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

  1. Your parents told you stepping in front of a moving car will get you hurt. What have you done to test rhat?
    9
  2. The first is clearly labelled “skit”. The second is irrelevant to the subject. The third….how many times in how many ways by how many people do the “200 proofs” need to be debunked to satisfy you that they have been debunked?
    9
  3. There's inquisitive and there's denial. There can be plenty of questions but they aren't interested in any meaningful answers.
    7
  4. Observable motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow - still waiting on the FE’er explanations. “Experiments” such as using the wrong maths & ignoring key factors then demanding to know why your answers don’t match reality? The mechanism is based on the observed periodicity of events, not a physical model of the universe.
    7
  5.  @freefreepalestine360  Why not try quoting the Law of Perspective? Why isn’t your atmospheric lensjng affected by atmospheric conditions? How does it work at all?
    7
  6. Be brave - be the first FE’er to explain how density (a ratio with no direction) can act as a force. You all profess to know.
    7
  7. How did NASA influence the ancient Greeks?
    7
  8. Why don’t you try telling us what you think is right and how you conclude that?
    7
  9. Good grief. Air bubbles that move slowly sideways in contradiction to air bubble motion are not air bubbles. Training pools do not magically preclude space travel. One picture, openly stated to be a composite of low orbit shots, had clouds added. Photos aren’t being taken for the benefit of people who deny them anyway but to advance knowledge. What inconsistencies in the globe model?
    7
  10.  @LJ...69.  Because you don’t have a mind?
    7
  11. Motion of the sun, constellations changing with season & latitude, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles, horizons, phases of the moon, lunar eclipses; observations that can be made by anybody and 2500 years on we are still waiting forr FE explanations.
    7
  12. Atmospheric pressure declines with increasing altitude. At what point do you think there is pressure adjacent to a vacuum? Why does it decline at all if you think there is equal air pressure?
    6
  13. A lot of them haven't figured out that we do experiments; "scientists need to test these things" is a refrain Ive heard numerous times. Since their experience of science is sitting in a classroom listening to a teacher they assume we make a career of doing that.
    6
  14. Are you familiar with the concept of shadows?
    6
  15. How would water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself?
    6
  16. Scientific theory: a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meanjng of theory, eg, creation theory. The Big Bang refers to the expansion of the early universe, not how it came to exist. Nobody is claiming it came from nothing.
    6
  17. Why would she not be capable of writing her own notes?
    6
  18. What do you mean by “tested in a lab”? You realise that you can get on an intercontinental flight and step iff in the correct airport? How do you thonk that is achieved without accurate maps?
    6
  19.  @ekulenwaiku4654  Blue Marble was taken from Apollo 17 as it returned from the moon. It was taken from about 18000 miles in a single frame using a Hasselbad camera designed to operate in the brightness of the lunar surface.
    6
  20. How does the sun maintain a constant angular velocity and angular diameter through the course of the day?
    6
  21. Blue Marble (1972) shot in a single frame on analogue film.
    6
  22. We don’t. Polaris can’t be seen by south of the equator, the Southern Cross has limited view north of the equator.
    6
  23. Explain how density (a ratio) acts as a force and why in a consistent direction? Surely your gurus explained it to you?
    6
  24. Nice bundle of ignorance on your part. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles: explain how all those work on a plane.
    6
  25.  @shaunsteele8244  Evidence all around us such as what? The sun rising & setting?
    6
  26. Paranoia rather than logic.
    6
  27. Stellar parallax is observable just not huge. Drop calculation has to take into account elevation & refraction; no problems when they are. Lasers diverge with increasing distance and are susceptible to refraction; no problems when that is taken into account. 15 degrees per hour isn’t movement? In the same way railway lines meet up. Ignoring key factors and not thinking are the staples of FE “experiments”. That is why you get “different” answers.
    6
  28. Why is it always “do the research” and never any of you producing the model you boast that you have? Producing the claimed model would be so much more convincing that telling people to look at half-baked ideas.
    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. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celstial poles - all visible to everyone with no explanation as to how governments can manipulate them. Research grants don't come direct from governments nor do they come with instructions as to what results to arrive at or not look at.
    5
  31.  @freefreepalestine360  Provide the explanations for what I listed earlier.
    5
  32. No, you don't see all the continents. Weather satellites are in geostationary orbit; their orbit time is the same as a sidereal day so they always remain over the same area on Earth. Earth's orbit around the sun leads to measurable stellar parallax. Why would the stars change in size when they are so distant? On a FE where stars are supposedly close such a change would be observable so why isn't it? What do you expect to see at night time on a globe? Which constellations are visible changes through the course of the year, hence the existence of a zodiac. The stars rotate in the course of the night. Different constellations are visible from the Southern Hemisphere. Not when the stars are distant and moving in the same general direction as the solar system. You need to get a better grasp of distance.
    5
  33.  @briancooper2190  What do you think that Dubay has said that holds water? FE’ers keep calling on him as their guru but can’t produce any of the watertight reasoning they claim he has.
    5
  34. That the universe originated from nothing is a common misconception, not a scientific theory. We do have evidence of expansion from a single point (Big Bang) but no knowledge of what initiated that or preceded it. Evolution has abundant evidence from many branches of science. I assume you are looking for evidence of rapid generation to generation change which is not what occurs.
    5
  35.  @dubrulphilippe3815 How does water travel through a crazy straw without bending?
    5
  36.  @beagreen6007  That the sun maintains a constant angular velocity & diameter around the entire world indicates it is a globe. Not difficult to find the answers; not knowing them does not mean they aren’t known. Ignorance is not knowledge.
    5
  37. You’re assuming a very very small planet. The drop from an aircraft is only a few degrees; not something that is readily apparent to the unaided eye. Why would the horizon rise in a FE? Why would there be a horizon at all?
    5
  38. What difference do you think it would have made?
    5
  39.  @scottbaker9337  A set of tapes containing a copy of one video went astray; nothing else. When you can download the relevant documents it ought to be an obvious clue they still exist. 8”/mile^2 was a rule of thumb used by land surveyors. If assumed no elevation and no atmospheric refraction. Difficult as it is for some people understand, when to calculate how your should be able to see them you need to account for all factors. Byrd says nothing of the Earth being flat.
    5
  40. She’s out of date; it’s what you used to claim. The vast bulk of the video concerns your reasoning (or lack thereof) and that hasn’t changed.
    5
  41.  @LJ...69.  I doubt you can earn that much. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow is how the ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere. We’re still waiting for a FE’er to divulge how you think they are compatible with a FE. I din’t doubt you won’t bother trying.
    5
  42. If you have an alternative then you need to provide evidence to support that. Waving a Bible and proclaiming “God did it” is not evidence.
    5
  43. Observe the effect of the relative positioning of Jupiter, moons & sun and formulate a testable hypothesis about the phases of our own moon. Refusing to do so because you “don’t accept the notion” is not logical.
    5
  44. You realise sound bounces off surfaces?
    5
  45.  @williamparisi5901  How do you think NASA influenced the ancient Greeks?
    5
  46. What makes you think rivers ignore gravity?
    5
  47. The truth has been out for millenia. The Earth is fully mapped & measured and in recent decades photographed countless times.
    5
  48. There's multiple factors involved in your argument, not just gravity. Gravitational attraction is proportional to the mass of Earth & object; air has mass and is pulled towards Earth. Since air is denser than the helium the air is pulled more strongly and displaces the helium upwards; that is buoyancy, a property that is dependent on gravity. In the absence of gravity neither air nor helium are gogin to go anywhere. In the absence of an atmosphere the helium balloon would fall to the ground, soemthign that can be observed in a vacuum chamber. No FE'er yet has come up with an explanation as to how they think density (ratio f mass to volume) would act as a force or why objects would move in a consistent direction. If you feel you do know then try explaining. Do not refer me to Dubay; it doesn't explain it either. If you wish to put it down to magnetism then explain why everything would attracted by a magnetic Earth when magnets are observed to be selective.
    5
  49. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude - all verifiable by any Tom, Dick or Harry and all have to be directly accounted for in a model.
    5
  50. Dubay makes dumb claims that appeal to the gullible, not coherent arguments. Upward motion of the FE predates the FES and was pushed by FE’ers. FE’ers have serious difficulty thinking beyond the present. Still waiting on FE’ers to explain how The Establishment influenced the ancient Greeks or manipulates the sun’s motion.
    5
  51. Why does everybody need to be of different opinions? Do we need 8 billion individual answers for 2+2?
    5
  52. Created mid-19th century by Samuel Rowbotham who was on a religious anti-science bender. There’s been some form of Flat Earth Society since then. The recent interest was due to con artists making money from social media algorithms that concentrated on supplying “more of the same”; they could earn revenue from traffic to their pages.
    5
  53. Every day you can watch the sun rise over the horizon, watch it cross the sky maintaining a constant angular diameter and angular velocity, watch it set below the horizon and then you start typing comments about how you see the sun grow & shrink, cross the sky at differing angular velocities and not come within 20 degrees of the horizon.
    5
  54. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles: who do you think is paying them off and how?
    5
  55. Have you considered listening to the answers?
    5
  56. It was deduced by ancient Greeks whose special equipment was eyes and brains. Leviathan was about politics so check the quote. Scientists don’t just give conclusions; we publish methods & data so that our work can be reproduced by others.
    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. So what do you believe exactly?
    5
  59. What’s your technique for identifying CGI?
    5
  60. What does Dubay say that hasn't been debunked countless times?
    5
  61. FE'ers can't agree upon a model and none of you can explain beyond the superficial how you favoured models work. If you have a working model then be novel and produce it. In the meantime don't criticise people for not knowing what none of you have produced.
    5
  62. Try 10 Things All Flatesrthers Say
    5
  63. Atmospheric pressure declines with increasing altitude; at no point is there 1 atm pressure adjacent to 0 atm pressure. Airliners have to be pressurised to enable the passengers to breathe and they don't fly through any solid barrier to reach their cruising altitude. "If they refuse to answer the question then I know they are legit" Why? From the context it's evident what you are asking about. The answer is not a mystery.
    5
  64. Meniscus. Given a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find? Still waiting on any evidence for the Earth being flat.
    5
  65. The trouble is that none of you divulge what the Real Model is so we have to work with FEers do say about FE.
    5
  66. This gets tedious… Selenhelion eclipses occur when (from the observer’s perspective) the sun & moon are on opposite horizons and there is sufficient refraction to apparently elevate each. We don’t, hence the signs of the Zodiac. We do polar constellations the year round because they have inclination greater than the Earth’s tilt. We do possess two celestial poles and visible constellations vary with latitude, both contradictory to FE. A photograph taken from a mountain top of the tip of another mountain projecting above the horizon. FE predicts you could get a picture of the whole mountain from low ground 600-700 miles away. Where are these photos? How much is hidden behind thd horizon (which can’t exist in a FE) is determined by curvature, elevation & atmospheric refraction, not by curvature alone. By the transmitters being set at high elevation. Again, what is hidden behind the horizon is determined by curvature, elevation and atmospheric refraction, not by curvature alone. You’ve been expertly fooled by FE gurus.
    5
  67. Modern vaccines have been used since the 1950’s and the anti mob have yet to produce any evidence of mass death or injury that they claim for every vaccine. Several diseases have come close to eradication thanks to vaccines. Total eradication is difficult; every time it’s close anti-vaccine idiots frantically start panic mongering mass death and sterilisation programmes. Apparently you feel millions of deaths is preferable.
    5
  68. You take into account with navigation. Engineering & building over long distances take it into account. Level =/= flat (open a dictionary). A scientific theory is an evidence-based explanation for a phenomenon, not a hunch the phenomenon exists. Have you considered asking questions rather than making statements?
    5
  69. I take it you didn’t actually watch the video.
    5
  70. How does the sun maintain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day and rise & set without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon?
    5
  71.  @mev680  Obviously the joke went over your head. If nobody knows anything then how do you conclude that your original diatribe is correct?
    5
  72. Cavendish experiment, 1798.
    5
  73. That would be the app that has the sun rising & setting in the wrong direction while FE'ers are also claiming that the sun doesn't rise & set?
    5
  74. Lied to by whom exactly? Who fooled Galileo? What’s your explanation fir the ISS visibly passing overhead on schedule for 20 years?
    5
  75. ​ @hershelpogue1745  "Curiosity pushes me to notice that our sun shouldn't be that close in proximity" What's your reasoning for this being evidence that the sun has close proximity? "Our shadows should only move either left to right, or up, and down" Why? The compass direction to the sun changes with the course of the day as does the sun's inclination. "Their is no solar system chart showing the sun with a pivot that would regularly have the direction of our shadows a circular n, e,s,w angle. Are you assuming the Earth to be cylindrical rather than spherical? "a very big box make sure no light get in" What makes you think the light will not be reflected from the sides of the box? That is the key presumption for your torch in a box experiment.
    5
  76.  @florim7554  The boiling point of a liquid is dependent on the gas pressure, not gravity. Gravity itself is not an irresistible force, just a persistent force, ie, continuously present. If the kinetic energy of the individual molecules is sufficient to separate from the liquids then it will evaporate and form a new atmosphere; gravity is countering the pressure that would otherwise cause complete dispersion of the gas.
    5
  77.  @florim7554  As I said, gravity would be countering the pressure that causes the expansion. With the current atmosphere there is a decline in pressure with increasing altitude; that gradient is in equilibrium with gravity.
    5
  78. ​ @florim7554  Are you being deliberately obtuse? Gravitational attraction occurs between two objects, e.g., Earth & you, which means it has the attraction between two objects has direction; that means if you step off the top of building the attraction and subsequent acceleration is always downwards. Winds are due to local variations in the atmosphere's pressure, mostly caused by variations in thermal energy output from the Earth's surface. The input of energy does not mean or require gravity that has to shut off temporarily since there is no limit on how many factors can contribute to a system simultaneously; no factor you may wish to bring in is going to alter the gravitational attraction between two object, merely alter the net result.
    5
  79.  @florim7554  There are phone apps that will calculate the time the ISS passes overhead at your location; on a clear night it can be seen passing across the sky. With a good telescope the outline can be made out.
    5
  80. That would be the Real Evidence that you all know, all want everybody to hear but that none of you are prepared to divulge? How do two celestial poles work on a FE?
    5
  81. There is more to altitude than simply “ground level” and “high up”. The FE sun wouldn’t rise & set, there wouldn’t be a horizon for it to rise & set behind and it would have a variable angular diameter & velocity through the course of the day. The stars would not vary with season & latitude and there would not be two celestial poles. We’ve been waiting for the FEer explanations for 2500 years; do you wish to divulge them?
    5
  82. Because it exists and can't be ignored. Rowbotham took his observations by lying on the ice in the frozen Canal, ignoring both the existence of refraction and the fact that immediately above the ice surface would have a greater refractive index. Wallace used long poles so his observations were at bridge height (index much lower) and placed the horizon further away (less refractive effect for the distance observed); he was looking to see if the poles were in a direct vertical alignment and they weren't.
    5
  83. By detecting light reflected from a very large object.
    5
  84. How much testing does a vaccine need to go through to qualify as having been tested?
    5
  85. The Earth is a physical object with a measurable shape to it; it has been measured to the cubic metre and is photographed again & again several times an hour. What do you think can be reinterpreted?
    5
  86. She’s out of date, not lying; the FE accelerating upwards was the favoured explanation until recently.
    5
  87.  @mikaelw4758  Yet none of you can explain how density makes anything move at all, much less in a consistent direction. None of you can explain why you think a bird and an ocean have the same mass or why wings have nothing to do with flight. The ancient cultures assumed the Earth to be flat; they did nothing to demonstrate it. Dubay has explained zilch; try giving me his explanation for how density can act as a force or why birds & oceans have the same mass. The Earth accelerating upwards came from Rowbotham in the 19th century.
    5
  88. The atmosphere moves with the Earth; how difficult is that to comprehend?
    5
  89. Achievable with small variations in elevation and dependent on which floor your window is on.
    5
  90. Until recently upwards acceleration was the favoured explanation. That has been displaced by density being a force or (in your claim) spontaneous motion but we are still waiting on FE’ers to provide explanations for how either could work.
    5
  91. They assumed the Earth to be flat; they did nothing to determine that it was. The ancient Greeks deduced the shape from horizons, motion of the sun and the stars changing in position with latitude. Still waiting on plausible FE explanations.
    5
  92. Motion of the sun, horizons and the angle to stars changing with latitude is how the ancient Greeks figured it out. The first you can do with a vertical stick in the back garden, marking off a 15 degree per hour change in angle in the direction of the shadow. It will take some travel but the same stick & shadow in multiple distant locations can be used to demonstrate & measure curvature. With travel between hemispheres you can also observe two celestial poles.
    5
  93. Prof Dave goes through point by point explaining why they are wrong and how we know the correct answers. There are plenty others who do stick with ridicule. Sabine is discussing where FE’er reasoning processes are erroneous, not tackling their claims.
    5
  94. There’s a difference between questioning and denying.
    5
  95. What deeper & more compelling arguments? “So-called science” is responsible for yiu bring able to communicate on here. We repeatedly check & recheck facts with multiple methods, taking into account every factor, concentrating on disproving what is wrong. FE is readily disprovable so what are your compelling arguments?
    5
  96.  @jordanemede  "nobody knows that for sure." Why haven't any of you tried measuring the distance with trigonometry? "We can certainly see WAY too far" Only when you use the wrong maths and ignore elevation & atmospheric refraction to estimate a horizon that is much closer in actuality. Calculate it correctly and lo & behold, the observable horizon is in the right place. We are still waiting on a FE'er to zoom a "half-sunk" ship back into full view or, better still, zoom the set sun back into view. Do you want to try? You realise David Weiss is a conman?
    5
  97.  @jordanemede  Ignoring elevation is not evidence of a FE either but it doesn't stop any of you. If you don't know the shape then why are you plugging David' Weiss's channel and his app? Still waiting on these measurements proving it is flat. Kansas is lacking variation in elevation, not curvature, but FE'ers are generally so obsessed with starting from a horizontal line you're incapable of understanding the difference. Laser gyroscopes demonstrate rotation, stellar parallax demonstrates orbit. Still waiting on the FE'er explanations for them and I can bet you wont provide explanations either. It seems no matter how many times it is explained to FE'ers you just can't comprehend that measurements over water means refraction distorts the light. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses - all indicative of a globe, contradictory to a FE and none explained by FE'ers. I've sure you'll wave your hand and declare the answers known but you too will fail to say what they are.
    5
  98.  @RickarooCarew  You're posting on a public forum not sending a private communication; anybody can chime in.
    5
  99. It’s more in the interest of people looking down the rabbit hole than trying to persuade those living in them.
    5
  100. How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself? Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with increasing altitude if it remains constant?
    5
  101.  @johnpfeiffer4978  That water is inanimate and moves only when force is applied to it is scientific fact. That gas pressure would equalise throughout a container in the absence of ither factors is a scientific fact. You’re the one denying scientifc facts.
    5
  102. Explain how single-frame shots taken on an analogue camera decades before CGI existed are CGI. If you can’t then consider the possibility that they aren’t CGI.
    5
  103. Somehow I doubt you’ll be open to being corrected but ask your questions. Do note that “demolishing the globe” is not evidence that the Earth is flat or even that a FE model exists.
    5
  104. How many times in how many ways by how many people do they need to be debunked for you to consider the possibility that they have been debunked?
    5
  105. It’s a testament to human gullibility.
    4
  106. Because the video is about FE’er thought processes (or lack thereof).
    4
  107.  @kaptainkrampus  The accuracy of methodology increases with time. As a result the earliest measurements can vary because of the degree of error in the contemporary methodology. Run “The Relativity of Wrong” by Isaac Asimov, available online.
    4
  108. A year rather than a week and the video was a critique of FE’er methodology rather any of the models.
    4
  109. All of them. One degree curvature per 69 miles, not per 69 feet.
    4
  110. The modern idea was due to Samuel Rowbotham who went on a religious anti-scientific bender in the 19th century.
    4
  111. It’s what preceded density. Still waiting on their explanations how a difference in density would make anything move and why on a consistent direction.
    4
  112. 2 is due to Earth’s tilted axis rather than an elliptical orbit.
    4
  113. Depends which one of them you ask. They are agreed on only two details: it’s flat and that they are agreed on the details.
    4
  114.  @timmack2415  The only detail they actually agree on is that it is flat. All other details seem entirely idiosyncratic but they all seem quite convinced they are espousing the universally agreed upon FE model.
    4
  115. How do They manipulate the stars? Why can none of the people who’ve figured actually say how it is done?
    4
  116.  @billnyethesciencedenier1516  Noting a periodicity to eclipses is not using a FE model to predict eclipses. How exactly do you think anybody can predict anything ffom a FE model that none of you can produce? Air pressure decreases with increasing altitude. Where do you envisage 1atm pressure adjacent to 0atm?
