under solely under the influence of gravitational force; it is not a velocity. Gravitational force increases the kinetic energy in an object. The deceleration arising from the falling object hitting the ground or any object below it translates the kinetic energy into force. A concrete block falling on your toe crushes it and likely breaks the block (depends on height and point of impact); concrete falling from sufficient height will produce enough force to pulverise itself. One face of WTC7 was briefly in free fall; broken vertical beams on a lower floor no longer any vertical support and the initial downwards motion had snapped the horizontal beams that had provided support to that face of the upper floors. All else fell under less than free fall (rapid but less than free fall) since only a small proportion of the kinetic energy was absorbed by collapsing beams. That is the importance of actually measuring time & motion rather than simply eye-balling and why you need to understand & calculate the forces involved.
    1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097.  @grantcivyt  I replied to the latter part of your comment. As far as I am aware it was individuals who thought large gatherings were OK, not the institutions. I'm quite aware there are long-standing and genuine disputes; that is how science (medicine included) progresses and nobody is ostracised for disagreeing. The exception would be those who deny what is well-established, e.g., the existence of viruses. "Leeway in exploring alternatives" falls under research, not the day to day practice of medicine; you want to be able to see a doctor for an accurate diagnosis and demonstrably effective treatment, not automatic enrollment in personal experiments. In terms of the pandemic, I see about 283,000 articles in the last few years when I search for "Covid"; there has been plenty of work gone into dealing with the epidemiology, viral mechanisms and treatment. If you mean doctors trying to find anything that would improve Covid patients chances then you run into the problem that their tests are not controlled experiments; the evidence is anecdotal at best. They can be acknowledged as a partial justification to conduct controlled experiments using suggested treatments but they are not proof the treatment works. Cloth masks are far less effective than the medical ones but they are not totally ineffective. They are cheap & reusable (thus no shortages) and what efficacy there is adds to what is already obtained from distancing etc. It's not so much a matter of whether the glass is half-full or half-empty but trying to explain that to people who think the glass can only be either full or empty. The CDC makes recommendations; they have no power to declare mandates. The politicians to whom the recommendations are made have that power.
    1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. ​ @sammas7440  At no point do we tell people not to ask questions. We do ask that people accept the evidence, particularly if they wish to question the conclusions drawn from it; people who arbitrarily ignore or dismiss it or make baseless presumptions risk being mocked. Espousing a different opinion does not magically make someone right. We don't get orders from on high to arrive at particular conclusions, not to rock the boat, to unquestioningly agree to something or to push a "narrative", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. That some scientists have a high profile does not give them the control you believe. Recent years have seen the rise of social media where any Tom, Dick or Harry can chip on a subject without detailed knowledge of it and just needing to sound plausible to those who want to hear something "different". That is primarily where "scientists are wrong" comes from. Cliff Clavin was part of the comedy on Cheers; the Clavins of today are hailed as gurus. "FEs are not all stupid people" Hossenfelder pointed out where their reasoning goes off the rails. I have noticed among people today that there is a presumption that ignorance equates to knowledge; not knowing how something can be verified is taken as meaning that they know that that something can't be verified. It would be reasonable for you to be irritated if I started lecturing you on RF electronic engineering; that would be the same reason we get irritated when people start lecturing us on our fields. (Sorry if all that flows disjointedly - I have a cold and my head is swimming.)
    1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280.  @1FeistyKitty  "one thing we know for SURE it that they are not doing it in "SPACE"" What makes you sure exactly? "'glitches' when they move module to module" The first step of video compression is determining what changes from frame to frame and selects those pixels; in the absence of a replacement pixel the decoding software uses the same pixel from the previous frame. There will be a spike in transmission when there is a lot of change and thus more likely to get glitches. "act like they are handing things with nothing in their hand" You obviously have no idea how limited the quality is in AR. "while staring up at the screen" You mean looking at the camera "bunch up in below the waist" Why do you expect material to hang down in micro-gravity? "hair acts totally differently when they are actually on the vomit comet" Unless you are Medusa then your hair is passive and acts according to what forces are acting on it. Somebody moving on a vomit comet will have air moving their hair while a stationary astronaut does not. There are also several types of hair so exact response will vary. "always cut every 30 apx. seconds with a flash of light" No. "they always do the same dumb flip with the cables" Still waiting for your evidence that there are invisible cables. "the guilty smiles when they mess up" Humans shouldn't smile? "the astronot by the blue grid" The one with the prominent white grid on it? "their head always tilts toward vertical" They are having a conversation with someone on the screen in front of them; it is normal to have the same orientation. Have you ever seen Law & Order: Criminal Intent? "that's how they do all the floatey stuff" That is your presumption; that isn't evidence.