    4
  117. Your screen is flat.
    4
  118.  @elmanuboy  We passed that point a long time ago so evidently "just once" is not sufficient for FEer's. How many times in how many ways by how many people does gravity need to be demonstrated to satisfy you that gravity has been demonstrated?
    4
  119.  @elmanuboy  Cavendish experiment, 1791, reproduced countless times since with similar results. Two centuries on we are still waiting for the FE’ers explanation for the attraction.
    4
  120.  @sofiahaga32  All circles are round be it a 2D shape or around a 3D shape. The word round is not specific to 2D; we distinguish from context.
    4
  121. What measurements did you take?
    4
  122. FE has been around since the mid-19th century. "They need a way to ward off the truth seekers" Why don't "truth seekers" accept readily verifiable facts?
    4
  123. What did they do to compensate for the refraction?
    4
  124. Eratosthenes was trying to measure the size of the globe not prove it was round; that was accepted by then. His exact experiment (two sticks) wouldn’t distinguish between the two but reproducing it with three or more sticks does.
    4
  125.  @servusdei3923  Which bit do you think is incorrect and why?
    4
  126. You still haven’t explained how colliding air molecules are going to apply force to a firework rocket.
    4
  127. Why do you think it impossible for somebody to write their own script?
    4
  128.  @efgtest  If you’re not here for a conversation or a discussion then why are you here at all? FE’ers tell me they have a model and explanations that are consistent with observable reality. As a scientist I want to hear them. Designed by the ancient Greeks to measure the angle of stars, confirming what they had deduced three centuries earlier. No doubt you are saying the measurements ate consistent with a FE but will decline to explain the inconsistency with FE predictions.
    4
  129. What’s your technique fir identifying? How was CGI used to create photos on film decades before CGI existed? Horizons, motion of the sun, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles, phases of the moon, lunar eclipses - that’s how the ancient Greeks deduced it 2500 years ago from observation and thought. We are still waiting on FE’ers to produce their explanations; do you want to try?
    4
  130. What is your definition of troll?
    4
  131.  @SuperMoshady  "so gas goes up, not down?" Both; read what I wrote and think. "so gravity is too weak to hold the gas down then, right?" Gravity hold sit down just fine; it just isn't the only force acting on the hot air. If dogs can get into the cave to be gassed then it does follow that the cave is not sealed. Why does the gas remain inside? "not all mass is affected by gravity. Helium balloons have mass and go up" Multiple forces can act simultaneously. "the stuff I just explained blatantly contradicts it." No, you just can't understand that multiple forces can act simultaneously. "The only way for gas particleS to change direction is with a collision" Gas has mass and gravity acts on mass; gravity thus acts on gas. "if multiple forces are acting on it, and 1 of those forces is supposedly gravity, it seems gravity is not strong enough to keep gas down, since it goes up" So? There is no requirement for gravity to be the strongest force at any given time or for it to be an irresistible force.
    4
  132. Upside down relative to what?
    4
  133. You claim to be an engineer with bugger all grasp of physics and you’re accusing other people of being charlatans?
    4
  134.  @scottbaker9337  NASA have never admitted they didn’t go. Byrd explicitly referred to the majority of Antarctica as (then) unexplored. Nowhere in the Treaty does it forbid independent travel. Try zooming the set sun back into view. Why do the chumps who run around telling people to question what they’re never think to question what their gurus tell them?
    4
  135.  @scottbaker9337  They “lost” the technology not because they mislaid the documents you can download if you wish it because development of lunar craft ceased in 1973 and this is 2021. Technology has not stood still because Apollo was cancelled. It has continued to advance. What worked in 1973 is not going to be compatible with 2021 technology. I don’t understand why some people find that difficult to comprehend. Much of the equipment was also built by outside contractors. They haven’t maintained workshops just in case; they moved into new business. They haven’t bothered keeping 50 year old records just in case someone wants 50 year old technology. The people familiar with 50 year technology are dead & retired. Clear? You’re misquoting. It referred to unusual ideas in science that turned out to be true, eg, doctors washing their hands before surgery and stomach-based parasites.
    4
  136. Then prove it. Explain the observed motion of the sun, horizons, two celestial poles, the angle to Polaris matching latitude, visible constellations changing with latitude, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses and everybody seeing the same face & phase of the moon.
    4
  137. What do you think isn’t working and why?
    4
  138. "shouldn’t be too tall a task, right?" Wrong; you wholly underestimate the difference in brightness, the limited range of light intensities a camera can handle and the distances separating the objects. Why do you think the absence of threesome photo calls doubt on the solar system?
    4
  139.  @KangenAlec  If it's not complicated then why can't you explain anything?
    4
  140. Why can’t any of you state exactly you do believe? Until then we can only work with what you do claim; don’t complain.
    4
  141.  @davebten1  Sabine is presenting a one-off critique of FE’er methodology rather than specifically making a case for the globe. If she continually and seemingly endlessly had to repeat herself in the simplest terms then she too would likely become snarky. I would note that when the world has been fully mapped & measured and is continually being photographed from every angle it is not hypothetical that it is a globe.
    4
  142.  @aLuplife2023  I’ll take that as a no.
    4
  143. You think songs by a singing nutter are the pinnacle of human knowledge?
    4
  144. What was “obviously faked” about the black hole photo? The science you see & hear in the media is a highly distilled bottom line, greatly simplified & generalised. Some subjects may impinge on politics but science is not politics driven.
    4
  145.  @___Anakin.Skywalker Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles, lunar phases & eclipses - all observable by anybody wanting to look. Flabbergasting as it will be to you, it is possible to determine something without directly observing it.
    4
  146. You realise that rethinking inherently requires thinking?
    4
  147.  @Jan-zm2yv  Motion of the sun, horizons, constellations changing with latitude and season, two celestial poles, lunar eclipses….. Still waiting on FE’er explanations.
    4
  148. "how can we see the sun and the moon on the top of our heads in every single county on the ball earth" We don't. Only in equatorial regions does the sun appear overhead; for everyone else how high the sun rises in the sky is dependent on their latitude.
    4
  149. You’re a glutton for punishment. Your claim doesn’t even match what is in the video.
    4
  150. And yet somehow people know when & where to travel to witness solar eclipses. How do you think that is managed without accurate predictions? "I wonder, what evidence would that be" Motion of the sun, horizons, angles to Polaris, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude, lunar eclipses - still waiting on working FE explanations. If you think you have them then produce them.
    4
  151. Her point being that you can predict with reasonable certainty that the tin contains soup and that the soup won't have toxins.
    4
  152. Go to Apollohoax dot net website; the folks there can run you through every detail you want.
    4
  153. What experiments have data “selectively introduced”? FE’ers don’t check anything and they certainly don’t think; they’re gullible idiots who believe anything they’re told simply because it is “different”.
    4
  154. Have you ever considered the feasibility of carrying out any task if everything you say & hear is a lie?
    4
  155. The trouble being we’re in a world where “different=true” is appealing to people. If uncorrected thrn the willful ignorance grows. Do bear in mind that Earth being a sphere is so long accepted that most people don’t know how it was deduced in the first place. This video concerns the thought processes in FE minds rather than demonstrating the shape of the Earth.
    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.  @pantheraleoromanus6241  That’s your only reply to what has been said?
    4
  158. I asked you twice before and you have yet to answer: what did you do to check that well separated plumb lines are parallel?
    4
  159. When every other planet in the solar system is spherical, most have moons that orbit them in a set fashion and (from the surface of the planet) the sun & moons observe the sand behaviour as the sun & moon on Earth then it is a pretty good hypothesis that Earth works the same way.
    4
  160.  @aremissomar459  How does the sun maintain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day? How does pass the limit if our visual acuity while retaining a 0.5 degree angular diameter?
    4
  161.  @hotbobbysauce950  I doubt it but he is professing to both have it and used it; if so then surely it can’t be difficult for him to demonstrate. (Granted, it would be a first…)
    4
  162. You’ve made the logical jump from the possibility of something being a lie meaning everything is a lie. Explain why committing a fact to paper would turn it into a lie. How does anybody dictate maths? Why isnt anything verifiable?
    4
  163. Not really; Rowbotham lay on the ice with his telescope because he knew it would maximize refraction.
    4
  164. There is a small decline as you move from pole to the equator that indicates the increasing centrifugal force countering the gravity.
    4
  165. Still denying the third law of motion then?
    4
  166.  @yingyang1008  Motion of the sun, horizons, angles to Polaris, two celestial poles, accurate maps....
    4
  167. "(7.98 inches per mile) as NASA says it is" They don't say that. That was a rule of thumb used by 19th century land surveyors to correct for geometric drop, not curvature. It does not calculate how far you can see; FE'ers use it for that purpose because it is the wrong equation. The distance to the horizon is determined by curvature, elevation & atmospheric refraction. Even if you wish to go to your grave denying refraction is possible, you still need to account for elevation, which none of you can be arsed to do, mostly because you can't be arsed to ask yourselves why you can see further at a higher elevation. You just post "This Needs To Be Explained!!!" comments like yours.
    4
  168. You can see the ISS passing overhead at a constant angular velocity and following a predictable path; with a good telescope you can see the outline as it does so. How do you think it could be faked exactly?
    4
  169. In what way is refusing to accept evidence scientific?
    4
  170.  @GrahamA63 Youve been asked multiple times for location & details; why not provide them?
    4
  171.  @motorizedbicyclenation53cu90  Your eyes are passive receptors; they detect whatever light reaches them regardless of how far it has travelled. There is no maximum distance you can see.
    4
  172. Still waiting jn the FE explanation for how density can be force and why in a particular direction. Do yuh want to enlighten people? The FE accelerating upwards immediately preceded the “density just gotta be a force” claim.
    4
  173. Foucault pendulum & laser gyroscopes prove rotation, stellar parallax proves orbit. “One rotation per day should make me dizzy” is not evidence; it is your stupidity.
    4
  174. "Their is no empirical proof of a spinning globe." Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, accurate worlds maps all indicate a globe, gyroscopes indicate the world is spinning, stellar parallax that it is moving. Simply denying the photographic evidence doesn't work. "water when a rest maintains it's own level" How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself? What's the empirical evidence you have for that? "Most of the Earth is water." 70% of the surface is covered by water, not the majority of Earth being water. "so is the land that it is contact with", "A level surface has no slope or elevation change" Hills & valleys don't exist?
    4
  175.  @sqribe  Has it occurred to you that there are no short & clear, yes or no, black or white answers? It’s not eggs good or eggs bad; it’s a matter if who is eating them, the pre-existing state of their health and how much they are eating. Pre-publication papers are frequently found in readily accessible sites; many journals allow free access to published papers after a set period.
    4
  176.  @ekulenwaiku4654  That Blue Marble 2 is a composite, not Blue Marble. BM & BM2 are two different pictures, the former taken in 1972 in one frame, the latter a composite assembled from low orbit shots in 2012. That BM2 is a composite does not magically prevent today's satellites from taking single frame shots from high orbit, e.g., Himawari-8. Elektro-L & EPIC. BM2 was composed of the unclouded parts of low orbit shots and realistic clouds added subsequently. "A Hasselblad Electric Camera (HEC) with a Zeiss Planar 80mm ƒ/2,8 lens was used to shoot from inside the Eagle lunar module." I can't find any info on the shutter speed but it would be short, not long. "blast/vibration of the supposed lunar module" What blast or vibration? The CM was running on momentum at that point. Traceable signal to, on & from the moon, detectable equipment left there and verifiable material brought back. It was the height of the COld War; if the Russians had any evidence the US was faking it would have been a propaganda coup for them. "even NASA have hidden all the records and telemetry data" Available online from NASA.
    4
  177. "Nobody knows the shape of the earth." You can measure it and triangulate the distance to the sun with as little as sticks & shadows. What measurements did you take to determine the sun & moon were small & close? Do you have an explanation for why the sun doesn't move as predicted by the FE?
    4
  178. Name some of these scientists.
    4
  179. Do you know what the markings on a ruler are for?
    4
  180. Explain how you conclude the pictures of Earth are fake. Provide details, not “I can tell”.
    4
  181. Do you exist or have you just been fooled into thinking you exist?
    4
  182. Their “proof” for the Earth not rotating orbiting is that they can’t feel the motion; water & Earth “can’t curve” because they don’t see the curvature you would expect from a few miles circumference; the sun “must be close” because they can see it. They rely on their senses and repeatedly insist that they believe in anything they can’t see.
    4
  183. Another one who can’t grasp scale. Given a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to observe?
    4
  184.  @MrSirhcsellor  He perceives gravity as an irresistible force despite people telling him otherwise. Be careful using the term fluid; he reads it as people saying liquid & gas are the same state of matter.
    4
  185. How does an equation be with one variable take multiple variables into account?
    4
  186. “controlled opposition website” What makes you think people can’t poke at FE’ers of their own volition? You can see the ISS passing overhead. Explain how that is achieved if space isn’t real.
    4
  187.  @stolearovigor281  You're not the master of deduction, are you? Nobody's comments are visible to everybody at present but every comment is visible to somebody and the comment/reply counter does not match how many each of us can see then the system is screwed, not comments being deleted. Comments can be deleted but since they cease to exist they aren't included in the comment/reply count; there is nothing there to include. "I spoke a lot of truth in the last 3 years" Which probably means other people flagged you as spewing misinformation.
    4
  188. "If we lived on a globe, you should only be able to see a distance of 6 miles" Have you noticed that when you are higher you can see further? It's called elevation and it has to be accounted for when calculating how far you can see. "curvature radius of only 2500 miles" 3900 miles. "You can't prove a globe" Motion of the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with altitude, two celestial poles - still waiting on the FE explanations. "the sun is not a fire ball" The sun is powered by fusion, not combustion. "the moon gives it's own light" Evidence? "does not rotate" The rotational period is the same as the orbital period, hence the same face pointed towards us. We all see the same face regardless of where on Earth we are; still waiting for the FE'er explanation for that too. "All the make believe planets rotate," Have you heard of telescopes? "We don't know what it is" You may not know but you're lagging 2500 years behind everybody else.
    4
  189.  @rogerdubarry8505  "Not what I said." None of you ever do say; that's the point.
    4
  190. We answer every question they ask over and over and over and over….. The shape of the Earth was deduced by the ancient Greeks from the motion of the sun, horizons and angle to Polaris matching latitude. Those with two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude can be verified by anyone. There is no necessity to directly view the whole Earth from space.
    4
  191. Pulled by their makers or have less publicity after the search algorithms were tweaked.
    4
  192. Since you all contradict each other on every detail except “it’s flat” who can know what each FE’er is going to claim?
    4
  193.  @yestervue4697  The moon phases are not caused by the Earth's shadow; it's how much of the sunlit side of the moon is visible from Earth as the moon orbits Earth. The Earth's shadow is what causes lunar eclipses; we're still waiting on the FE explanation for how that can occur. Do you want to try?
    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.  @RobbiePNoCap  Oddly enough, when you find the same curve all the way around an object then it can only be a sphere. Why do you expect to find the same rate of curvature on a 25,000 mile circumference as you would in a 25 mile circumference?
    4
  196. “I don’t see how…” is not an argument for science having holes, just your knowledge & understanding.
    4
  197. How does density act as a force and why in a consistent direction?
    4
  198. Your comment is contradictory.
    4
  199. It was common until fairly recently.
    4
  200. Some of the FE enthusiasts launched channels several years back; the way YT algorithms were set once you watched one then YT would automatically suggest you watch more, with the result the gullible were buying into it and bombarding factual videos with The Truth. Debunking videos were necessary and YT eventually altered the algorithms to disfavour misinformation. Consequently if you ask for FE videos YT will supply you with a selection of debunking ones. This video deals with their poor reasoning process rather than debunking per se.
    4
  201. How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself?
    4
  202.  @JohnChilders-x9t  That’s what water would need to do to level itself. How does it manage them? Have big a container did you use to check for 0.0144 degrees/mile curvature?
    4
  203.  @justinsaunders3932  How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself? How exactly does an equation for a parabola match a circle? Why would you need a container to separate 0 atm pressure from 0 atm pressure? How far does the horizon need to drop to qualify as having dropped?
    4
  204. How many times by how many people in how many places does a virus need to be isolated to qualify as having been isolated?
    4
  205. If there is no gravitational attraction then why would increasing an object’s mass increase its attraction?
    4
  206.  @HaileAozfie  So why would that stop you taking a photo of it?
    4
  207. The atmosphere ritates with the Earth Correction for the Coriolis effect is gradually done over the journey as the plane continuslky compensates for weather conditions. Still waiting on any if you how you instantly identify CGI. By ejecting the heat shield.
    4
  208. As in a pedal dynamo or are you wanting to be effortless? Some cancers, yes. Abundant (no it was not lost or erased). Coronaviruses are a family of viruses and they exist naturally. The suffix means “study of”.
    4
  209. We’re talking about the shape of a physical object, not explanations for how something works.
    4
  210. Dubay has been repeatedly debunked; how many times in how many ways does he need to be demonstrated wrong? Criticising methods and reasoning is not an ad hominem. That is impugning somebody’s character rather than addressing the argument.
    4
  211.  @edwardchege2623  8”/mile^2 doesn’t calculate how far you can see and the shit was taken from the top of mountain, the subject being the top of another mountain projecting above the horizon. When curvature, elevation & atmospheric refraction are all accounted for it works. You should be able to see several times that distance on a FE; where are those photos?
    4
  212.  @edwardchege2623  You need to read the whole sentence in the NASA paper you referred to; it is quite specific why they ignored various factors, including flexibility in the airframe and fuel consumption.
    4
  213. Regardless of how intelligent each of us may be, we are capable of doing stupid things. The level of denial required for belief in FE as well as the marked double standards for what qualifies as evidence is rightfully referred to as stupid.
    4
  214.  @ultimateclotiluver  It isn't stupid to ask how we know the Earth is a globe; having been told how and had it explained to them how they can test it for themselves, the refusal to accept evidence and insist that observable reality is wrong is stupid. It doesn't how well you know them or how much you like them, it is still stupid.
    4
  215.  @1WWJD  Elevation is the variation above or below sea level. Curvature is the change in angle of perpendicular. You’re confusing the two.
    4
  216. Which one are you talking about?
    4
  217.  @tnaplastic2182  You need to explain all that to your fellow FE’ers since they assume the photons run out of energy and stop.
    4
  218.  @kipthecourtjester  "It’s perspective" Yet the sun maintains a constant angular diameter when perspective & FE would mean a markedly variable one. How does that work? (I've done the research, so don't try that approach.)
    4
  219.  @kipthecourtjester  "I don’t need to answer his elementary questions" I've done the research; no FE'ers provide an answer. You all claim to have the knowledge and understanding to do so but all of you decline to answer. My observation is that I would have to resort chair, rope & thumbscrews to get an answer out of a FE'er.
    4
  220.  @kipthecourtjester  "This isn’t a Q and A" I'm doing the research you want me to: I'm asking the people who profess to have the answers. Why can't any of you answer?
    4
  221.  @kipthecourtjester  "I did answer" You declined to answer. "Prove to me you are sincere" I don't waste time asking questions I don't want answers to. "Go listen to Weir or Dubay" I have; they don't explain. None of the gurus do. "I’ve converted dozens to an understanding of the plane" By avoiding explaining how it could work?
    4
  222. It’s more that they have double standards in deciding on the validity of evidence. If it goes against their beliefs then it is automatically wrong while if it supports it then it must be correct regardless of who did it, how screwy their methods were or how obviously it differs from observable reality. It could be called Jusgotterby’s Razor 😊
    4
  223. There would be no horizons on a hollow Earth and the sun would be perpetually visible.
    4
  224. I do note that many FE'ers have difficulty conceiving there can be more than one observer in the world and certainly have problems with the concept that someone can know & understand something they don't. Also their brains can't seem to progress beyond more than one variable at a time; ask them to deal with two or more simultaneously and they start squealing.
    4
  225.  @cabbagefart7432  You need to provide an example of something being visible at 50 miles when standing on the beach. If you’re going to claim a particular photo from Hawaii then looking down on the beach does not qualify as being on the beach. While standing on the beach (your feet in the surf) objects will start to disappear at approximately 3 miles. That is what is observed. If you think you can see something different then you need to provide evidence to back that, not prattle about how enlightened you are. 360 degrees divided by 25,000 miles gives 0.0144 degrees/mile. Hiw many degrees curvature per mile are you expecting to see? On a FE you should be able to see several hundred miles. Provide evidence that you can.
    4
  226. “They found other evidence that they believe more” That would be the Real Evidence that they claim they want us to see but that they refuse to divulge?
    4
  227.  @TheCollages Try flying directly from Perth to Santiago on a FE map.
    4
  228. What’s your technique for identifying CGI? All FE’ers claim to have a faultless technique but none of you can ever describe it. Unless you have criteria to work to how can you distinguish between real and CGI? Blue Marble was shot in 1972, long per-dating CGI. Movement of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles and accurate mapping if the surface all indicate the Earth is spheroid. If you think otherwise then you need plausible explanations for all those factors. The body is insensitive to motion; we are sensitive to acceleration and infer motion from the acceleration and changes in environment.
    4
  229. It’s explained to Don Quixote in the first few OPs and his replies are “deny, deny, deny”. Like most FEers he is visualising curvature as a hill on a horizontal baseline, the projectile having to be fired over it. He doesn’t understand that at the speeds discussed you don’t need a pronounced arc and assumes perfectly level. He’s ignoring the effect of gravity. He assumes Coriolis force could not be accounted first in the calculations prior to firing. He doesn’t understand that guided doesn’t mean the target has to be in sight of the gun.
    4
  230. The aim being to get ever closer to the truth. You can eliminate what is impossible by disproving what is wrong. The notion that the Earth is flat was disproved at the beginning.
    4
  231.  @chrisskully1228  It does. What is difficult for sime people to grasp is: A. Gravity is not an irresistible force. B. More than one force can act simultaneously.
    4
  232.  @chrisskully1228  You aren’t going to answer my questions?
    4
  233.  @shaunsteele8244  Motion if the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow. Explain how you think those are compatible with a FE when you predict otherwise.
    4
  234. Has it occurred to you that the documentary is a scam?
    4
  235. 1. A constantly accelerating FE was the model until recently, having displaced the constant velocity Earth and in turn being displaced by the “just does” model. 2. “That isn’t the correct model” is a routine reply from FE’ers but none are willing to produce this Real Model so we are obliged to work with what they verbally claim. If you possess this Real Model then kindly produce it.
    4
  236. None.
    4
  237. How does light illuminate the surroundings without travelling away from the source?
    4
  238. Because the preventative medicine (vaccine) did not precede COVID-19; you can’t make a vaccine against a virus that doesn’t yet exist. Supermarkets are not the one and only source of illness. FE’ers have no concept of how wrong they are.
    4
  239.  @jordanemede  They emergency landings make perfect sense on a globe; FE'ers have problems understanding that direct paths on a globe do not translate to straight lines on a projection. Meanwhile there are direct flights between southern continents that would be beyond the planes' operational capacities on a FE and never an explanation from the FE'ers who claim to have it figured. You mean the Gleason azimuthal projection that is hailed as the working FE map and not when the errors are pointed out to you? The UN flag displays the member countries. Do you really think an organisation committed to hiding a FE would put a FE logo on their flag? Byrd said that the then unexplored area of Antarctica was similar in size to the US. He was very explicit but apparently not explicit enough for FE'ers. Still waiting on FE'ers to identify these pilots. How difficult is it if there are tonnes of them? "they treat it as flat and stationary in the military as well" You mean when they take into account curvature & Coriolis effect for long range shots? Or are you referring to documents about aerodynamics that explicitly simplify the flight maths to airflow?
    4
  240.  @danncorbit3623  Don’t confuse scientific theories and hypotheses.
    4
  241. 1. It’s the old FE explanation for why objects fall. Replaced by “density is a force but not a force” and that in turn by “things want to move down”. 2. They noted the periodicity of such events and could calculate when the next event would probably occur. They had no means to actually predict with certainty or know where would be affected. 3. Your senses can’t detect radio waves. Does WiFi exist? 4. Refraction & elevation, things the that Thinkers ignore. Why is theFE’ers asking questions never consider how far they would be able to see and why?
    4
  242. Why not produce the Real Proofs?
    4
  243. Traceable signal to, on and from the moon, detectable equipment left there and verifiable material brought back.
    4
  244. ​ @jamesi2018  Moon rocks have been distributed to geologists around the world; nobody has found a fake moon rock. A personal gift from the then US Ambassador to a former Dutch Prime Minister was petrified wood. Both Dutch Goodwill moon rocks a reconfirmed genuine. One set of tapes containing one copy of one video went astray. No videos were wiped. Copies exist around the world. How can a robot place a reflector on the moon without landing on the moon? How can a robot bring rocks back without leaving the moon? "dont blow smoke up my arse" The people feeding you half-facts aren't blowing smoke up your arse? Not questioning what they tell you is "thinking for yourself"?
    4
  245.  @jamesi2018  You think NASA ran Radio Moscow?
    4
  246. Disagreeing with consensus does not make you right or your work superior or uncorrupted.
    4
  247. Scientific papers lay out the methods, data & conclusion; try faking data and it will become apparent. The public receive a very distilled view of a huge amount of work that can be reported by people wanting to out their own interpretation on it.
    4
  248. The sun has about a 1000 times the mass of Jupiter; they are not comparable in size. The sheer mass of the sun is why it has priority. You realise that we can measure the distance to the other planets? That the closest Venus comes to Earth is 42 million km, over a 1000 times further away than geocentric orbit? Do you have a problem understanding scale? "the ocean trickles down the side to the abyss of space" And somehow falls into space without leaving the planet? You do realise it is possible to travel all around the world?
    4
  249. A disc accelerating upwards was the popular model until recently. Explain how density (the ratio of mass to volume) could act as a force and why in a consistent direction.
    4
  250. There’s asking questions and there’s being prepared to acknowledge the answers.
    4
  251.  @therealzilch  Ramen noodles too - obviously NASA has their fingers in it...
    4
  252. 80hrs of deep maths per week and you can’t figure 360/25000?
    4
  253. Sigh. It was the accepted idea until recently. Why don’t you produce the real FE model si we can be accurate? We keep asking the people who say they have it but nothing is ever forthcoming.
    4
  254. If you don’t debunk them then there are less knowledgable folks who can be persuaded there is validity in the various claims. A frequent comment is that think there are unanswered questions or that the globe is an assumption. Some FE’ers are pot stirrers, some have leapt down the rabbithole.
    4
  255. Have you considered looking up how the distance was measured?
    4
  256. They used to; it was replaced with “density is a force” once it was realised thd FE would approach light speed within a year.
    4
  257. Your eyes are not going to be aware of a few degrees difference; actually measuring it demonstrated the fall. Nobody has zoomed the set sun back into view. Plenty of people have fallen for the straw man argument of horizon & visual acuity being the same thing.
    4
  258. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles; requires measurement and observation.
    4
  259.  @blitzlegga  The problem is modern electronics where chips use circuitry a few atoms wide; one particle can damage the circuitry, there is only so much redundancy and everything is controlled by electronics. With Apollo the problem was minimising the dosage received by the astronauts; they could withstand a far higher exposure than circuitry. Technology as a whole has moved on since the 1960’s & 70’s; there is no moon technology that existed in isolation to everything else. Every bit of technology involved in Apollo has progressed 50 years; while the blueprints for Apollo craft exist we would have to regress 50 years to build one. We did not forget how or lose technology; it was necessary to develop modern craft with modern technology for modern purposes. Principal reason for the Apollo missions was one up manship on the Russians during the Cold War; science came second. Once the political will went, so did the necessary budget. More could be done for less with unmanned craft.
    4
  260. Theory has a different meaning in science from the vernacular. What evidence do you think you have? FE’ers keep saying they have it but only ever come up with “just gotta be” and “I don’t see how”.
    4
  261. They can be turned around but the cameras are for long distance exposure of faint objects and the satellites are in low orbit; you would get an unfocussed, over-exposed shot of a small area.
    4
  262. How does density act as a force and why in a consistent direction? Why does the great guru Dubay never explain?
    4
  263.  @Vkarlsen  I did answer; I pointed out that arguing something doesn't exist on the grounds we don't fully understand the cause is not a valid argument. The attraction exists, all alternative explanations have been eliminated and the measured attraction is consistent with mass & distance being the variables. If you think it is something else then you need to say what and why.
    4
  264.  @opxchaos5757  "look up eric dubay" Not his videos are not very good. It doesn't take much intelligence to see the logical fallacies. People keep telling me that he explains how density makes things fall but he doesn't; he just waves a hand and says "it's caused by density" and a lot of gullible prats thinks that explains the mechanism.
    3
  265.  @kylefillingim9658  Principle reason being that nobody can find any trace of electrical current & magnetism of sufficient magnitude. If you want to claim that the observed red shift is caused by other factors then you do need to explain how that would be a plausible alternative. You can't dismiss something out of hand on the basis of "“something else just gotta be causing it”; you need to specify what the "something else" is and you think how it could work. If not then you aren't thinking, just presuming arbitrary dismissal makes you a Thinker.
    3
  266. "Why do all the photos need computer graphic modifications..." They don't and they aren't. "no video footages of the globe from space" DishTV ran a live camera on Earth channel for a few years. There are cameras on the SpaceX launches. There are cameras mounted on the ISS. WHat constitutes "video footage" to you? Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris and two celestial poles, all of which you can verify for yourself.
    3
  267. Pretty indicative that FE is an American obsession.
    3
  268.  @therealzilch  Damn! You’ve rumbled the Sun. 😊
    3
  269.  @Ninja1998-f3b  On that FE model (there is more than one) the sun wouldn’t come within 20 degrees of the horizon and never appear less than a quarter its size. Still waiting on FE’er explanations for EVERY aspect of that FE sun.
    3
  270.  @Ninja1998-f3b  Why would the FE sun only shone in a restricted direction? Why always appear circular?
    3
  271.  @Ninja1998-f3b  Rather the problem; you haven't thought any of it through, just made airy statements thinking that you are educating people.
    3
  272.  @thomscott8678  Why have none of you tried triangulating the position of the FE sun if it’s so easy?
    3
  273.  @thomscott8678  How does the FE sun act like a torch? Where’s the conical reflector? Why always circular and never oval?
    3
  274. Infinite is a lot larger than you are envisaging, ie, it’s more mass than exists in the entire universe. You need to come up with an explanation why we can only see one sun and why curvature is readily detectable if it is absent.
    3
  275.  @tatonemio6388  I think he means a schism between relativity and quantum physics.
    3
  276. “I don’t see how” or “There’s just gotta be a conspiracy”?
    3
  277. Ask questions but be prepared to accept the answers.
    3
  278. Big polar bears blocking the view.
    3
  279. A very long chunter. You over-looked the distance to the sun and failed to explain why an inclination of the rotational axis towards the sun would have no effect. Try doing it.
    3
  280. You mean FE’ers who can’t explain anything and who get shirty when we don’t believe you have explanations?
    3
  281.  @ronpapi9539  "Ask this Pilot why it takes the same time..." Once agin, conservation of momentum.
    3
  282.  @ronpapi9539  "the speed of the bullet diminishes at a certain distance caused by momentum" Air resistance leads to a decrease in momentum as the velocity decreases. Horizontal momentum and vertical velocity are unrelated: two different directions.
    3
  283.  @briansearle6868  "There is no reason to mock someone for questioning the current scientific understanding" It's not the questioning that gets mocked; it's the refusal to accept the answers and the evidence backing those answers.
    3
  284. Not including God and disproving God are two quite different things in much the same way as saying "God exists" is not proving that God does exist.
    3
  285.  @k3ntv.rhoades  What’s your objective interpretation of the motion of the sun? Thrust is required for acceleration or counteracting the loss of momentum from friction or medium. The Earth has a constant velocity and there is no resistance in a vacuum; it does not need any thrust to keep moving. Rockets: hot gas goes one way, the rocket goes the other.
    3
  286. It’s what preceded “density force”. How does a ratio make anything move and why in a consistent direction?
    3
  287.  @HaileAozfie  You realise that the purpose of formulae is that you can compute answers from specific values? Let’s see your maths for circles and straight lines being indistinguishable.
    3
  288.  @freefreepalestine360  Each day it crosses the sky at a steady 15 degrees per hour regardless of the observer’s location. The “infinity symbol” effect relates to the difference between solar & sidereal days and the effect of the elliptical orbit around the sun. Explain how you think it occurs on a FE.
    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.  @yafois988  Did you notice thee were two lines in my comment? Did your brain shut off after reading the first line and you just started firing from the hip? Explain to me where t comes into the equation I gave you.
    3
  291.  @GeorgeGeorge-yb2sz  “climate isn’t last werks weather” You were saying the meteorologists understood it better than the people looking at it long term. Which way do you want it?
    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.  @skylermoody7771  There was an eclipse a few years back that crossed the US. How did people know the exact time and route if it is not accurately calculable?
    3
  294.  @tatonemio6388  Had to make do with a partial eclipse; half the building was outside a few minutes before it started. Only the cicadas were taken by surprise.
    3
  295.  @elmanuboy  How many times in how many ways by how many people does the existence of gravity need to be demonstrated to satisfy you that it has been demonstrated? The Michelson-Morley experiments used the known motion of the Earth to look for evidence of the entirely hypothetical luminiferous; they found no evidence of luminiferous aether. Explain why you think the absence of evidence for aether would prove its existence.
    3
  296.  @elmanuboy  How does density (a vectorless ratio) act as a force and why in a consistent direction?
    3
  297.  @elmanuboy  Whether gravity is a force or an apparent force is irrelevant; gravity exists and ghe FE’ers denying it can’t explain the effect.
    3
  298.  @elmanuboy  I told you about the Cavendish experiment and your mind filtered it out; it’s you who can’t handle the truth.
    3
  299.  @sofiahaga32  Both are round. Move forwards over the surface of a sphere and you will describe a circle.
    3
  300.  @jdw616  Check the difference between umbra and penumbra when it comes to eclipses.
    3
  301.  @yorubapryor5884  And 8”/mile^2 is not the equation for curvature or how far you can see; that is why FE’ers are so keen to use it as such.
    3
  302. You don’t base your arguments in personal eyeballing?
    3
  303. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses always having a circular shadow, all observable by anybody, all indicative of a globe and all contradictory to a FE. Please explain how you think The Government can manipulate the sun & stars and to what end they been found this flawlessly since man first looked up.
    3
  304. You can state with reasonable certainty that the soup will be edible if you open the tin.
    3
  305. "they come up with very complicated theories" If only; it's only ever a few superficial assertions with no attempt at explaining the arising contradictions, e.g., how the sun always has a circular appearance despite the lampshade.
    3
  306. It woukd like identical to what we see. On a FE the sun BBC wiukd be visible 24hrs a day, never coming with 20 degrees of the “plane” and exhibiting a variable angular velocity & diameter. We are still waiting for FE’ers to reconcile their predictions with observable reality. Do you want to try?
    3
  307.  @hansborne4929  Why don’t you just explain?
    3
  308.  @hansborne4929  I see the motion of the sun, moon & stars. Why don’t FEers explain how they can move that way on a FE?
    3
  309.  @JasonsMove  Your gurus told you that are what is used; it is repeatedly pointed out to you that it isn’t and why it isn’t. None of you are willing to explain how it is supposed to work, just keep maintaining one variable is adequate to cover three variables and that a parabolic equation describes a circle. Why are you all so afraid to reveal the Real Maths?
    3
  310. The curvature is all around you. However the circumference is 25,000 miles, not the 25 miles you’re envisaging. It’s what predated “density force”.
    3
  311. Evidence?
    3
  312.  @williamparisi5901  The glare is reduced. When the angular diameter is measured then it stays constant. You’re conflating two things.
    3
  313. Depends on which one of them you ask.
    3
  314.  @martinlukas3945  Our genes are carried in DNA.
    3
  315. The deviation from a perfect sphere is minute though I realise that you consider numbers to be ideas being imposed upon you.
    3
  316.  @JasonsMove  Explain how 0.5<100 is an equation and why you consider it bs?
    3
  317. Let me guess - if it differs from established knowledge then it just gotta be objective truth?
    3
  318. It’s what FE’ers used to claim. I hadn’t noticed much objectivity among FE’ers; you cheerfully ignore or deny what you don’t want to be true.
    3
  319. Are you aware that scientists are individuals?
    3
  320.  @remi4378  The problem is when the scepticism is just cynicism with people assuming any research must be corrupt unless proven otherwise. That seems to be the predominant attitude even though people have never checked how funding is allocated. Governments have some degree of control over what a government body will publish. Generally speaking they don’t have the power to control what businesses & academia publish. What exactly were you referring to? If any piece of research is ignored then it is far more likely that it us seen as poor or anomalous rather than some colossal conspiracy controlling all information.
    3
  321.  @Trig-mm4rt  All your questions are getting answered so don’t whine that people aren’t. You are avoiding answering those put to you; stop projecting your inability on others.
    3
  322.  @Trig-mm4rt  Difference in the passage of time on Earth compared to the ISS. You’re referring to time dilation; relativity is why beyond your ability to understand given you can’t wrap your head around basic maths & physics. Spacetime is not some kind of gel “holding the sun up” but relative coordinates for x, y, z & t There is no universal up & down in the universe and therefore no top & bottom. Object keep moving because of conservation of moment, the same reason a thrown ball continues to move when it leaves your hand. Try learning basic maths & physics before pontificating.
    3
  323. Traceable signal to, on & from the moon, detectable equipment left there and verifiable material brought back.
    3
  324.  @bobweiram6321  You can’t stick it in the main slot any more and it possesses a nearly useless capacity. Saturn V technology holds data on how to build a launcher that size; the materials used are outdated, the operating system was largely mechanical (little in the way of electronics), the components were hand built, and the people assembling Saturn & Apollo are dead or retired. Couple that with many contractors having disposed of 50-60 year old records, meaning many components would gave to be designed from scratch. Assuming you did succeed you would have launcher & craft inadequate fir the purpose of building a base in the moon. Best approach - take the knowledge gained from the Apollo programme and design a new launcher for the purpose.
    3
  325.  @bobweiram6321  I would note that you haven’t answered most of my questions.
    3
  326. Produce one if the textbooks teaching that the Earth is flat. That gravity is due to the Earth moving upwards predates the FES.
    3
  327.  @KangenAlec  The guy who professes to be well-educated in FE doesn't know there was an acceleration model? Why doesn't that surprise me?
    3
  328.  @flyingfishnet  The astronauts were inside an aluminium hulled spacecraft lined with carbon fibre insulation and their water tanks, all low atomic mass elements best capable of absorbing the particle radiation in the VAB. Dosage to the astronauts was the equivalent of two X-rays.
    3
  329.  @flyingfishnet  There’s always this assumption by conspiracy theorists that they are the only people with detailed knowledge of the subject and they never seem bothered when you point out what they are missing, eg, asking about the tensile properties of metals. I have yet to be supplied with evidence for Apollo or 9/11 that doesn’t rely on cherry-picking, selective interpretation and, quite frankly, willful ignorance. Asking questions is sensible; starting with pre-determined conclusions and not questioning sources is not sensible.
    3
  330. "There is never a point that it starts to bend" Waterfalls, raindrops, meniscus. Given as 25,000 circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find?
    3
  331. Most subscribe to the mystery density force. Those who prefer electrostatic potential have yet to build an anti-gravity device to take advantage of electrostatic repulsion.
    3
  332.  @tnaplastic2182  Gravity is an integral part the equation for buoyancy. Why do you think it is there? In Newtonian physics gravity is a force, in relativity it’s the effect of space-time curvature. Either way it demonstrably exists and affects objects.
    3
  333.  @efgtest  “Can you confirm all the facts” The motion if the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows? What makes you think they aren’t confirmable? The unwillingness of FE’ers to do so?
    3
  334.  @efgtest  After reading your long reply to Tatone Mio you're evidently one of those people who regards their own ignorance as wondrous insight.
    3
  335.  @efgtest  The shape of Earth is factual, not a matter of opinion. Are you saying your opinion of Airy’s intent is just as informed as his?
    3
  336.  @Hei1Bao4  They were published; the journalists had usually heard from university press releases about the papers. Some people just seemed to think newspapers were where we publish.
    3
  337. They don’t actually measure the distance, don’t account for divergence of the laser beam or accurately determine how level to begin with and it was done at 1ft to maximise the effect of refraction. Written protocols are preferred in science because you have to account for every relevant detail, not skip over them.
    3
  338.  @skylermoody7771  I’ll second what Titone said. The Black Swan photo shows a shimmery image of an object thatcant normally be seen from that vantage point; it’s a mirage. None if you can ever explain why they can’t see something that they think (weather aside) is always visible.
    3
  339.  @scotthadley92  The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere from the motion of the sun, horizons and the angle to Polaris matching latitude. Those plus two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude are verifiable by any Tom, Dick or Harry and all are incompatible with a FE. Dubay's counter-argument is "don't look up".
    3
  340.  @pwilliams8051  Angle of incidence. Still waiting on your explanation for how the FE sun works.
    3
  341. The fundamental requirement of any explanation is that it explains, something that seems to escape FE’ers. Since FE’ers “explanations” (on the occasions they are actually provided at all) don’t match the observations they are not explanations.