    1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. ​ @thomasspeed3390  "My argument is not related to the earth being flat; never was." There are FE'ers who follow your line of argument to claim there is probably undiscovered knowledge that would back up their claim and that they are simply being open-minded to the possibilities. That includes taking the line that we are just accepting what we have been told and that there is a realistic possibility that we are being fooled my a massive conspiracy or at least a huge mistake that nobody has noticed in thousands of year. As I have pointed out twice, nobody can check everything. In science, when something has been verified by multiple parties then there is little reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts. It is not reasonable to construct arguments from only what you personally have done nor replicate everything that you are drawing on; we'd never get anywhere. In the absence of any plausible explanation to the contrary it is not unreasonable or dumb to accept something that has been repeatedly verified by others. I don't treat people as if they are stupid or presume that they are; I draw conclusions of their intelligence from how they are arguing. No, I can't determine from an internet discussion whether someone is generally stupid, merely being stupid in a particular area or simply playing stupid but I can recognise stupid arguments. My initial comments was that FE'ers can't understand a simple diagram consisting of a circle & arrows; that is an observation from experience. Using an equation isn't practical because firstly most can't be expressed in a line of text and secondly FE'er thinking shuts down after one variable. While they could be written in a picture and a link posted, Youtube has been deleting external links for a while now. It doesn't help that some regard maths as existing simply to fool you, is entirely detached from reality or (no joke) is satanic.
    1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. FEers don't have a model per se and can't agree on anything other than it is flat, e.g., it does/doesn't have an edge, there is/isn't a dome, is/isn't an icewall, there's one/two poles, the sun & moon are inside/outside/embedded in the dome that does/doesn't exist. "Density force" has largely displaced upwards acceleration (which in turn displaced upwards motion) but none of them can explain how density can have a vector nor why there should be a universal down. Some favour magnetism as a cause though they decline to explain why there should be attraction regardless of material or the lack of repulsion. Most favour the sun & moon moving in a horizontal circle above the FE though some still support the above & below approach; none can explain how their ideas could match what we observe. Are they stupid? Most seem to be lacking intelligence and all seem willfully ignorant. They generally have poor spatial reasoning (can't understand the relevance of which stars are visible according to where you are on a globe), insist of using a horizontal baseline (eg, elevation & curvature are the same thing) though seem unaware that they are doing so, are easily confused by large numbers, can't envisage more than two relevant factors (many only one factor), don't see any need for consistency between explanations, can't grasp the necessity of prediction, place greatly prefer intuitive thinking over contemplative and general view maths as a distraction. I really would like to know how they handle money. Some are reasonably intelligent but seem to be quite selective in what they are prepared to actually consider; they have to reach a predetermined conclusion. Granted it's something that everybody can be prone to but generally most don't contradict what is readily observable. Hossenfelder is saying that asking questions and attempting to reason something for yourself is not stupid even though you can be wrong. Unfortunately we're talking about people who start on the premise that the consensus must be wrong are unwilling to ask questions that would challenge that presumption. "either model leads to the same observational results" The ancient Greeks deduced it from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow - FE'ers can't produce any explanation for each phenomena. "unless you're appealing to space agencies" FEers see eyeballing as the only form of measurement (or at least in this context - I can't get anybody to say if they know what the markings on a ruler are for); they can't figure out the shape is quite determinable & measurable at ground level. They have an obsession with Nasa and many seem unaware that it is neither the first nor only space agency in the world. Blue Marble 2012 is a composite of LEO shots. The original Blue Marble (1972) was a single-frame shot on film. Currently Himwari-8, Elektro-L & EPIC are collectively taking multiple single-frame shots every hour. Nasa did not destroy anything. The Saturn V & Apollo were single-use and used. Some tapes were re-used once the data had been processed; the data remains in paper/pdf form. Tapes were eventually replaced as they wore out or the equipment itself became outdated; that's the origin of the assertion for Nasa destroying tapes. Much of the work was done by contractors; with the cancellation of the Apollo programme workshops were repurposed for the next contract and eventually decades-old records were slung out. In both Nasa & contractors, people with first-hand experience aged, retired & died while technology became outdated. Nasa's information & data were all retained. "the proponents were making legitimate arguments that weren't things that could be brushed aside" Such as? FEers keep alluding to this Real Evidence but never produce it. All they do produce are the same smoke & mirrors from their gurus that rely on their ignorance.