    3
  342. In science nothing is decided on one piece of evidence since errors & flukes occur. If someone wishes to claim a massive conspiracy whereby all evidence emanates from some secret cabal that magically directly control all information then the onus is on them to demonstrate how that could be so.
    3
  343.  @DD-mu5me  Motion of the sun, constellations changing with season & latitude, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles, horizons, phases of the moon, lunar eclipses; observations that can be made by anybody and 2500 years on we are still waiting forr FE explanations.
    3
  344. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude, circular shadows on lunar eclipses - explain who you think is manipulating them all to fool us?
    3
  345.  @RT-oc6iu  Why haven’t you answered my question?
    3
  346.  @RT-oc6iu  Another FE’er who can’t answer but remains convinced he knows the answers. You need an ego check.
    3
  347.  @KangenAlec  No, FE'ers just can't understand a diagram consisting of a circle and radial arrows.
    3
  348. Himawari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC collectively download several pictures per hour to the web.
    3
  349.  @JimSmithInChiapas ​​⁠​⁠Jim, you find the evidence overwhelming because you want there to have been a cover-up. In our conversation you were coming across as a MAGA/Fox News watcher.
    3
  350. “I get what they see” Then perhaps yiu can articulate what they see because they certainly can’t.
    3
  351.  @Hallucitania  What lies? None of them can explain how water would move itself or seemingly even comprehend that a 25,000 mile circumference is not going to have 10-20 degrees curvature per mile. No matter how many times they are told they can’t understand elevation & refraction are key factors in determining how far they can see; they refuse to think past one factor. Everything they bring up is explained to them repeatedly, including how they can verify it for themselves; they aren’t interested, just indulging themselves in willful stupidity.
    3
  352.  @JimSmithInChiapas  They don’t say it doesn’t come from a lab leak, they said that it isn’t the product of genetic manipulation in a lab. The conclusion does state: “Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not purposely manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here.” Ebright has an axe to grind and has made unfounded accusations.
    3
  353.  @JimSmithInChiapas  They didn’t say anything that contradicted what was in their paper; the virus was wild-type and thus more likely came from outside, not from the lab. In private they discussed the probabilities of each source. That’s normal discussion. Ebright has been a proponent of the risks of a lab leak for decades, considers it the most likely explanation and is pissed off with a paper that indicates otherwise. Having been an editor does not make him proof against such prejudice. The indications SINCE are that Wuhan maintained a bat colony which does alter the probabilities; the wild-type would have been actively maintained, not stored in frozen vials or in early cultures. Ebright says the authors have retracted papers; I don’t find any record of such. Do note that The Intercept and similar don’t understand what the paper said; they think that the conclusion of the virus being wild-type means they’re saying that it MUST have come from outside.
    3
  354.  @AjaxNorton  I specifically said “south celestial pole”, not a particular star.
    3
  355.  @AjaxNorton  The sun wouldn’t come within 20 degrees of the horizon on a FE; do you want to explain how it could rise & set?
    3
  356. A. Still waiting on any evidence that NASA’s output is lies rather than lack of comprehension by the reader and B. An explanation as to how NASA (founded 1958AD) was influencing ancient Greeks c. 500BC.
    3
  357. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses - all disprove a FE, all still unexplained by FE’ers.
    3
  358. I use them as tools in the lab. Explain how if they don’t exist.
    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.  @clintonhart2652  I asked the initial question and you still haven’t answered. When the view from A to B is physically blocked by a natural structure the first question to be asked is querying the claim that someone can see B from A. You haven’t answered that either.
    3
  361.  @clintonhart2652  If you can’t communicate with anybody why claim you can answer any question?
    3
  362. The video was about FE’er thought processes.
    3
  363.  @ThisisNedSchneebly  Not again. Apollo & Saturn craft were single use and all were used. While the blueprints & notes exist the people who built them are retired & dead. The constructors who made many of the components repurposed their workshops for existing contracts, eventually trashed decades old paper files and their people are also retired & dead. The technology used is 50 years out if date and incompatible with today’s; money was not illegally used from thr NASA budget to keep unused technology up to date.
    3
  364. Yet again: levelling error, besm dispersion and atmospheric refraction, particularly over water. Where do I pick up the cheque? Rotation is demonstrated by gyroscopes & Foucault pendulums. Orbit is demonstrated by stellar parallax. Contract law deals with contracts, not science (do none of you bother to check what the cases are actually about?). The 8” is a rule of thumb; a parabola will never describe a circle. Still waiting on FE’ers to prove pictures fake; the “just gotta be technique” doesn’t hold water. Still waiting on an explanation for why a training pool would preclude spaceflight. Zooming in on a ship before it reaches the horizon telks you sweet Fanny Adams about the horizon. Still waiting on any of you to produce evidence of zooming the set sun back into view; do you want to produce it or are you going go rely on a dismissive handwave?
    3
  365. They tend to assume that if something exists then they will be able to perceive it; they dont consider what they would be able to perceive.
    3
  366.  @EpicAlternative  What is the FEer definition of measurement? Do you even have the concept?
    3
  367. Worse still, they probably make good use of radio waves in cell phones & WiFi.
    3
  368. When you open the tin you can be reasonably certain that it will be soup and it will be edible, ie, it will be what the label says it is. The contents are not a mystery. That’s the point she’s making.
    3
  369. No, he didn't. He said you couldn't use light to measure Earth's motion. It's not difficult to check a quote or actually read what was said.
    3
  370.  @julianbrionesiii2438  Where does weight come from if there is no gravity? What makes you think mass is a force?
    3
  371. Do you know what theory means in science? Some asteroids have ice, some fall to Earth; why wouldn’t the ice come with them?
    3
  372. It was a common belief among FE’ers a while back.
    3
  373. To be exact, he persuaded FE’ers to fund a steam-driven rocket based on the assertion he would go high enough to observe whether the horizon curved. FE’ers didn’t design or build the rocket. It flew to less than 2000ft and none seemed to think about how high it would have to fly to check curvature of the horizon. Meanwhile scientists have been collecting several more shots per hour of globe.
    3
  374.  @nickkorkodylas5005  The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a globe from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses always having a circular shadow. The Earth has been fully mapped enabling long distance travel; you can get on a plane on one continent and make an accurate intercontinental flight. The ISS is visibly orbiting; satellite TV aerials point up into the middle of nowhere, not a ground-based radio mast. We have an ever-accumulating number of photographs. The shape of the Earth is doubted only by people who can't figure out that elevation affects how far they can see. Most people are never going to be actively engaged in science; there are only so many hours in the day. It isn't necessary for someone to be testing & retesting what has been confirmed over millenia. By all means query something but be prepared to accept the answers, not assume "it just gotta be wrong" as a starting point. "too many intuitive assumption" When making hypotheses, not drawing conclusions. We make predictions from the hypotheses and we test them. "it does not always work on visual intuition, empirical wisdom or common sense" Because human senses are fallible and our minds are good at taking short cuts; it's why we rely on experimentation & measurement.
    3
  375. Think it out in 3D rather than 2D and try measuring the viewing angles.
    3
  376. The “serious flat earthers” have yet to produce any argument that holds water.
    3
  377.  @presleymeck  F=ma is the relationship between mass and a force applied to it. It does not mean mass is a force. A scientific theory is not a hunch or guess; it is the highest you can get in science. If you think the theory of gravity is wrong then you need to come up with evidence demonstrating so. Waving hands and claiming density to be s secret force does not qualify.
    3
  378. If you feel that pointing out your continual deleting & reposting is offensive then don’t keep deleting & reposting.
    3
  379. You can be on a sphere so big that the scale makes it impossible to directly view curvature, eg, a 25,000 mile circumference means 0.0144 degrees/mile, not the 14 degrees yiu are visualising. Earth, atmosphere and transport are all rotating eastwards. Motion is calculated relative to Earth.
    3
  380. We attempt to disprove hypotheses. FE was disproved millennia ago.
    3
  381.  @tatonemio6388  Not seeing the shrink’s face is how reclining couches came into use 😊
    3
  382.  @jyuvgrace5364  Assuming that wasn’t a joke, if the Earth was flat and there was nothing blocking your line of sight then the “end” would be visible regardless of distance. Your use of “3 miles” suggests you didn’t understand what Harvey was saying about the effect of elevation.
    3
  383. If they don’t work then why do you think surgeons wear them in theatre?
    3
  384.  @patrickhickman8723  You produce your figures showing it had insufficient fuel? Why would it need to reach orbital speeds within the atmosphere?
    3
  385. So what is the correct FE model? Why can none of you provide it but get all get shirty when we don't refer to it?
    3
  386.  @Macaroni108  “Do the research” As I said, none of you explain, just make a vague claim of an El Dorado just down the road of FE evidence & explanation where you have all been but none of you can remember where exactly or what it was you found there. We’ve looked thoroughly and there is no El Dorado, just of ignorami endlessly claiming “it’s just down the road” and nothing else. The Vedic model is a spherical Earth orbiting the sun. Explain why you think that disagrees with a spherical Earth orbiting the sun.
    3
  387.  @Macaroni108  Your reply to Tatone Mio doesn’t show up on my feed either.
    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.  @ivankaramasov  The one's ring to rule them all... :-)
    3
  390. Whay exactly do you think the problem is?
    3
  391. Why don’t we see the edges as they rotate?
    3
  392. "It is a distorted quest, but in certain respects a noble one." As in Don Quixote?
    3
  393.  @tatonemio6388  Thanks, I didn’t know.
    3
  394.  @andygarcia5577  The water is pulled by gravity such that the surface is always (weather aside) equidistant from the centre of gravity. A 25,000 mile circumference is not going to lead to curvature that is obvious to the eye. 1 degree of curvature requires 60 miles.
    3
  395. Cavendish experiment and land surveyors say otherwise. Still waiting in your explanations for the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses. Be novel and produce the answers.
    3
  396.  @ferferzipper4936  DishTV did it from geostationary orbit. What do you expect to see from a live video? A 1000 revolutions per minute?
    3
  397. The Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, not the 25 miles you’re envisaging.
    3
  398. The Artemis missions have started. It wasn't economically viable; nothing more sinister than that.
    3
  399. Polaris is 450 light years away, not 450 miles. Explain two celestial poles.
    3
  400. What proportion of people need to get Covid to satisfy you that Covid exists?
    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.  @tatonemio6388  But he's thunk about it...
    3
  403.  @StephenJelinek  You can measure curvature with as little as sticks & shadows. You can measure the angular velocity of the sun with a single stick and its shadow. You can watch the sun rise & set with just your eyes. You can measure the direction at which it rises & sets with a compass. You can see the moon in the daytime with just your eyes. All disprove the FE. Your proof if the Earth being flat is “if I use the wrong equation then it doesn’t work!!!!”
    3
  404.  @StephenJelinek  None when using three or more sticks. The sun doesn't come within 10-20 degrees on a FE. When it can't approach the horizon you aren't going to see it rise & set. If you believe I am wrong on everything else then you need to say why but kindly try thinking before doing so; it will save us both some time.
    3
  405. It finally dawned on FE’ers that permanent acceleration led to ever increasing velocity.
    3
  406. The sheer distance to other stars means they aren’t seen to have moved from night to night.
    3
  407.  @stewiesaidthat  Still gibberish. Whether the speed of light in a vacuum varies is a philosophical problem; there’s no way to prove it does or doesn’t. Nobody is gagged for saying it might. If you believe it does vary then provide evidence and explain what se observe around us. No, results are not thrown out; science advances by pursuing what does not fit. Provide evidence that such evidence has been thrown out. Provide evidence that someone has said B2 bombers display time dilation beyond that predicted and particularly for anybody claiming that time dilation enabled them to achieve a circumnavigation on insufficient fuel. The device you’re writing on arose from lab work. Basic research concentrates on identifying individual factors; it does not mean that the existence if other factors obviates their existence. The Twins Paradox is looked at because it exists. You’re moaning that things are ignored and that attention is paid to them. Provide evidence that muon data is being manipulated.
    3
  408.  @stewiesaidthat  🙄 The basic research that you so despise provides the baseline velocity for scientists to go looking for aberrations in the speed of light that arise from the contents of space. Nobody is silenced, shot, hanged, strung up by the goolies or stretched out on a rack for looking - people build their careers on looking for aberrations. Provide evidence of the charge of muons varying. No evidence of time dilation in a B2's flight? Your Twin's paradox solution is using two frames of reference, not one. Difference between clocks on the the ISS and the ground. The former is in orbit and travelling a darn sight faster than any Tesla car.
    3
  409. Explain two celestial poles.
    3
  410. It was originally a constant upwards velocity until it dawned them that you wouldn’t come down if you jumped. It became upwards acceleration until dawned on them that increasing speed quickly leads to velocities far far higher than the Earth orbiting the sun. It’s moved onto density is a force but not a force with no explanation for a consistent “down” direction. That has do far outcompeted droppity and spontaneous motion.
    3
  411.  @patrickhickman8723  Rocket exhaust gases go one way, the rocket goes the other. You claim the exhaust gases need to push on air to make the rocket move. I’m asking you how colliding gas particles transmit force to the rocket. You profess to have a profound understanding of physics so explain.
    3
  412. “obviously using CGI” If it is obvious then why can none of you ever say what tells you that it is CGI?
    3
  413.  @davisterrel  You want one camera to film everything in one continuous video otherwise none of it has been done?
    3
  414.  @robertfish4734  Explain why you consider ideal containers to be necessary for the laws of physics to work. Explain why you think something would be affected by only one law at a time. Explain why you think a pressure drop of 1atm over 1cm would have the same gradient as a 1atm drop over 100km. Explain why you think the Cavendish experiment doesn’t demonstrate the existence of gravity. Explain why you think atomic mass and density to be the same thing. Explain why uncharged objects fall. Explain why altering the electrostatic charge on an object doesn’t affect the rate at which it falls.
    3
  415. ​ @robertfish4734  "It happens consistently in the presence of any other physical law you could name..." And yet you are arguing that an expanding gas couldn't be affected by gravity because Boyle's Law exists. "This is really not a valid question" That you don't understand the relevance does not make it invalid. You seem to think the separating distance between maximum & minimum pressures is of no consequence. The Cavendish experiment has been replicated countless times with similar results. Explain where you think the charge comes from, why it is undetectable and how it can an effect when undetectable. "They are, prove me wrong." Osmium is denser than radon, whether you wish to calculate it by mass/volume at RT or by atomic mass & atom size. "Because they are more dense than the surrounding media" When I asked you to explain why you thought density made things fall you said that was due to electrostatic charge, in which case the charge would determine the effect. Now you're saying it is density. Pick which one you think is responsible. If it is density then explain how a ratio acts as a force.
    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.  @robertfish4734  They’re typically Mercator projections of the globe. You need to produce the FE map, not one of the globe projected onto a flat surface.
    3
  418.  @robertfish4734  You can’t answer my questions about Fishbowl? You’re claiming all the proofs for gravity are all down to electrostatic attraction; the onus is on you to provide that evidence. Look up the meaning of confidence in statistics. The uncertainty refers to the precision of the value not whether gravity exists. Don’t change the meanings of words snd claim you have an argument. The video you posted showed an object levitated a few jnches; it required a p.d. of 6000V to counter what you say is the counter-charge. Explain why you don’t get electrocuted when you stand up. I’m asking you pertinent questions. Stop waffling about your erudition and answer them.
    3
  419.  @robertfish4734  jstor database, article 106988 What specs do you consider to be missing? How was grounding achieved through a wooden beam? Do you understand the difference between replicate and reproduce in science?
    3
  420.  @MrSirhcsellor  As I've said before, it will take chair, rope & thumbscrews to get answers out of them.
    3
  421.  @robertfish4734  “Where he talks about the land beyond” He is quite specific he is referring to the then unexplored area in Antartica. How do you get that easily confused?
    3
  422.  @robertfish4734  I asked you how the weather patterns could be reproduced so rapidly; you haven’t answered. That is is possible for something to be created in Photoshop is not evidence that everything is created in Photoshop. You still haven’t explained how Photoshop was used to create an analogue picture in 1972.
    3
  423.  @robertfish4734  Still waiting on your FE map. Whats the hold up?
    3
  424.  @robertfish4734  Why not try answering all the questions asked of you before embarking on s gush-gallop?
    3
  425.  @tatonemio6388  I’m glad they introduced that option.
    3
  426.  @robertfish4734  The opening section of mine (Hammond New Century World Atlas) has a 2 pages of the different projections and clearly states that they are using the Optimal Conformal Projection.
    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.  @robertfish4734  "Do you even know what ideal gas is?" Basic chemistry. Very basic. "I find it difficult to believe that you are so very limited in visualization" You can't see the problems in your assertions and you are accusing other people of lacking visualisation? "Show me where our air mixture is not acting ideal" You mean like electrostatic attraction or water particles? "So give me an experiment where gravity holds a high pressure from expanding into a lower pressure" Take a barometer up through the atmosphere. "Read my previous posts. It has been painstakingly explained over and over and over" No, you've just avoided the questions over and over and over. Where does the weight come from if there is no gravity? If you think it is caused by density then you need to explain how density can act as a force. If you think it is electrostatic attraction then you need to explain how it can attract uncharged particles. If you think there is a dome then you need to provide evidence of it. The Law of Just Does does not exist in reality; there needs to be a cause for the attraction. You need to explain it.
    3
  429. It was the model until recently, first constant velocity then constant acceleration. Now it's a vague "things just fall" with no plausible explanation ever produced. It's amazing how FE'ers claim to have all the answers and yet can provide nothing, just complain "that's not what we say!".
    3
  430. Why do objects in air fall rather than move very slowly upwards?
    3
  431.  @ronpapi9539  Walter Bislin’s has it all laid out on his website to accompany his curve calculator. 8”/mile^2 was a rule thumb used by land surveyors and assume no variation in elevation and no atmospheric refraction and does not calculate how far you can see it how much of an object would be hidden.
    3
  432.  @ronpapi9539  How does water seek something without observing its environment? Do you think it is psychic? "Use that formula on a cue ball.go!" For what elevation? "Post the Curvature formula for the Moon" Same formula as for the Earth. "you shouldn't be able to see tall buildings from the ground up at distances of 50 miles away" Depends on your & their elevations. Have you seriously never noticed that you can see further from the top of a tall building or hill or that being in a valley limits your view?
    3
  433. When do you think the internet came into existence?
    3
  434.  @miloszforman6270  The modern FE movement originated with Rowbotham in the mid-19th century.
    3
  435.  @miloszforman6270  Wikipedia is user-edited; anybody can create & edit the pages; entries are noted and can be reviewed by others leading to corrections or removal if appropriate. It does mean that somebody can at least temporarily change text with the result that at any given time the accuracy of a document is not guaranteed. In this instance the page seems to be frequently edited by FE'ers trying to impose their vision of reality, in this case the FE origins with Rowbotham. Wikipedia does stipulate the use of formal English, e.g. standard grammar & spelling and lack of colloquialisms & slang. The entry you quoted was written in informal English, e.g., use of the word guys. While that doesn't mean the content of the entry itself is incorrect, it is a red flag that the writer can't understand simple instructions and thus is likely to be unreliable. "He" in this case is the author of that Wikipedia entry. The true Scotsman in this instance would be the FE'ers claiming to be the genuine ones as opposed to the FE'ers who they refer to as the government agents or similar expressions. The writer is claiming to be one of the true Scotsmen. I didn't make use of any rabulistics.
    3
  436. “Common sense tells us that the world is flat, that the sun goes around the earth, that heavy bodies always fall faster than light bodies, that boats made of iron will sink.” Common sense is good for quick conclusions but it is far from reliable. Airplane means “air wanderer”. Nothing to do with shape. Asking questions is sensible. Merely espousing ill-thought or ignorant ideas is not “thinking for yourself”.
    3
  437.  @patcowley6378  "Just gotta be fake" is not evidence.
    3
  438. Sounds like you’ve bought into every conspiracy theory. Have you considered actually thinking?
    3
  439.  @aremissomar459  8”/mile^2 is not the equation for curvature (it’s a rule of thumb) or how far you can see, the horizon measurably falls with increasing altitude (still FE explanation for why it wouldn’t) and the limited distance for lighthouses indicates oceans curve. Now answer my question.
    3
  440. Only in summer. The Earth has a 23 degree tilt on its axis resulting in the northern hemisphere being tilted towards the sun in summer and away in winter.
    3
  441. The Earth has an axial tilt, the constellations do vary through the course of the year (hence zodiac constellations), no scientists are hammering the model and what is necessary for any of the existing cameras to be in the moon?
    3
  442.  @k3630  Gravity is the interaction of two masses. You seem to have s problem thinking beyond the mass of Earth when considering the effect on you and planes. An object’s weight is the result of the gravitational interaction; that the Earth is large dies not mean every object has immense weight.
    3
  443.  @k3630  It’s been pointed out to you a few times now but gravitational attraction is proportional to BOTH masses. The Earth has a huge effect on the moon but not you because the moon has a huge mass and you don’t.
    3
  444.  @stevensonbowen3725  Jericho was destroyed in Joshua, never to exist again but Elisha (?) visits there later in the Bible.
    3
  445.  @paulhotson5820  FE'ers do seem to loathe the truth.
    3
  446.  @travelertime4382  I was being sarcastic about the FE’er who claimed it. He hadn’t considered how the 6” wave would actually block the line of sight; his line of thinking stopped at perspective making a distant ship appearing smaller than the wave.
    3
  447.  @1FeistyKitty  Because a cheap gyroscope has too much friction.
    3
  448.  @1FeistyKitty  No, you watched some videos and didn’t think beyond there.
    3
  449.  @1FeistyKitty  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows. The world is fulky mapped and conforms onky to a globe. The shape is measured to nearly the cubic metre and is a globe. It has been abd continues to ve photographed from every angle.
    3
  450.  @1FeistyKitty I told you why Monte’s map portrayed Antarctica that way. Did your brain filter it out?
    3
  451.  @1FeistyKitty  The debate was settled millenia ago. Today there are just gullible people like yourself. The Japanese map was a hoax; there’s no evidence of it’s existence.
    3
  452.  @GrahamA63 So basically you know sod all about the laws of motion and think that ignorance bestows profound insight on you?
    3
  453. That would enable you to see much further than you actually can and sunrise & sunset would be the same time everywhere on Earth.
    3
  454. There was never any FE model; nobody had tried working out the shape. However there was a common assumption that it was flat. Only in the 19th century when Rowbotham resurrected FE was there any need for a FE model.
    3
  455. You haven’t considered the sun being distant to Earth.
    3
  456.  @rogeriopires5352  South American flights are typically via Santiago. You need to check which main airports tun the direct intercontinental flights rather than assume they do.
    3
  457.  @rogeriopires5352  "NIBIRU is arriving" Again?
    3
  458.  @rogeriopires5352  It was last here in 2012 as I recall.
    3
  459.  @TheCollages You still haven’t said what the FE definition of empirical evidence is or explained what you think an assumed calculation is or why you think all measurements are assumed calculations. How difficult can it be?
    3
  460. And yet the globe explains everything and is predictive while FE’ers can’t even explain the motion of the sun across the sky.
    3
  461.  @Theomatikalli  Much as Tatone says. Your brain is taking shortcuts based on prior experience, the chequerboard pattern remaining prominent; the expectation of the lighter squares remaining lighter than the dark squares is a shortcut.
    3
  462. Explain how density can act as a force and why in a consistent direction. Why would Antarctica being a continent or ice shelf make a difference to the Antarctic Treaty? What evidence do you have for a magnetic monopole when all magnets are dipoles? Byrd described Antarctica as a continent; how does that differ from a continent? How did NASA influence the ancient Greeks? How did you ascertain that the sun & moon are local? Why does their observed motion disagree with FE predictions? Why is landing on the moon impossible?
    3
  463. If you abuse oxycontin rather than simply use it.
    3
  464. She doesn't seem worked up about the subject. Those billions of people generally aren't denying observable reality or trying to disprove reality.
    3
  465. Why would amateur non-scientist claims have valid arguments to back them? When they automatically reject explanations why should people waste time providing them? What is it about Covid that you think reverses classical medical science? Sex is biological, gender is sociological/psychological.
    3
  466. Our senses are very limited and easily deceived. Magicians earn a living from deceiving our senses.
    3
  467. What makes you think we spend our time doing nothing but writing books??
    3
  468.  @tatonemio6388  But who’s pulling the Klingons’ strings?
    3
  469. Still no answer to what these “popular discrepancies” are?
    3
  470.  @rlupara  Be brave and be the first to produce the FE model that accounts for those.
    3
  471.  @markmassive1  You think simple division is sh*t?
    3
  472.  @yestervue4697  All with distortion from projecting a 3D shape into a 2D surface and all able to be folded or rolled for convenience. Still waiting for even the crudest FE map.
    3
  473.  @SuperMoshady  Your questions have been answers. several each by several people. That you refuse to listen is your problem.
    3
  474.  @SuperMoshady  Measuring pressure requires a surface, not a container. You have been repeatedly that the gas’s movement is a balance of the forces acting on it,not that gravity is too weak to affect gases. The example you asked about was hot air rising; that cooler air moves download to displace it has escaped you.
    3
  475.  @trailbossdan1  He desperately wants gravity to not exist and for there to be a solid barrier between atmosphere & space. He will try to interpret anything we say to fit with his desires and concludes he’s an insightful genius when he can’t.
    3
  476.  @SuperMoshady  The confusion is all in your head, seemingly intentionally so. You're obfuscating because you are so desperate for your idiocy to be right.
    3
  477. I couldn’t see the Chrysler building from the Twin Towers because of the pollution.
    3
  478.  @wattsupwiththat1463  Let me guess - you were born after 2000?
    3
  479.  @mev680  The joke is that while you greatly increase your knowledge & expertise in a subject as you obtain an MSc & PhD you also become increasingly aware of how much isn't known. In terms of flat earth it doesn't take much brain power or effort to disprove the notion; motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris and two celestial poles , all of which you can verify for yourself, can't be faked by any government and are totally incompatible with a FE. If, like many FE'ers, you wish to profess you have greater knowledge & understanding of how it all really works then be novel and actually explain how they could work on a FE.
    3
  480.  @cloned76 I’m asking you to produce the “real” maths for calculating perspective. Do so or shut up. As I already pointed out, you need to take into account elevation & refraction when determining how far you should see.
    3
  481.  @cloned76  Produce the maths or shut up.
    3
  482.  @cloned76  Stop prancing around and produce the maths.
    3
  483.  @jordanzlotolow8254 Motion of the sun & moon, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles - all readily observable by anybody since man first looked up. How is that hearsay?
    3
  484.  @jordanzlotolow8254  If FE’ers are so well-informed then why can’t you produce the Real Answers? Why the reliance on canards?
    3
  485. Galileo observed them to be orbiting Jupiter, something which contradicted the geocentric model of everything orbiting Earth.
    3
  486. You mean FE pseudoscience.
    3
  487.  @youngtravels4660  I’m quite familiar with what qualifies as empirical evidence in science. FEers evidently use a different definition since by mystery definition you reject all forms of measurement and seemingly any pure observation that disagrees with your beliefs. Why not provide the definition or is the hush-hush secret never to be told?
    3
  488. He was referring to a very slight deviation from a perfect sphere. For most intents and purposes the deviation is totally insignificant. You may note the people repeating “pear-shaped” never out numbers to it.
    3
  489.  @jonom5622  They don't. Blue Marble was shot in a single frame on a film camera. There are currently multiple satellites taking single-frame shots every hour. Some prats think the Blue Marble 2 being a composite of LEO shots means every photo ever ever ever taken just gotta be a composite. Artists impressions are used where photos are not practical, e.g., close-ups of satellites, alien landscapes; their use does not mean each & every photos used just gotta be fake. Clear?
    3
  490. Down is towards the centre of the Earth, ie, the Earth’s centre of gravity.
    3
  491. You’ve fallen for the tobacco companies’ ploy: find the dissenters, raise their profile and give the impression that there is substantial science on their side.
    3
  492. The geocentric system was based on a globe Earth.
    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. What exceptions to the rule of gravity? Your eyes detect the light, the brain senses the stimulation and renders it to a form your consciousness understands. That includes inverting the image so you perceive the correct orientation.
    3
  495. You like cherry-picking to prop up your beliefs whole preaching to others that we need to prove something?
    3
  496.  @carlharrison1765  You want a close-up distant shot? Do you want an equatorial shot where the poles are just going to be white trimming or a simultaneous shot from above each pole? Are you going to complainnyou can’t see the rotation in a still shot? Equinox shots from EPIC.
    3
  497.  @hershelpogue1745  I said the direction of the sun moving through the compass points, not that shadows were magnetic. Light, you, shadow. Your shadow lies away from the light sources. As the sun moves so does your shadow. No mystery. Compasses align with the ambient magnetic field; all magnetic fields are bipolar. Compasses do not orient with a particular pole.
    3
  498.  @hershelpogue1745  You’re assuming everybody sees the sun from the same angle; you are visualising the Earth has either a flat surface or a cylinder since you are not considering the change in angle that comes from the observers latitude.
    3
  499.  @hershelpogue1745  Gravity. Not a mystery. That you don’t understand how does not make it a mystery.
    3
  500. It was believed to be moving upwards until it dawned on some that would actually lead to people being in a weightless environment so for a while it became accelerating upwards.
    3
  501.  @florim7554  You're arguing that the vertical motion of a thermal plume just gotta be unaffected by a vertical force because the vertical force does not stop horizontal movement. I said there was a decline in air pressure with increasing altitude, not a decline in gravitational attraction. The strength of the attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centres of gravity; since the Earth has a radius of about 3,900 miles you would need to be about 1600 miles above the Earth's surface for the attraction to be halved. The highest clouds are about 3.5 miles (18,000 ft). The ISS is about 200 miles up. There is no dramatic drop in gravitational attraction like there is with air pressure.
    3
  502.  @PeterMasi_Son_Tile  You’re dodging; like the rest you’re telling people to ask someone else for the evidence you all claim to possess. If you possess it then just produce it. That would be far more convincing.
    3
  503. You mean you just buy into any conspiracy going because it makes you feel intelligent?
    3
  504.  @yestervue4697  Depends how large a room you use. Since the light (sun or torch) is not a point source the shadow will diverge into umbra & penumbra, something that becomes apparent with increasing distance. In a large room there will be a very clear edge if your hand is close to the wall and that edge will become fuzzy (to an observer by the wall) with increasing distance of your hand away from the wall. With sufficient distance the shadow will be black (umbra) with an increasing grey halo (penumbra) and ultimately become just penumbra. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles; all are observable & measurable to anyone willing to try and none can be manipulated by the <insert favourite bogeymen>. That is how the ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere. The sun has a measurably constant angular diameter & angular velocity and rises & sets while the FE insists both are variable and that the sun doesn't come within 20 degrees of the horizon. Polaris would be visible from all over the FE, not just the Northern Hemisphere, and the measurements taken in observable reality would not triangulate on a FE model.
    3
  505.  @yestervue4697  "Only way is to increase the size of the light source" Or increase the distance. Try it. "why do they move faster than the earth rotates if the lunar cycle is 28 days?" You're referring to a solar eclipse, not a lunar eclipse. A solar eclipse takes hours; since the Earth is rotating, at any given location the effect is apparent only for several minutes. "moon in the model travels faster than the earth spins" Are you prepared to sit there for several hours for real-time progress or would you prefer the motion speeded up so you can see in a matter of seconds? "Light source must be much larger in diameter than the object " It requires that the light source not be a point source. "(from 93mil miles away it IS a point source!)" 0.5 degrees =/= 0 degrees.
    3
  506. Just explain it. I’m not buying your book.
    3
  507. Seeing isn’t sensory input?
    3
  508.  @RobbiePNoCap Explain how perspective would not affect the sun’s angular diameter and make it disappear from the bottom up.
    3
  509. Convex Earth was a spoof that only gullible folks find believable.
    3
  510.  @JimSmithInChiapas  You would swear from most of the conversations around me that the Wuhan lab is an NIH facility. I imagine it arises from the NIH & Fauci being recognisable targets. I quoted the sentence in their conclusion to the effect that a lab leak could not be ruled out. Many other labs could sequence the virus; they were first not the only place. They debated between themselves if it was possible for the virus to have been manipulated; publishing that would be speculation.
    3
  511.  @JimSmithInChiapas It’s more exhibit A that scientists can disagree on the interpretation of evidence.
    3
  512. An effect can have more than one contributory cause.
    3
  513. What misuse of science during Covid?
    3
  514. Established science is not an unquestioned idea.
    3
  515.  @JohnChilders-x9t  How many miles across do you think is necessary for your test?
    3
  516.  @JohnChilders-x9t Raindrops, meniscus, waterfalls - all quite curved. You still haven’t explained how you think water observes its environment, makes decisions and moves itself. Why is it so difficult for FE’ers to calculate degrees per mile?
    3
  517.  @boterlettersukkel  He’s joking.
    3
  518.  @DaKingof  Why is it always “do the research”? Why can’t any of the FE’ers reveal the Real Model? Why keep repeating the same debunked canards instead of producing the Real Model, Real Physics, Real Evidence etc?
    3
  519. Try producing the scientific evidence that disproved the globe. So many claim they have it....
    3
  520.  @tranquoc-binh5287  I asked you for it and you haven't answered.
    3
  521. She hasn’t given any credibility to FE; the video discusses the basis and shortfalls of their thought processes.
    3
  522. It’s arrogant to rely on evidence?
    3
  523.  @graybeard2113  How the heck can you spend 5 years looking into a subject and still get everything wrong?
    3
  524. What makes you think nobody has tried Galileo’s experiment?
    3
  525.  @sandytarihoran0467 What do you think prevents people from going south of the equator?
    3
  526. Science has been wrong and subsequently proved corrected by scientists as data continued to accumulate. It is unlikely an incorrect idea would persist for long. If it is “painfully obvious” then you will be able to be specific about the evidence. Do you want to try? It was uneconomical to continue sending manned missions. Far more could be done with far less using unmanned missions. We do indeed have fhe modern technology to reach the moon; Artemis 1 returned a few weeks ago. FE’ers persistently ignore key factors and use the wrong maths. You’re exhibiting double standards.
    3
  527.  @DarkmanEsq  Gravity in relativity is an apparent force; it is not non-existent as FE'ers claim.
    3
  528. Another rover just landed on Mars; that is somewhat beyond orbit. Himawari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC are collectively taking several full hemisphere shots of Earth. per hour.
    3
  529. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows - all verifiable by anybody, all indicative that the Earth is a sphere and all indicative that the Earth is not flat. Still waiting on the FE'er explanations.
    3
  530. ​ @floridaman318  The trouble is that nobody can produce these videos; we get ones with arrows pointing into thin air with "there just gotta be a wire here", training videos (apparently training make it impossible for astronauts to go to space for unspecified reasons) and one with a stubby radio aerial and umpteen claims of "I can see them" imaginary wires. Meanwhile astronauts can make a video tour of the ISS, a continuous 45min passing through several modules and their junctions with no explanation ever coming how wires would work. "I'm not sure what you're saying here" That umpteen people claim to see wires in thin air.
    3
  531. The planets are observed to rotate; they don’t continuously provide the same face. How would the moon not being tidally locked give rise to two full moons?
    3
  532. What propaganda?
    3
  533.  @edwardchege2623  Why would the existence of helium balloons preclude the existence of satellites?
    3
  534.  @edwardchege2623  Why does Blue Marble 2012 being a composite mean every photo ever taken must be a composite?
    3
  535.  @edwardchege2623  Read all the presuppositions that are made for simplicity of equations, e.g., (as I already pointed out) no flexibility in the airframe, no loss of weight due to fuel consumption, no weather, no hills & valleys etc. How do you conclude that it's admission that metals lack flexibility, planes don't consume fuel, there's no weather and no landscape?
    3
  536.  @edwardchege2623  "any mass will seek a downward skinning aspect" And I'm asking you why it would and why in a consistent direction. Try actually answering if you have it all figured.
    3
  537.  @edwardchege2623  And I repeat (and please read and think this time): 8”/mile^2 doesn’t calculate how far you can see and the shit was taken from the top of mountain, the subject being the top of another mountain projecting above the horizon. When curvature, elevation & atmospheric refraction are all accounted for it works. When you use a curve calculator that doesn't include elevation & refraction them you will get a figure that doesn't account for elevation & refraction. When both elevation & refraction are key elements a calculator that doesn't included is not gin to give you the correct answer. Assuming the peak of Pic de Fenestrelles to be sea-level is a pretty dumb notion.
    3
  538. Plenty of curvature along the Suez Canal; no change in elevation.
    3
  539.  @1WWJD  Sea level referring to elevation, not curvature. Elevation and curvature are two different things. Elevation and curvature have different definitions. Elevation and curvature describe two different things. Elevation and curvature are not interchangeable terms. Is that clear enough?
    3
  540.  @therealzilch  All those grains are just layabouts 😊
    3
  541. Governments are responsible for road signs & markings; are they truthful?
    3
  542. Whether the soup is edible not whether living off it is good for you. What do True FE’ers believe? What details are you actually agreed upon?
    3
  543. Not knowing how something can be measured is not the same as knowing it can’t be measured. When down is towards the centre of the globe why would you think north is up and south down? What’s your reasoning?
    3
  544. Only one shape has a circular cross-section when viewed from every angle is while people may not think beyond pictures it is conclusive. FE’ers thinking is always superficial; none have thought about what their FE sun would appear like.
    3
  545. What do you think alters the photons’ paths or makes them run out of energy?
    3
  546.  @tnaplastic2182  Dispersion means spread over a greater area, not running out of energy. Unless diverted or blocked photons retain the same energy and vector.
    3
  547.  @tnaplastic2182  Still waiting on FE’ers to explain how they think atmospheric lensing is going to alter the apparent size of the sun and manage it just so for all observers every day.
    3
  548. Two celestial poles, motion of the sun, horizons… It’s not that hard to disprove FE when FE predictions conflict with observable reality.
    3
  549.  @WorldInANutshell  You said it was hard to disprove a FE; I gave you some easy methods. We are still waiting a plausible FE’er explanation for horizons.
    3
  550. Why not specify what you do believe? The topic of the video is your thought processes, not what details you claim.
    3
  551.  @F0ckyourculture  Accelerating upwards is what preceded “density force” and there are several “maps” floating around. Your argument is that is that if she had used your preferred model then your same reasoning errors would somehow be rendered valid. You haven’t backed this by providing the “correct” model; none of you ever do.
    3
  552.  @F0ckyourculture  Do you not understand the word hypothesis?
    3
  553.  @thepaterfamilias5853  No, experience from arguing with you: faulty premises and logical errors. Good example is the insistence on using 8" per mile squared to calculate hidden drop even when it has been repeatedly explained to them why it is inappropriate (parabolic equation) and incorrect (takes no account of elevation & refraction). You predict the sun varies in angular diameter & velocity through the course of the day and doesn't come with 20 degrees of the horizon; I've never been able to extract your explanation for why we don't see that occurring. None of you have ever been able to explain to me why perspective would make something disappear from the bottom up, much less why it would only occur when the object is at the horizons that you claim doesn't exist. Your prediction is that we should be able to see a mountain several hundred miles, top to bottom; your "proof" is a photo of only 250 miles distance showing the tip of a mountain peek above the horizon. So many of you fail to realise a picture of Chicago consists only the upper parts of the skyscrapers, even when pointed out to you, and nobody has ever been to explain to me why seeing Chicago from Michigan would be newsworthy if it was utterly mundane. FE'ers just go on and on an on like this while insisting, as you are doing, that your reasoning is flawless. Do you want to try explaining the above points? And don't go off on "do the research" statements; that has been done.
    3
  554. By watching the sun & stars and thinking.
    3
  555.  @yingyang1008  DishTV mounted a video camera on one of their satellites and ran a video channel from it for several years. The ISS has externally mounted cameras. Apparently neither is enough to qualify for a "video of the Earth" for reasons. "they can't prove that the earth is a globe" Movement of the sun, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles, horizon. That someone can't figure out how to do it does not mean it can't be done. Reread my OP.
    3
  556.  @shroud1390  You can’t change the definitions of words if you want clear communication.
    3
  557. The south magnetic pole is locatable and located the same way the north magnetic pole is. The Earth has a circumference of 25,000 miles, not the 25-250 miles envisaged by some.
    3
  558. Still waiting on FE explanations for how density can act as a force, why atmospheric pressure declines with increasing altitude and what your proposed model is. Why are those questions do difficult for the people who profess to have the answers?
    3
  559.  @boterlettersukkel  A few cups of bloodwine and you’ll be too stoned to care 😊
    3
  560.  @cabbagefart7432  Which brings us back go my earlier question: why do you consider elevation to be inconsequential? I can see Blackpool Tower from the beach; while Blackpool is a seaside resort the tower is not built at sea level.
    3
  561. Which drug do you envisage as altering RNA?
    3
  562. ⁠ @TheCollages The world’s surface has been independently measured & mapped by multiple parties with consistent results that fit only a globe and FEer havd the opportunity to falsify it by producing your fabulous FE map. What’s the delay?
    3
  563.  @STARYZEN237  You’re saying measurement is a fallacy since you expect to obtain a measurement? When there is no calculation involved how can something be an “asdumed calculation”? What is your definition of “assumed calculation”? You’re using your own definition of empirical evidence not the dictionary or scientifc definitions. What is your ddfinition of empirical evidence? Are FEers capable of answering questions or do you just mindlessly repeat the bilge somebody told you?