    1
  2397. 1
  2398.  @bmanmcfly  Data is evidence when it distinguishes between two or more possibilities; somebody can't claim data as evidence when it doesn't make any such distinguishment. Claiming it as evidence is a stupid (or at least ignorant) position for someone to take. Deliberately ignoring disliked evidence is equally stupid. The force required for an object to move in an orbit is gravitational attraction between the object and whatever is at the centre of rotation (Earth & sun respectively in this case). Counterintuitively you weigh the same and more at dawn & sunset (assuming an equinox for simplicity). The maths is out of my league. I gather the difference is in the range of 0.000,001%. That the ISS is visible indicates that space technology is not a complete fake. There are many claims of video fakery but all that ever get shown are due to video compression errors, misunderstanding of what the viewer is looking at (eg, "bubbles" travelling slowly sideways), objects being temporarily hidden during a presentation by pasting some background into the transmission and invisible wires that only The Enlightened can see. As I said earlier, data is evidence when it distinguishes between two possibilities and when fakery would be only one explanation for what is observed it is not evidence of fakery. Because I have pointed out twice that the Eratosthenes experiment can be replicated with THREE or more points which WOULD distinguish between sphere and plane. Your response was that the triangulation would still work which would require more than one sun (which some FEers have claimed). I noted in my first post that FEers seem incapable of thinking beyond two factors. Newtonian physics worked fine at explaining what was observed at that time. It doesn't adequately explain some of what has been observed subsequent to relativity being hypothesised; it took a while to find ways of making observations that would distinguish between the two. Relativity still explains almost all of what we observe. Only at galactic & quantum scales does it deviate from what is observed, observations that have been made only in recent decades. It might need replacing entirely but that is unlikely; far more likely is that it is subset of a larger theory in the same way Newtonian physics is a subset of relativity. Handwaving claims of "just gotta be something else" is not a valid hypothesis or argument and certainly not wondrous insight.
    1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507.  @scottessex952  The brightness of a light source is determined by the number of photons being released, not the energy of individual photons; the energy of each photon is proportional to its frequency. Light is electromagnetic radiation; it is not magnetic or charged. The inverse square is due to a point source illuminating an area; the further from the source the greater the area and the further apart the photons become. It has nothing to do with photons losing energy. If a photon does not encounter something then it will continue indefinitely. Plasma is a form of matter, not concentrated light. Still waiting on a FE'er explanation for how a sphere would act as a spotlight, why it would it light a limited misshapen area, how it would always appear circular or how it retains the same angular diameter & velocity; the law of just does is not an explanation for such. Still waiting on the FE'er evidence for a dome; just gotta be is not evidence. The heat in the bulbs elements reduces when the power is switched off and fewer higher energy photons are released, resulting in red light being favoured. There are 8 billion people on Earth, not one observer. When the sun appears red to you it is a normal light to people elsewhere. It is not the sun changing colour. Your eyelids block most of the light, either reflecting the photons or absorbing the energy as heat. It is not the photons running out of energy. "once you know nature takes on a whole new meaning" A statement that would be a hell of lot more convincing if any of you could provide evidence and plausible mechanism that agrees with observation.
    1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. ​ @mooners40  Train tracks don't appear parallel either; do they meet up in the distance? What determines the length and direction of a stick's shadow if not the position of the sun? How can the FE sun be at multiple heights simultaneously? How can a heat source produce and not produce heat simultaneously? You're the man with the answers so produce them. "did you not grasp ANYTHING from that video ?" Eratosthenes measured the curvature of the Earth c. 300BC; it has been deduced to be a sphere 200 years earlier from the motion of the sun, horizons and the angle to Polaris matching latitude. Still waiting on the FE answers for those. The Coriolis effect is an apparent force, not a fictitious force, as is centrifugal force. It's due to inertia and the tangential velocity changing with latitude, not unexplained. Still waiting on the FE explanations for hurricanes rotating anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Rotation has been demonstrated repeatedly with gyroscopes & pendulums. Still waiting for FE explanations for the phenomena. The Sagnac is explicable by aether and relativity; all other attempts to find aether have failed, e.g., Airy's Failure, Michaelson-Morley & Michaelson-Gale-Pearson experiments. Relativity's existence has been demonstrated repeatedly. Still waiting on the FE explanation for why absence of evidence is proof. Einstein the motion of Earth could not be measured *WITH LIGHT*, not that there was no motion to measure. He was referring to the effect of relativity. The lack of an absolute frame of reference is not evidence that the Earth isn't moving or that it can't be demonstrated to move. The angle of light reaching Arctic & Antartica changes in the degree of obliqueness; with a 23.4 degree axial tilt it is always going to be oblique in the polar regions, never directly facing the sun. Plus/minus 1 million miles of 93 million miles is 1.08% difference; the varying distance to the sun is not a significant effect because 1% it too small a difference to have any substantial effect. Positioning of the continents affects weather patterns. Particularly good example is the Arctic Ocean being water and Antartica being a continent resulting in lower temperatures in Antarctica. You wouldn't bother constructing a globe unless you knew what to put on it otherwise you are left writing "here be dragons" over most of the surface. Most of the exploration & mapping had been done by the 18th century. What Jeranism said is preying on your ignorance & incredulity. It doesn't take much effort or that to question what he tells you.
    1