    3
  564. Nobody is claiming there are anything but two sexes (generic screwups aside); that is biology. The discussion is about gender, which is dependent on sociology & psychology. Climate change predictions are mostly accurate and some are misrepresented in the press, eg, an average temperature does not mean everywhere must be get warmer.
    3
  565.  @paurushbhatnagar8100  What limits the panoramic view?
    3
  566. The ancient Greeks deduced it from observation and thought; 2500 years on we are still waiting for FE’ers to explain the motion of the sun, horizons, constellations changing with season & latitude, angle to Polaris matching latitude and two celestial poles. There are multitude of very long FE videos that fail to explain them. Do you want to try or is it yet another “ask someone else”?
    3
  567.  @tombass3288  Check out Orion.
    3
  568.  @chrisskully1228 Explain how density (a ratio) could act as a force and why in a consistent direction.
    3
  569.  @grawss  That you don’t know the evidence supporting something does not mean you know there is no evidence backing it. You realise we publish our evidence?
    3
  570.  @grawss  You spoke of theories that don’t explain everything but are accepted as working truths until disproven; in science research that is a hypothesis. What assumptions do you think I am making? You’re asserting that there is no evidence that “worms” on the moon come from lava flows because somebody you asked didn’t know what the evidence is. Did you ask somebody actually involved in determining they were lava flows?
    3
  571.  @grawss  You’re reply has disappeared from my feed so I have to write from what I remember reading. Congratulations on knowing the difference between scientific & vernacular. Unfortunately most people who make assertions about science accepting theories as fact are unaware of the distinction. “Gravity is just an idea somebody had” is a frequently recurrent one on discussions involving FE. If there are alternative hypotheses for sinuous rilles then one hypothesis is not accepting a single hypothesis. You need to check specifically with lunar geologists. Lower gravity and a weaker atmosphere would have led to different lava flow on the surface while atmospheric loss and lack of tectonic activity woukd have resulted in differing preservation than on Earth.
    3
  572. "general scientific dissonance" If we knew the answers then it wouldn't be research. The science taught in school is very basic and are long & well established principles that underlie science research; they can be conveyed as authorative. In contrast, the cutting edge of science is not so tidy; the still accumulating data means different possible explanations can exist for a phenomenon and the definite answer will only become apparent with time and more data. Conveying that as a coherent picture to lay people (or even those in other science fields) takes a certain talent.
    3
  573.  @shaunsteele8244  Reconcile that claim with the observed motion of the sun & stars. How does the sun maintain a constant angular diameter & velocity for each observer? How can there be two celestial poles? How can constellations change with latitude? Why can’t any of you answer these questions?
    3
  574.  @peacedreamerable  It never occurs to you that Dubay could be spoon-feeding you lies or to think through in the details he provides you with? Motion of the sun, horizjns, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses. That is how the ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere; all observable by anybody & everybody. Try to get them to work on Dubay’s model.
    3
  575.  @kevinskinner4986  There is no scientific evidence to support Bigfoot & psychic powers but neither are they categorically disproved. Earth is observable & measurable and observed & measured.
    3
  576. All magnets are bipolar.
    3
  577. Level in this context means equidistant from the centre of gravity, not flat. On a sphere that means the water curves around it. Water can’t make decisions or move itself; it does not “seek to stay level”.
    3
  578.  @shyrebel8813  What’s axiomatic about maths?
    3
  579.  @ShropshireFox  "Experiments are needed in science to prove or disprove a hypothesis." It requires a testable hypothesis; whether it can be tested through experimentation or observation is not important and does not determine whether or not something is science. "you need a dependent variable (observed natural phenomenon/the effect)" Brightness of a star "An independent variable (presumed cause)" Occlusion of the light by a planet. "Controlled variable(s)" You control when you take the measurements.
    3
  580. Cat flaps.
    3
  581.  @ding9633  Providing answers & explanations is not trolling.
    3
  582. If you want people to know the Real Model why don’t any of you reveal what it is?
    3
  583. The disc accelerating upwards is what preceded the unexplained density force.
    3
  584. Say exactly what you think is wrong and why.
    3
  585. A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon, expressed as an equation describing the relationship between the different key factors. Scientific theories cover how these relationships work. The shape of something is a fact, not a law or theory.
    3
  586. Has Dubay gitten around to explaining how density (a ratio with no vector) could act as a force? I was banned for asking.
    3
  587. We ate still waiting in FE’ers to oridycd the Real Model, Real Map, Real Physics etc. Until they do then we just have to work with what they do provide. The Earth moving or accelerating upwards is what FE’ers used to advocate until recently. What do you think has not been debunked?
    3
  588.  @jordanemede  “I have not claimed any specific number or measurements” Quite. FE’ers seem incapable of measuring anything (I did ask why none of you have used trigonometry to estimate a distance to the sun) while disputing measurements repeatedly made over centuries that demonstrate a globe. What makes FE’ers so allergic to measurement?
    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.  @yhenry77  "Huh? Who, what?" Admiral Byrd concerning Antarctica. "Where are the Antarctic coastline videos? The races were poorly documented." The vast majority of the time they are not going to be in sight of the coastline. When someone is sailing a yacht single handedly would they spend time filming coastline all but FE'ers know exist just a to produce a video that FE'ers will ignore? The race itself is between ports; the yachts are documented as putting into those ports. There are no shortcuts to the shortest routes between those ports.
    3
  591. Convex Earth was a spoof that only gullible folks find believable.
    3
  592.  @stevenpoynter9982  NASA tells us that the sun rises & sets? What was it doing before NASA was created?
    3
  593. Dosage is a key factor in how poisonous something is. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude - all checkable by anybody. Curvature can be measured with sticks & shadows.
    3
  594. And so?
    3
  595.  @jamesi2018  And if the Russians had had any doubt about the veracity of the missions they would have had a propaganda coup. The people who had the means & motive of identifying fraud were satisfied it was genuine.
    3
  596.  @jamesi2018  Why do you think that the Russians would have kept quiet?
    3
  597. Reminds me of a conversation between Sheldon and Howard.
    3
  598. About 0.3%. Fine balances need to be recalibrated if they’re moved.
    3
  599. It’s a dated concept that has largely been replaced by “density is a force” BS or similar. It finally dawned in FE’ers that acceleration rapidly increased velocity to implausible speeds.
    3
  600. What FE model?
    3
  601.  @aleksandrogrizancic9739 How are the corporates, elites etc manipulating the sun & stars?
    3
  602. Still waiting on yiu to provide any evidence. Why is taking years?
    3
  603. Himawari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC are collectively producing several single-frame shots per hour. It costs money to install, launch & operate a camera; it is a complete waste of money when the people demanding the photos will automatically reject them.
    3
  604.  @KangenAlec  You’re back to denying telescopes exist....
    3
  605.  @Ant1NW0  Bubbles from a scuba tank move rapidly upwards. NASA “bubbles” drift slowly sideways. How do you conclude that they are the same thing?
    3
  606.  @Ant1NW0  How well do you a think a blue screen could work when it has a prominent white grid in it?
    3
  607. What makes you say it is “extreme and ridiculous”?
    3
  608.  @jlstonejls123  Consistently so over about 3 years of repeatedly asking questions.
    3
  609.  @jlstonejls123  Two celestial poles, angle to Polaris matching latitude and constellations changing with latitude. Explain those on your model.
    3
  610. Your hypothesis is that they feel pain and dropped the material because if it; you need to demonstrate that is true, not declare yourself s source of truth.
    3
  611.  @Florian-dg7mi  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses - all verifiable by anybody, all indicative of a sphere, all disprove a FE and all unexplained by FE’ers.
    3
  612.  @timkaufhold6163  It's a spoof. It's deliberately littered with factual errors, the title is a clue and it demonstrates how FE brains filter out what they don't want to hear.
    3
  613.  @shots-shots-shotseverybody2707  Why don't you answer Jim's question?
    3
  614. Doesn’t occur to you that Sibrel could be faking something?
    3
  615. Has it occurred to you that those telling you that everybody else in the world has been bought off might just be fibbing to you?
    3
  616.  @christopherthomas518  No, we measure, a concept that is apparently alien to FE’ers.
    3
  617. The FE’er that came back satisfied that the Earth was a globe would promptly accused of being a shill.
    3
  618. A vacuum has no power; there is nothing there to exert force. Atmospheric pressure declines with increasing altitude; at no point is there vacuum adjacent to the atmosphere. The balance of gravity and gas expansion produces a declining pressure with altitude.
    3
  619. 14-15hr direct flights.
    3
  620. Still waiting on any FE’er to provide these proofs. Do you want to try?
    3
  621. If it is so easy to zoom the set sun back into view then why can’t any of you demonstrate it? Why does it never work for other people?
    3
  622. Scale, something that FE'ers have no understanding of.
    3
  623. South is on all compasses therefore south is the centre. Evidently like all FEers you have no grasp of scale or numbers.
    3
  624. Politeness and respect are two different things.
    3
  625. How many times by how many people does the Cavendish experiment need to be repeated for you to be satisfied that it has been repeated? All scientific experiments rely on measurements, not our senses, including the original Cavendish experiment, which has pages & pages of measurements. "try to prove yourself wrong not right, very subtle point" We attempt to disprove the hypothesis, whittling down the alternative explanations to those which may give a better answer than the existing theory. If the attraction was down to electrostatic charge then repulsion would also have been observed (it hasn't) and the effect wouldn't be directly proportional to the masses used (it always is). That is how you disprove the hypothesis that electrostatic charge is the cause of the attraction. "who cares if you can’t make the experiment work" Still waiting on this evidence that it doesn't work. "I don't want to believe it" is not evidence. "It's just gotta be something else" is not evidence.
    3
  626.  @Vkarlsen  I can't see his reply (YT is playing up at present) so I don't know what video you are referring to. . "accurate measurements are quite a difficult task" Which is why multiple measurements are taken, multiple sets of data collected and statistical analysis done to determine accuracy & precision. It does not mean the measurement are inherently unreliable or unreproducible. "If it reacts, a force exists, whether its mass attraction is another question" Which is why an experiment needs to be reproduced in different forms to eliminate alternatives. That the possibility always remains that there is an unknown force at play does not mean there is no evidence that it is gravity. "The tests are admittedly not a repetiton of cavendish's experiments" That is the difference between reproduction and replication; the latter is extremely difficult while the former tests the principles of the original. If the effect is not due to a specific piece of equipment in the original experiment then it will be reproducible. That is found with the Cavendish experiment.
    3
  627. ​ @Vkarlsen  "Repeated" wouldn't specify either. You need to tell me which video; it's not apparent from your quote whether he means Cavendish's original experiment or a rerun of his own.
    3
  628.  @Vkarlsen  "what causes the observation..." And we are waiting on FE'ers to provide a valid alternative to gravity.
    3
  629.  @Vkarlsen  Are you advocating spontaneous motion as an explanation for why the attraction occurs? You were advocating electrostatic attraction earlier. Whether gravity exists and what it is are two different questions and the former is not dependent on the latter being answered. The Cavendish indicates gravity exists; known alternatives have been eliminated, which in science always leaves the possibility of an unknown factor.
    3
  630. Why does an object fall at all?
    2
  631.  @douglasmcleod7481  A scientific theory is a scientific theory.
    2
  632.  @opxchaos5757  If you have evidence for a stationary or flat earth then be novel and provide it.
    2
  633.  @opxchaos5757  Our bodies are insensitive to motion; we infer it from vision and sensitivity to acceleration. In the car you feel the vibration from the engine and the unevenness of the terrain you are driving over and observe motion in objects outside the car; from that infer you are moving. When you and the Earth are moving at the same velocity with no friction to create vibrations you can detect then there is no way for you to infer that you are moving. "Rotating at 1000 mph" Mph is a linear velocity and nothing rotates in a straight line; the Earth rotates once per day, not a speed of rotation you could sense or that would make you dizzy. "Our own observation and use of our senses shows that the earth is stationary." Observation includes stellar parallax which indicate the Earth moves in a regular orbit. Hs it occurred to you that there are limits to your senses? Do you believe radio waves exist?
    2
  634.  @opxchaos5757  1. The sun & moon rise & set, which contradicts the notion of always being above a FE. There are quite observable two celestial poles which contradicts the notion there is only one. The stars do change with time. 2. Something can pass beyond your visual acuity long before it reaches the horizon. Zooming something back into view before reaches the horizon tells you sweet FA about the horizon. Try zooming the set sun back into view. None of you seem able to do despite saying how easy-peasy it is. 3. When everything is moving at the same velocity there is no difference in velocity between them. What is so difficult to understand about that? "I passed all my classes with flying colors" I doubt it. You seem incapable of any more than rudimentary reasoning. "there are many questions that can't be able won't be answered" Such as?
    2
  635. ​ @opxchaos5757  "I don't even know where you got that from." By knowing how our senses work. "they are completely silent yet you can still sense motion" And as I said you can sense the terrain you are passing over and small changes in velocity (ie., acceleration) and observe objects outside the car moving, from all which you infer that you are in motion. "nasa litterally says that it rotates at 1000mph" Provide the quote from NASA. The tangential velocity at the equator is c. 1000mph; the rotation is once per day. "Describe to me how a stellar parallax proves a globe" I said that stellar parallax demonstrates that the Earth moves. That the Earth is a globe is demonstrated by the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris being dependent on latitude and two celestial poles. "Yet we feel very still." Because there is bugger all acceleration and bugger all friction. In the absence of both you infer lack of motion. It is does not mean you aren't moving. "And things look very still" You mean you don't see any profound changes that are obvious to the unaided eye and you are unwilling to look for fine changes. What exactly do you expect to see form the EArth's motion and why?
    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. No, you don’t know multiple scientists who think Covid & vaccine science are untrustworthy.
    2
  638.  @JimSmithInChiapas  I’ll modify it.
    2
  639.  @JimSmithInChiapas  What unethical conduct?
    2
  640.  @JimSmithInChiapas  I remember it now. I also told you what I thought of it.
    2
  641. You need to come up with a hypothesis whereby the other causes would explain what you observe otherwise you are simply saying “something else just gotta be causing it”.
    2
  642.  @andrewbullman5206 ​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠How much curvature per mile do you expect to be readily visible with a 25,000 mile circumference? Wrong equation, which is why FEers stick to it like glue. How many circumpolar navigations need to be to satisfy you that one has been done? Try actually looking up the etymology of aeroplane instead of just repeating what your guru told you. Look up the multiple meanings of level in a goid dictionary. Yes, it is possible for a word to have multiple meanings dependent on context. You’re confusing elevation & curvature. A sphere is not a bump on a flat plane. FE idiots are capable of screwing any experiment due to total ineptitude in handling multiple factors, scale, variables ad infinitum.
    2
  643.  @tatonemio6388 I’m miffed he isn’t demanding the same for me😢
    2
  644.  @Ninja1998-f3b  Why not just answer? It would be far more convincing.
    2
  645.  @Ninja1998-f3b  "Cuse the light is not reaching that part of a table" Which refers to the torch where the light source is within a conical reflector. You're being asked how that would work with a spherical sun that is always seen to have a circular cross-section. "Sun source of light is moving away from you slowly diminishes and goes into distance" Which would result in a sun that (relative to the observer) changes angular velocity and angular diameter through the course of the day; everybody observes a constant angular velocity and angular diameter. We are still waiting for a FE'er to provide the explanation you all profess to have. If you want to persuade people that you have the answers then you need to produce them, not make airy statements with ill thought out arguments.
    2
  646.  @Ninja1998-f3b  See what?
    2
  647. It wasnt economically or politically viable to keep going. When the people holding the purse strings say no then there’s no funding to go.
    2
  648. Approaching light speed in a year; it would never actually reach it. The penny finally dropped there was a problem with that idea and they’re trying to come up with a workable explanation for pennies dropping.
    2
  649. How does the sun maintain a constant angular velocity and angular diameter through the course of the day and rise & set without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon?
    2
  650.  @sensualgoat3718  You mean you haven’t actually thought any of it through. FE predicts the sun has variable angular velocity & diameter and won’t come within 20 degrees of the horizon. It clearly doesn’t do that. You challenged people to a debate so answer the question.
    2
  651. If it isn’t simple then it isn’t science?
    2
  652.  @3kinformaticamanutencaoeve91  I said low-hanging apples, ie, the apples than can be easily plucked. It’s an English term referring to readily achievable aims and infers that higher apples require effort.
    2
  653.  @brentwebster3751  We're indoctrinated to believe that maths is correct? Do you want to try disproving maths? "Most experiments actually show that the first beam is traveling slower. But some do show the opposite" Examples? You need to explain not only why the average would always be accurate but why there would be such variations in velocity. Kaku was making reference to quantum physics specifically. I need full context and an accurate quote. "they were discussing moving the sun 250x farther and making it 250x bigger so that that particular eclipse would be explainable" Nowhere can I find reference to that; come up with one. The eclipse predictions were accurate with calculations from our understanding of the solar system; where do you think the problem was? Is there anything in that video that hasn't been debunked countless times?
    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.  @brentwebster3751  The search algorithms downgrade conspiracy videos; they don’t remove them. I don’t find any explanation what underlying maths the app is supposed to use. If there is working FE maths that corresponds to observed reality why can nobody produce it?
    2
  656.  @brentwebster3751  The “Deceptive calculations” has it backwards. Eratosthenes was trying to measure the circumference of the Earth; that it was a sphere had been deduced 2 centuries earlier from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris and two celestial poles, all things that you can confirm for yourself as David & Matuse said. Each step used details that had been determined earlier; each detail was not an assumption for that step. Repeating Eratosthenes’s experiment with multiple points (a regular school experiment in the US I gather) demonstrates curvature and disproves a flat earth. Put a stick in the ground and check the direction of the shadow every hour; it will be a regular 15 degrees/hour. FE models require a variable rate.
    2
  657.  @brentwebster3751  The “250x” is someone’s confusing umbra with penumbra and assuming the former would be the width the latter. It’s not something revelatory.
    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.  @brentwebster3751  I'm not willing to sit through 2hrs to find out the conditions on Weiss's offer. "just one proof we live on a spinning ball" If that is the actual challenge then there is a built-in catch to ensure nobody meets the challenge: you need to two separate experiments to prove curvature and rotation and the challenge demands one. That the Earth is curved is easy to demonstrate (motion of the sun, horizons (not they are not the limit of visual acuity), two celestial poles and the angle to Polaris ), rotation less so (requires a huge pendulum or an expensive laser gyroscope) but still demonstrable (Globebusters did it) but there is not combined experiment to demonstrate both simultaneously.
    2
  660.  @brentwebster3751  Michaelson-Morley used the known motion of the EArth to look for evidence of the totally hypothetical luminiferous aether. No FE'er yet has explained how they conclude the total lack of evidence for luminiferous aether proves its existence, something that would be absolutely necessary to concluded from the M-M experiment that the Earth was stationary. Same for Airy's failure. When correctly performed the Bedford Level Experiment demonstrate curvature. Rowbotham lay on the ice to take his measurements so that the higher humidity would lead to sufficient refraction to hid the curvature. You have yet to produce any evidence that the size of the sun isn't known.
    2
  661.  @brentwebster3751  For Weiss to be obliged to pay out then every condition of the challenge has to be exactly met; if the challenge stipulates that curvature & rotation are to be proven in "one experiment" then it has to be done in "one experiment" to meet the challenge. There is no difficulty in proving curvature & rotation, it's doing so in "one experiment" that is the problem. It wouldn't matter how many times in how many ways each is proven (which you can do for yourself) but that it is done in "one experiment". If nobody can meet the "one experiment" condition then they can't meet the challenge regardless of how much conclusive evidence they provide for curvature & rotation. That is why such conditions are incorporated in these challenges; to make it LEGALLY impossible to meet the challenge. Numerous prats then proclaim no evidence was provided regardless of how much actually was. "most of us tried to prove the ball and failed" You have an excellent record of screwing up. We explain where & why you screwed up and you just keep repeating it. "We found huge problems with it" Yet none of you can ever say what these problems are. You just point at your screw-ups. I very much doubt you made posts linking to articles. Do you seriously think none of us read papers & journals?
    2
  662.  @brentwebster3751  Radius of the sun is about 696,000 km. The proposed correction adds 200-300 km to the radius, <0.1% not the 250-fold that you’re talking about. The accuracy of measurements improves with time as more methods & opportunity enable greater exactness. Nobody is proposing changing the solar system.
    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.  @davidmescher2526  Kaku's quote about not using scientific method is from C-Span's in depth interview with him (3hrs!), thankfully occuring at about 2:50 and refers specifically to string theory (Brent dropped the "in my field" from the quote).
    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.  @HansBezemer  I've been arguing with him for the last week; he thinks everybody is misunderstanding basic physics, gets reference frame mixed up, is unwilling to explain how his idea is supposed to work and has no clue how research is conducted.
    2
  668.  @emmanuellerousseau7314  Why do you think any of that would disrupt the lake? When earth, lake & atmosphere are all moving at the same velocity what force is there to disrupt the surface?
    2
  669.  @thomscott8678  It retain eastwards momentum same way a thrown ball keeps moving when it leaves your hand. In flying westwards relative to the Earth & atmosphere the helicopter encounters resistance; its propulsion has to counter that resistance to keep it moving through the atmosphere. Once it comes to hover again, the air resistance reduces its momentum. If there is a wind at that point then the helicopter will need to fly into the wind to hover above the Earth. What do you perceive the problem to be?
    2
  670. FE explanations tend to be self-contradictory and avoid answering obvious questions. There’s considerable difference between the science that is taught in school (the basics that have been well-established over centuries) and what is under current research, eg, the epidemiology of an emergent virus. If governments lied about everything or even most thjngs then they wouldn’t be able to function. We are not paid off to arrive at desired conclusions. Had the US been caught faking moon landings then the humiliation would have been far greater than tgat gained by beating the Russians to get there.
    2
  671.  @Nehner  Yet again, DishTV ran such a channel for a few years.
    2
  672.  @Nehner  How would you keep the camera immobile?
    2
  673. Nobody has claimed viruses were linked to satellites. "the distance one is allowed to go away from home "is based on science"" Go far enough away from your home you will encounter your neighbours. If one of you has the virus then shortening the separating distance greatly increases the risk of transmission. The concept is not difficult to grasp.
    2
  674.  @moses777exodus  "If a scientist was standing in the middle of the salt flats, he could conclude that the earth was flat" We don't take measurements by eyeballing.
    2
  675.  @jahb0780  Why would the astronauts burn up while travelling through the VAB? The Apollo missions passed through at the weaker periphery at high speed; compounded with the shielding provided by hull, insulation & water tanks they received a radiation dosage the equivalent of having 2 X-rays. The current problem is the electronics on board; the circuitry is fine and a radiation dose that is insignificant to a human could potentially cause irreparable damage.
    2
  676.  @jahb0780  "we can’t feel the globe spinning at a thousand miles and hour" One rotation per day is far slower than your body can sense.
    2
  677.  @jahb0780  "why do they call it a plane" Derived from the Greek planetes, which means wanderer.
    2
  678.  @jahb0780  "I know electromagnetic, gravity is a theory." Scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well-substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a hunch or guess; that is the vernacular meaning of theory.
    2
  679.  @briansearle6868  "Science should ALWAYS be questioned and tested" What do you think we do in labs?
    2
  680.  @wizard1404  "If they are recording in Devon Island..." Why do you think equipment should not be tested ahead of their use? Why would testing equipment preclude the use of said equipment & design elsewhere? "We have given it 60º" That is an angle, not a distance. The angle to Polaris varies with latitude. It isn't visible below the equator; while FE'er predict it is visible everywhere on the FE. Explain how the discrepancy. "Sun = 2,000 MILES POLARIS = 6904 MILES" Hw do you calculate those numbers? "sundial shatter the globe" How?
    2
  681.  @ronpapi9539  ""Not my map" Produce a copy of your FE map. "No space station.converted 747" That's been orbiting for 20+ years with an unaerodynamic shape at speeds exceeding a 747's capability and with no regard for atmospheric conditions? Explain how. "All your Space Knowledge is based on Speculation" You denying the evidence doesn't make it go away. You not producing evidence for a FE does not magically prove a FE.
    2
  682. You realise the KJV is likely the least accurate rather than the most accurate? It was translated from the Latin, not the original Hebrew & Greek, and was modified to support contemporary thinking.
    2
  683. Look up conservation of momentum.
    2
  684.  @HaileAozfie  Before the plane takes off it is moving eastwards as the Earth rotates; it is only stationary relative to the rotating Earth. When it takes off it retains that eastwards momentum in the same way a thrown ball continues moving when it breaks contact with your hand. The planes engines alter the momentum slightly. You need to explain why you think the momentum would magically disappear when the plane takes off. What makes you think the atmosphere wouldn’t be moving with the Earth? Why do you think 4.5 billlion years of friction with the Earth’s surface wouldn’t lead to any motion?
    2
  685.  @HaileAozfie  Mph is a linear velocity and nothing rotates in a straight line. Rotation is typically measured in revolutions per minute or radians per second; essentially the angle change per unit time. The Earth rotates once per day. The tangential velocity, which is measured in mph or km/sec is dependent on the distance from the rotational axis; the higher the latitude the lower the tangential velocity.
    2
  686.  @HaileAozfie  Explain how you think something can revolve (a curve) in a straight line. Like other FE’ers you keep claiming wondrous insight but you seem incapable of explaining anything.
    2
  687.  @HaileAozfie  Straight line is y = mx + c Circle is (x-h)^2 + (y-k)^2 = r^2 Let’s see your maths for the two being indistinguishable.
    2
  688.  @HaileAozfie  You’re the one claiming that are certain values where are circle and straight line are indistinguishable. The onus is on you to produce those values.
    2
  689.  @HaileAozfie  If each is readily convertible to the other then a circle and straight line would be indistinguishable. You’re the one claiming to have totally blown away a few millenia of maths; the onus is on you to provide your computations, not demand other prople do them for you. Put up or shut up.
    2
  690.  @316woodworks9  There’s no absolute frame of reference; all motion has to be measured relative to something. With only two objects you can’t distinguish which is moving; both are in motion relative to each other. With many objects you can deduce some order, eg, planets orbiting a star but that in itself assumes the star to be stationary.
    2
  691. When the opinions are not based on provable facts & evidence and the provable facts & evidence disprove the claim then why shouldn’t those opinions be dismissed?
    2
  692. That was quite a jumble. 2. You’re assuming that there is nothing between absolute certainty and totally unknown. You can open the tin labelled soup with reasonable certainty that it contains potable soup.
    2
  693. There’s a continuous 45min tour of the ISS; why don’t invisible wires impede passage between the modules?
    2
  694.  @1FeistyKitty  “I have NO IDEA what you are claiming” That is how the ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere purely from observation that anybody can make. They all disprove a FE. FE’ers need to explain how you think they could work, not blow them off. What does NASA have to do with the shape of the Earth. They were firmed in 1958AD; we knew the Earth was a globe in 500BC. 1. They have changed. 2. No it doesn’t. 3. Angle of incidence. 4. Pendulous vanes. 5. Selenhelion, when they are on opposing horizons. 6. It does. 7. No it isn’t. 8. Inability of FE’ers to focus. 9. Works just as well when the moon isn’t in the sky. 10. “If we ignore key factors and use the wrong maths we get the wrong answer. This disproves the correct answer.” All you’ve brought up are the same old canards and you can’t answer fundamental questions. The video is about the paucity of your reasoning processes, for which you have provided a lovely demonstration.
    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.  @ceeaki22ndcentury  "It seemed a flat disc with upturned edges" He was looking through a little glass porthole; the upturn was the edge of the window (left & right), not the edge of the Earth (distant centre).
    2
  697. That requires calculation, something beyind their abilities.
    2
  698. The FE accelerating upwards is what preceded "density is a force!!!"; it was dumped when on dawned on FE'ers that teh FE would rapidly reach speeds you consider impossibly large. What's the betting you won't explain how something that isn't a force can act as a force? "The first model is the only model we use" You're all quite agreed that you are agreed on a model but there is no agreement what this agreed model is. The details differ from FE'er to FE'er and quite mysteriously none of you can actually produce this working model that you claim to be agreed upon. Do you want to try?
    2
  699.  @1FeistyKitty  Let me guess - #11 is in the Optical Phenomenon section?
    2
  700.  @1FeistyKitty  Gravity. That is how we come to have s pressure gradient in the atmosphere. What do you expect to exist in a vacuum that is capable of sucking?
    2
  701. That was garbled. Copernicus postulated a heliocentric system; Galileo and Kepler were instrumental in proving it. Galileo noted the existence of Jupiter's moons and that the fact they orbited Jupiter not the Earth, disproving the notion that everything orbited the Earth. Calculus may be a mystery to you but not to anyone who understands maths. Gravity was proven by the Cavendish experiment in 1798, not LIGO; they were looking for gravitational waves (and found them). That you can't figure out how the globe, rotation & gravity are proven does not mean nobody else does.
    2
  702.  @chuckallen6487  Do you understand that an ocean and a butterfly have different masses?
    2
  703.  @yafois988  Cavendish experiment. Your mind filters out what you don’t want to hear.
    2
  704.  @yafois988  You said "bye" then posted another comment 2hrs later? All you've proved is that you are unaware the atmospheric pressure declines with increasing altitude, a frequent error made by FE'ers. Explain what causes the effect in the Cavendish experiment if it isn't gravity. Explain where you think t (time) is in the equation that I gave you. Two simple questions that someone of your superior intellect should have no problems answering. What's the betting that you won't?
    2
  705. Eratosthenes was intent on measuring the circumference, not proving it was a sphere; that has been determine 200 years earlier by observation. It isn’t stupid to ask how we know something to be true; it is stupid to jump to an ill-founded conclusion then try to fit evidence to it.
    2
  706.  @christoforospaphitis4090  Why winks Eratosthenes want to prove the Earth was a sphere when that had been deduced already two centuries earlier? Knowing the Earth was a sphere he used two widely placed sticks to triangulate with the sun and calculate the degree difference between those locations. The same technique (only two sticks) would work on a FE (hence the countering from FE’ers) but applying three or more will distinguish between the two; triangulation would indicate multiple locations for the sun in a FE.
    2
  707.  @rafaeltorres5421  ONE picture was composite smaller shots, just that ONE. It doesn’t automatically mean that any & every photo ever ever ever taken is a composite. Himawari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC are collectively taking several more single frame shots every hour. The original Blue Marble was a single frame shot on film. How many photographs do you require?
    2
  708. She’s saying that they try to think rationally but are making the fundamental error of assuming that personal observation is both reliable and sufficient.
    2
  709.  @GeorgeGeorge-yb2sz  Climate goes back to the formation of Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Meterology draws on the recent decades. The two time scales are not comparable simply because cover the past. What do you have to have done or be doing to qualify as a geologist in your mind? First you’re saying they are genuine geologists then describing them as moronic, fund-sucking political hacks, so which is it? Have you noticed that meteorological predictions come with a probability attached?
    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. Explain how density acts a force and why in a consistent direction. Explain how you took measurements of the sun & moon.
    2
  712.  @skylermoody7771  Fine - uncalculated rather than incalculable. How did all the people travel to be in the right place and right time with accurate calculations. That we are in a heliocentric system is apparent from the behaviour of the planets & moons around us. The times & places for eclipses are thus calculated for a heliocentric system. FE’ers can’t explain how the observed motions of the sun & moon would work on a FE, much less calculate times & places for eclipses.
    2
  713. I work with intercellular signalling; there are no simple observable solutions for newbies; everything is indirect, everything being too small to be directly observable. Someone can learn it - we spend years doing so - but you aren’t going to explain something easily to someone without the knowledge. Simplifying something to make it understandable to a novice takes talent; it’s why some people are better at teaching than others.
    2
  714. Why is it do difficult for some people to understand that objects can have different masses?
    2
  715.  @dominiccharvet546  Why would they “fall” at all and why in a consistent direction?
    2
  716.  @ramonortiz7462  Everywhere in Earth rotates once per day; the tangential velocity at any given location results from that rotation.
    2
  717.  @warmachineuk Perhaps he perceives white coats as drag? 😊
    2
  718. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles, lunar eclipses. All impossible on a FE and we are still waiting on FE’er explanations for how you think they are possible. Do remember that with a population of nearly 8bn that there is more than one observer.
    2
  719.  @KangenAlec  No, he knows telescopes exist.
    2
  720. A sphere is a polyhedron with an infinite number of sides, each side being flat. The sphere itself is not flat and could not be mistaken or argued to be flat.
    2
  721. Knowledge. FE’ers don’t doubt knowledge; they reject the bloody obvious and grasp anything “different” without any rational thought.
    2
  722. Do train tracks merge or run parallel?
    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.  @JasonsMove  "The variable of 6 feet tall and 3 miles away." How does an equation with only one variable account for multiple factors?
    2
  725.  @JasonsMove  " it’s your math" Only FE'ers use it. Normal people prefer accurate maths.
    2
  726.  @Quato369  What are yiur numbers then? Explain the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with season & latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow.
    2
  727.  @romangrzesk7798  They presumed that the surface was indeed flat and based on that presumption then assumed negligible refraction. Across a curved surface there would be variation in humidity dependent on the varying height about the water and that would cause significant refraction.
    2
  728.  @EzberbozanMedya  Just produce the map!
    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.  @paulhotson5820  Wow - they look ahead at what could occur and try to preempt it. Where is the mass depopulation you said Agenda 21 was to produce?
    2
  731. FE’ers are Thinkers; they have a lot to say about deeply they have cogitated but in actuality their reasoning is superficial, intuitive and dependent on the assumption that everything they’ve been told must be a lie. It’s reasonable to ask how we know something though it is not practical to question everything (not enough hours in the day); it isn’t reasonable to ignore answers & evidence for sake of something “different”.
    2
  732.  @EugeneVerster  Quote Eratosthenes to a FE’er and they promptly dismiss his experiment as not distinguishing between globe & flat. Try doing it if you don’t believe me.
    2
  733. 2+2=4
    2
  734.  @servusdei3923  Evidently your reading comprehension is minimal. Matuse said that we don’t all the same stars.
    2
  735. Because the astronomical bodies are in different position. Explain how you think Polaris is not visible in the southern hemisphere. Explain how you think it could exist at an infinite number of altitudes on a FE.
    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.  @servusdei3923  A sextant work by measuring latitude & longitude, not altitude.
    2
  738.  @servusdei3923  The trick was obvious: you replaced latitude with altitude. "A sextant work by measuring latitude & longitude, not altitude." You really need things spelt out for you, don't you? A sextant is used to calculate latitude & longitude through measuring the viewing angle to various heavenly bodies. It doesn't work on a FE because those bodies are in the wrong position in the sky, e.g., you can't see Polaris from the southern hemisphere. Stamping your foot and crying "It is! It is!" does not make it visible.
    2
  739. You mean like FE'er "understanding" that a centrifugal force that is <0.5% that of gravity means we would be flung off? Or "understanding" that linear and rotational velocity aren't the same thing? Or perhaps "understanding" that the stars don't change with season and location or rotate in the course of the night?
    2
  740.  @JasonsMove  How exactly is 0.5<100 "space magic"?
    2
  741.  @JasonsMove  How does one variable cover multiple factors? Simple question. Try answering.
    2
  742.  @JasonsMove  Explain how 0.5<100 is an equation and why you consider it bs?
    2
  743.  @JasonsMove  "Observation of the physical world and the fact you can’t duplicate." And yet it works fine when using the correct maths, not clinging to a wrong equation screaming "I know it's right 'cos it doesn't work!"
    2
  744. A society that the Foundation helps out if I recall correctly. The problem we run into is that people want simple answers and, in a post-fact world, explanations that sync with their beliefs.
    2
  745.  @thekiltedpoet  Thanks; it’s thirty years since I read it. I remember they had to help out a society that didn’t know how to repair their power generator; they just had priests that knew what knobs & buttons to twiddle to keep up normal running.
    2
  746. That you can’t make sense of something does not automatically mean it has no sense. You need to consider the limits of your own knowledge & understanding.
    2
  747. In what way do you think we regard the interaction between scientist as negligible? We usually have to get across that a particular line research of research is nit limited to one person, group or country. If you mean we regard the useful intellectual input from the general public to be negligible then that is correct because it is true. The vast bulk of the work is being done by those with the training, knowledge, experience & facilities.
    2
  748.  @patrickhickman8723  A rocket flying in space is a perfect example of the 3rd law of motion too but you reckon that can't work because there are no atmospheric molecules for the exhaust gas to bounce off.
    2
  749.  @GuardianSoulkeeper  Same here. Sometimes the reply is there but disappears while the thread is opened.
    2
  750.  @JimSmithInChiapas They struck me to be pot-stirrers.
    2
  751.  @remi4378  Academia. I’m tired of the claims that grants are contracts to arrive at particular results.
    2
  752. The BB has abundant evidence.
    2
  753.  @maxfan1591  <handwave> It’s all explained; ask somebody else about it. 😊
    2
  754. He says the then still unexplored part of Antarctica was as big as North America.
    2
  755.  @Trig-mm4rt How would a FE sun set below a horizon it doesn’t come within 20 degrees of?
    2
  756. I asked for your idea of how it would be possible; are you refusing to supply it?
    2
  757.  @Trig-mm4rt  You would require an infinite distance for the light source to appear to reach the horizon; CA to NY is not an infinite distance. The light would remain visible until the distance meant the light intensity dropped below the threshold of human sight; the FE isn’t big enough. The sun retains a constant angular velocity & diameter throughout the course of the day; it would vary on a FE. So, thurd time, how do you think it can work on a FE?
    2
  758.  @Trig-mm4rt  A trip may seem to take forever but 1000’s miles and infinite miles are not similar distances. Why not try answering the question?
    2
  759.  @Trig-mm4rt  I’m not in the slightest confused and you still haven’t answered. “Long way so just gotta be far enough” is not an answer.
    2
  760.  @Trig-mm4rt  Not one that doesn’t come within 20 degrees of the horizon. That is implicit in my original question. You seem to think it can so try answering.
    2
  761.  @Trig-mm4rt  Usually the question is posed by a FE’er who thinks he can disprove the globe. FE’ers insist a flat plane would exhibit a horizon since they think it is due to perspective for reasons they never explain. Though the view would gradually disappear into haze there would still be a distinct sky & ground. A light capable of illuminating half a FE at any given time would be neither faint nor low. It wouldn’t be capable of rising & setting and it would be visible to a distance far greater than the distance across a FE.
    2
  762.  @Trig-mm4rt  I know far more than most about ghe eye; the rest is maths & physics. That you don’t know something does not make it assumption on other people’s part.
    2
  763.  @Trig-mm4rt  Have you heard of the Cavendish experiment?
    2
  764.  @Trig-mm4rt  Explain how yiu think the vanishing point of perspective would manifest as a vanishing line.
    2
  765.  @Trig-mm4rt  How do you envisage a vacuum having resistance to an object passing through it?
    2
  766.  @Trig-mm4rt  ​ You have no answer to that question either. Has it not occurred to you that if you can't explain your reasoning, you can't answer any of the questions put to you and you can't understand most of the answers given to you then you're not the master of intellect that you think you are? If I was deleting comments then Google's running total would fall, not increase as you are observing (or ought to be observing but given your idiocy probably aren't). For months now Google has had a problem collating comments between servers; whichever server provides your feed at any given time can't see all the comments made.
    2
  767.  @Trig-mm4rt  Gravity is demonstrable and demonstrated, repeatedly, by multiple parties for centuries. FE'ers still haven't come up with a plausible alternative.
    2
  768.  @Trig-mm4rt  Explain why you think your inability to understand even a simple example imbues you with profound insight on the subject.
    2
  769. Establishments are referred to in the media because that is where the scientists who obtained the evidence are working. We publish papers in research journals, the PR refer to them on their websites & distributions and the journalists refer to the PR articles. You can either work backwards to the original material or search online with a cross reference to place & subject. Gravity answers most of your questions. No it isn’t assumption or conjecture and, yes, it has been demonstrated to exist.
    2
  770.  @bobweiram6321  Where did the lines come from? Who picked up the rocks and how did they bring them back?
    2
  771.  @bobweiram6321  Try putting a floppy in the DVD drive on your computer.
    2
  772.  @bobweiram6321  "The materials maybe outdated, but we have materials that are even better and cheaper to produce." Start replacing materials in the Saturn V then the whole infrastructure & performance are altered and it has to be tested from scratch. "If the skills and knowledge are no longer available, it can be recreated" Which takes time & effort; the same time & effort could be put into designing & building a modern heavy launcher. "China managed to do it" China rebuilt a Saturn V? Final result: a Saturn V Mk2 that still doesn't meet today's requirements. "It should raise suspicion when the data used to pull off the most important technological feat in history was destroyed or lost. " Which it wasn't. One set of tapes containing a video was mislaid. The tapes used in the 1970s went the same way as floppies; the data was transferred. Those two things get conflated. The data exists. The data is being used in the design & construction of modern heavy launchers.
    2
  773.  @bobweiram6321  And you still haven't answered most of my questions.
    2
  774.  @bobweiram6321  No, the telemetry tapes were destroyed in the same way floppies were binned. Data is transferable and transferred.
    2
  775.  @boterlettersukkel  How did your wife come up be in that situation? Immigration law? And why marines?
    2
  776.  @airflowfpv7791  Surely scale can’t be a difficult concept for someone who has spent 30 years using levels, set squares & plumb bobs?
    2
  777.  @airflowfpv7791  You’re assuming a 25,000 mile circumference would lead to readily appreciable angle differences across a distance of feet. That is a problem comprehending scale.
    2
  778.  @johnsmith-fz5pz You mean like looking at the gene sequences ir studying fossils? Perhaps you want to present the evidence that God, god or gods exist?
    2
  779. Have you ever read Alice in Wonderland?
    2
  780.  @tonyornelas9374  As long the Suez Canal is level at each short section then the curvature takes care of itself. Divide 360 degrees by 25,000 miles if you don’t believe me.
    2
  781. FE'ers ignore elevation & atmospheric refraction when calculating how far they should be able to see and rely purely on a formula that is a rule of thumb good for a few miles. When taken into account then there is not problem. Look up Walter Bislins's curve calculator or the simpler version on Metabunk.
    2
  782.  @flyingfishnet  Do you actually want the answers? Are you prepared to listen to them?
    2
  783.  @flyingfishnet  It’s not as simple as point & fire. All fuel has weight and all weight requires more fuel to get into orbit to begin with and to subsequently start moving out of orbit. Multi-stage is not a magic solution. It makes far more sense that you take advantage of whatever inertia can be gained from being in orbit. The moon is well within Earth’s gravity well; the Apollo missions just had to reach the point where the moon’s pull was greater than the Earth’s. Mars missions have to essentially leave the gravity well and that takes greater force.
    2
  784.  @flyingfishnet  We are talking about a Mars mission and Mars us far further than the moon. Course changes require fuel, fuel has weight and you do not want to carry more weight than necessary because it requires yet more fuel & weight. Manouvres need to be kept a minimum. This isn’t Star Trek.
    2
  785.  @flyingfishnet  Do you understand that the tensile strength of metals decreases with temperature - yes or no?
    2
  786.  @flyingfishnet  Yes it was risky. Three people being willing to live in cramped conditions for two weeks. The tiniest speck of debris doesn’t carry sufficient force to penetrate the hull. Space is big; objects with sufficient force are few and very far between. You’re arguing from incredulity.
    2
  787.  @flyingfishnet  Single use craft can’t be re-used. Apollo/Saturn were designed and built with 60/70’s technology and this is 2022; no, they did not use any technology that is separate from all else snd, yes, all technology has moved on in that time. The technicians with first hand knowledge are retired & dead. The contractors who built many of the components repurposed their workshops and over time destroyed paperwork mountains that called for dated technology that nobody was using any more. Manufacturing processes have wholly changed. Materials & fuel technologies have moved on. Craft are now computer controlled. To build another Apollo would require significant regression and still wouldn’t give you a craft sufficient for construction of a moon base. We aren’t talking about shadowy conspiracies, just the effects of the passage of time.
    2
  788. What lies exactly?
    2
  789. What's been disproved far exceeds what's been found to be right. Possibly an anti-Wiki of the most popular misconceptions or key experiments that disproved a then commonly held idea?
    2
  790.  @tnaplastic2182 The drone’s propellors work with air flow. Buoyancy is gravity-based; no buoyancy in micro-gravity.
    2
  791.  @efgtest  What a surprise - yet another FE’er who won’t divulge the answers and just falls back on “ask somebody else”.
    2
  792.  @efgtest  Im asking yet another FE’er who claims to know the answers and very predictably yet another FE’er refuses to answer and makes airy claims about doing the research. I’m doing the research; I’m asking the people who claim to have the answers so drop the lofty statements and answer. Why can NONE of you do it?
    2
  793.  @efgtest  I’ve had both and my question still stands: how is information passed in when neither gurus nor acolytes say what it is?
    2
  794.  @efgtest  I'm tired of endlessly going over the same points with FE'ers. Airy used the relative motion of stars & Earth; it did not find or conclude either to be stationary, just failed to find evidence of luminiferous aether between star & Earth.
    2
  795. I’ve read newspaper science articles in which the scientists are referred to in the third person, sentences from the science paper are in quotes and a reference to the actual paper supplied but some people still believed they were reading the original science paper. One article referred to a team of Japanese researcher without giving individual names and someone accused the scientists of publishing anonymously. The problem reflects lack of thought on some of the readers’ part as well as the journalist writing.
    2
  796. The technology became obsolete as all technology does; anything utilising that technology was gradually replaced over time. No mystery.
    2
  797. They don’t.
    2
  798. Upwards acceleration is the notion that preceded claims of density being a force. Explain how density (a ratio, not a force) would act as a firce and why in a specific direction.
    2
  799.  @SuperMoshady  Hot air is less dense than the air around it, the gravitational attraction is thus weaker and the cold air displaces it upwards. It will only until there is equal pressure around it. Gravity does not switch off simply because the air is hot.
    2
  800.  @SuperMoshady  "it seems like the relative density of the objects surrounding medium controls if it rises or falls" Density is not a force and has no vector; it isn't going to move anything in any direction.
    2
  801.  @SuperMoshady  "where does the closed ecosystem part end and the open system part begin? " You can't still can't figure out the difference between system and ecosystem? "If there is no surface for the gas particles to collide with, then there is no pressure" And yet a pressure gauge will indicate that there is. "as there is nothing for the gas particles to press upon" So? Lack of a pressure gauge is not going to change the concentration of the particles. "So, we agree gas goes up, good" It also goes down, sideways and round & round. "Wherever there is gas concentration, there is also gas pressure" For any concentration of gas there is only pressure if you provide a surface (like that on a pressure gauge). The concentration of gas declines with increasing altitude and a pressure gauge will detect declining pressure. "space cannot exist as there is no surface at the top of the atmosohere" You're presuming the need for a physical barrier; gravity is sufficient. "Which means we must logically conclude" There's no logic to your conclusion, just wishful thinking. "because if not, the gas would fill the space vacuum" Unless held back by a force, e.g., gravity. "I think we are getting somewhere" Not really. You won't acknowledge that gravity exists and insist that there must be an unnecessary, undetectable barrier. You can't or won't understand what is being said to you but regard yourself as superlative thinker. This is a pointless conversation.
    2
  802.  @SuperMoshady  I was quite specific about the difference between system & ecosystem and why the latter was closed. You’ve had it explained to you umpteen times that gravity is just one of the factors affecting gases.
    2
  803.  @grahamhulme8514  Look up Himawari-8 & Elektro-L; they download new ones every half hour or so. What’s your technique for identifying fake photos? The Just Gotta Be Razor?
    2
  804. Ask him to explain the jet of water curving downwards and suggest he dry himself off by spinning around.
    2
  805.  @1FeistyKitty  Unless of course the layers of material were resistant to such inflation and possessed reinforced joints to ensure flexibility.
    2
  806.  @pwilliams8051  The angle of incidence means the sunlight is distributed across a wider area in mornings and evening; the result is less energy for a set area. That the sun retains a constant angular diameter through the course of the day should be an obvious clue that the distance to it isn’t varying. FED revels in willful ignorance.
    2
  807. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles, accurate worldwide maps, all waiting on FE’ers to back their claim with working explanations.
    2
  808. There's scepticism and there's cynicism. Asking what the evidence is would be scepticism; refusing to accept the evidence & proof is cynicism. I think most are not trying to promote scepticism but simply just want to be a member of an exclusive club that knows "the truth". Yes, most people accept the Earth is a globe because it is long accepted but it was accepted because the scientific rigour (actually natural philosophy at the time) had been applied. It is a good thing that people ask what the evidence is for anything but people presuming the evidence to be wrong is not at all helpful. To actually challenge the conclusion the Earth is a globe FE'ers need to bring new evidence to the table and a plausible explanation for how existing evidence could be consistent with their proposal. So far they have produced nothing to debate.
    2
  809. They generally ignore the southern hemisphere 🙂
    2
  810. She’s a scientist and she’s explaining the reasoning process.
    2
  811. Humans dreaming they are butterflies? 😊
    2
  812. The larger a conspiracy the more impractical it becomes and the more likely it would be discovered. The globe being a conspiracy would require the active participation of milllions and to have been running faultlessly for over 2 millennia for no apparent purpose. Do you consider that more likely than a handful of strangers lying to you about a FE?
    2
  813.  @RodanX21  Anybody can demonstrate curvature with a little thought; one chap essentially used a bike & a stick. East Germany couldn’t reach that degree of control and that only adds more people to the conspiracy. Bribing & blackmailing millions takes money and FE’ers have you to provide any explain who would gain from hiding a FE.
    2
  814.  @rolandcollins1427  I think you may be referring to pressure rather gravity with the multiple g’s.
    2
  815.  @ramonortiz7462  You said the Earth was flat; Alan said you can tell it isn’t by watching the sun. How does the FE sun maintain a constant angular diameter & velocity for every observer when the distance from observer to FE sun varies through the course of the day?
    2
  816. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having curvular shadows, all verifiable by anybody & everybody. The Earth is now fully mapped & measured with manned spacecraft in orbit and satellites taking multiple shots per hour. It’s so indisputable that the time in school was better spent on other subjects.
    2
  817.  @JimSmithInChiapas  I said “coming across like MAGA” was the impression you gave, not that I concluded that. I’m not American; I don’t assume that there are only two extremes and find it objectionable that people make such binary assumptions.
    2
  818.  @JimSmithInChiapas  You’ll have to give me a document name & source; there’s too much showing up about Ebright & COVID to pinpoint something.
    2
  819.  @JimSmithInChiapas  Unfortunately that comment has disappeared from my YT feed. Can you give it again? That something is a burning issue for you does not automatically mean it should be a burning issue for everybody. There’s plenty else going on in the world and there are still only 24hrs in the day.
    2
  820. What do you think came before exactly?
    2
  821.  @AjaxNorton The geocentric model required visible planets to change course. Copernicus noted that circular orbits around a central sun eliminated most of those problems. Kepler noted that elliptical orbits solved them completely. Since then we have predicted the existence of Neptune & Uranus in their elliptical orbits. People get credit for making original discoveries; it isnt because they are the one & only to have worked on something before & since.
    2
  822. The Cambrian explosion took about 20 million years; quick for a timeline measured in billions of years but it wasn't an overnight event. Transitions between species appear relatively rapid with species being periods of stability and the changes that occur will not be as pronounced as you are envisaging. There is no reason from evolution to expect chimaeric fossils.
    2
  823. It would approach light speed in about a year; relativity means there would be time distortion rather than actually reach lightspeed.
    2
  824.  @super_ficial  You’re writing a lot just to demonstrate your inability to think.
    2
  825. "6 Electrons, 6 Neutrons and 6 Protons (Carbon) = What man is supposed to be based on" You think all life is satanic?
    2
  826.  @clintonhart2652  “I’ll dismantle any argument you’ve got” ….and you refuse to answer my question.
    2
  827.  @clintonhart2652  By all means - just explain why 8”/mile^2 (a parabola) would be the correct maths for calculating curvature on a sphere.
    2
  828.  @clintonhart2652  It’s all elementary and yet has totally passed you by. In what demented reality do cliffs blocking your view not affect seeing shoreline beyond them?
    2
  829.  @xperience-evolution  Assuming something to be a fact does not make it a fact; in science something needs to be demonstrably a fact before it is accepted as such. The Earth is demonstrably a sphere and it is not demonstrably flat; indeed it is demonstrably not flat. At no point was it demonstrated to be flat or the centre of the universe; it was assumed to be so to match the prevailing philosophical & theological beliefs. The globe model predicts the sun rises & sets while maintaining a constant angular diameter & angular velocity relative to the observer. The FE predicts the sun doesn't come within 20 degrees and has a variable angular diameter & velocity, shrinking away to a half the diameter at most and remaining visible around the clock. FE'ers claim it shrinks to an infinitesimal dot close to the horizon, say nothing of the angular velocity and insist it becomes abruptly invisible at an unspecified distance. Anybody & everybody can readily observe that the sun rises & sets while maintaining a constant angular diameter & angular velocity relative to them. You need to explain a few things: 1. Why would we observe the sun rising & setting simply because They are telling us it does? 2. Reconcile the FE prediction and FE'er claims. 3. Explain why believing observable reality to be wrong would physically change how you see the sun.
    2
  830. Most are just gullible or eager to be in an “enlightened” minority. I don’t mind answering questions; I do mind denial of answers.
    2
  831.  @falcor1969  How does density (the ratio of mass to volume) act as a force and why in a consistent direction? Be the first to provide the answer that you all think you possess.
    2
  832.  @falcor1969  Explain you why you think only one force can act at a time.
    2
  833.  @falcor1969  Curvature of spacetime arising through the gravitational field inherent in matter and affecting the motion of objects.
    2
  834. If you mean why we don't return to the moon then it is the economics of it; it's hideously expensive compared to unmanned missions so unless there is a sound basis for it then it is better to spend the money elsewhere.
    2
  835.  @ThisisNedSchneebly  Money which can be more productively spent on unmanned missions that enable exploration for greater times & distances. It is Congress which determines which projects are funded; the NASA budget comes with those conditions for spending.
    2
  836. Still waiting on your explanations for g to he motion if the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude. What’s the hold up? How many times do you need yo be asked? DobI need to resort to torture to get the answers you claim you want to tell everybody?
    2
  837. We passed that point a long time ago; it’s why we become increasingly specialist from university onwards.
    2
  838. The sugar content increased to replace the fats that were being removed; something was needed to maintain the food texture. It wasn’t realised at the time that elevated sugar intake was worse than using fats.
    2
  839.  @davebten1  A scientific hypothesis is an untested or incompletely tested explanation for a phenomenon. When all plausible alternatives have been eliminated and the proposed explanation is seen to be complete and fully tested then it becomes accepted as a scientific theory. A scientific theory can not be proven absolutely but it is as near you can get to certainty in science. As Frankie says, the shape of the Earth is covered by geometry. The accumulated measurements are consistent only with a sphere. Only a sphere has a circular cross-section from every angle.
    2
  840. It can be deduced from the movement of the sun, moon & stars but FEers are hopeless at spatial reasoning; that’s why they accept your statement.
    2
  841. Within a year. It's why the idea was dropped and is now denied by FE'ers.
    2
  842. It’s not stupid to ask how we know the Earth is a sphere; it is stupid to ignore the evidence & reasoning.
    2
  843. You ask them to explain something they apparently consider obvious and the answer always comes back to "ask someone else" but they never doubt that they know the answer.
    2
  844.  @TheCollages Novel not experimental.
    2
  845.  @EpicAlternative Motion of the sun, horizjns, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow. Still waiting on FEer explanations.
    2
  846. Do you understand the concept of distance?
    2
  847. What’s your explanation for the Cavendish experiment?
    2
  848.  @williamparisi5901  Which doesn't answer my question. Try doing it.
    2
  849. Provide evidence for all that.
    2
  850.  @julianbrionesiii2438  If it is logical then you should have no problem answering my question.
    2
  851. Why can’t FE’ers produce any of this evidence? Why do they rely on canards?
    2
  852. What do you put on the barbecues down-under?
    2
  853.  @aelobalthrop1413  Check the Cavendish experiment. Gravity has been looked at in labs for over 200 years. Gravity would produce attraction between the two objects; orbit arises as a combination of the attraction and each objects original motion. The attraction between balls of that size would be minute and outweighed by their starting motion and air convection around them. Attraction is proportional to the mass of each object.
    2
  854.  @juanversion3922  Think 3D.
    2
  855. They can provide you with a model and will tell you it explains everything but they themselves seem incapable of providing those explanations or comprehending that the model makes different predictions.
    2
  856.  @presleymeck  I asked how density would act as a force and was banned. Did he explain to you?
    2
  857.  @presleymeck  Except density is not a force and has no direction to it. No FE'er can ever explain why something that isn't a force could act as a force or why in a consistent direction. They just note denser objects falling preferentially and assume it just gotta be density causing it. Einstein's example was visualising 3D space as a 2D sheet, where the greater the mass of an object then the greater distortion of the sheet. The weight of an object is an effect of the gravitational attraction, ie. interaction with the distortion of the sheet; if there is no attraction then there is no weight.
    2
  858.  @presleymeck  As far as we aware it’s due to the curvature of space-time. What is irritating is people claiming it just gotta be something it patently isn’t and they just gotta be right because it’s different. That is wilful stupidity, not mind blowing insight, and is only detrimental to society.
    2
  859.  @presleymeck  As I said, gravity is due to the curvature of space-time. What theory of Darwin’s do you think has been disproved and why? That somebody created a forgery from two fossils from does not magically prove fossils don’t exist or that every fossil is a forgery or that conclusions drawn from fossils are inherently incorrect. Banknotes are forged; do you think every banknote is a forgery or conclude the entire banking system is s hoax?
    2
  860. There’s credibility to asking how we know it is a globe, none in insisting in a FE regardless of the evidence.
    2
  861.  @jcunconc3984  In science something is not accepted as correct simply because one person (or one group) has produced data, but only when confirmed by multiple sources. FE’ers like to think everything hinges on one observation or one person that everybody is simply assuming to be correct, eg, the first person to have done something must be the only person to have done it.
    2
  862.  @delcapslock100  They aren’t “questioning conventional wisdom”; they’re denying it. It’s willful stupidity, not scepticism. It’s explained to them over and over and over over how they can test it for themselves but they prefer to believe in a pointless millennia-long conspiracy.
    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. The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a globe from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses. 2500 years on we are STILL waiting for FE explanations and you consider FE more believable?
    2
  865. Zetetics relies on carrying out only experiments that can be interpreted to support your desired conclusion. Science relies on disproving hypotheses while philosophy requires that all observations have to be accounted for, not made selectively.
    2
  866.  @guidedmeditation2396  "The size of the perfect ball earth is the same in the different photos" The magnification is set so what is visible fills the frame and makes best use of the camera's resolution. The closer the camera, the less of the sphere can be seen and the greater the apparent size of a set area.
    2
  867.  @guidedmeditation2396  And several people have explained to you that distance from the object (Earth) makes a difference. I realise that is difficult for you to understand; look down at your feet and explain why you can't see a whole continent.
    2
  868. Elliptical orbits are hardly a fudge.
    2
  869. Let me guess - you think scientists don’t test anything?
    2
  870. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive evidence from experimentation & observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. It is the highest you can get in science; the chance of a scientific theory being wrong are remote. What shape do you think a circle could be and why?
    2
  871.  @wallacebeback4928  Round simply means curved; we know which is referred to from context . Laws are descriptions of a natural phenomenon; theories are explanations for how they occur. Both are built on facts, eg, the Earth is measurably and observably a sphere. Yes, scientific theories can be wrong (science is always ongoing) but that is not reason to arbitrarily dismiss a theory in the facd of the evidence supporting it. Your computer is built and operating on those theories and you are communicating just fine.
    2
  872.  @wallacebeback4928  Which is routine.
    2
  873. Taken from a mountain top under optimal refractive conditions and caught the tip of another mountain projecting above the horizon. A second shot a few minutes later couldn’t see it. Still waiting on the FEer explanation for why only the mountain tip could be visible, whh it couldn’t bd repeated and why none of you can take a picture of a greater distance when it would be easy on a FE. You realise that photography is not unique to NASA? 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. 2500 years we are STILL WAITING for FEers explanations.
    2
  874.  @jyuvgrace5364  The eye is a passive receptor; it detects the light the reaches it regardless of how far it has travelled.
    2
  875.  @irmatorres3102  Maximum angle would be about 42 degrees which seems in keeping with the pictures. The Earth has a tilted axis so the sun climbs higher in summer.
    2
  876. ​ @JonALewis  For a calendar you need only note the periodicity of events, not determine the mechanism for the periodicity. Earth determined to be a globe: c. 500BC Compass: 2nd century BC, used for navigation about 9th century AD onwards. Astrolabe: 6th century AD Sextant: 18th century AD "ONE single evidentiary confirmation" I gave you a list my previous comment that you have apparently ignored. Stellar parallax indicates the Earth's orbit, the Foucault pendulum and gyroscopes indicate its rotation. Still waiting on FE'ers to explain those results with a FE. Be novel and try doing it. The Earth's surface is 70% covered by water, not 70% of the Earth being water. Check your facts before posting.
    2
  877. I would use a substantially larger separating distance. The difference is <1 degree and there will be confounding error in ensuring the poles are exactly upright. You also need to use at least three poles if you wish to demonstrate curvature. An additional method would be tracking the change in direction of the shadow through the course of the day; a constant 15 degree/hr change refutes FE.
    2
  878.  @adamnoir5014  We see about 190 degrees of the moon over time. Explain how features on a planet cross its face, disappear around ghe back and eventually reppear in an endless cycle.
    2
  879.  @jacmkno5019  You mean hypothesis & possible rather than theory & feasible.
    2
  880. We are still waiting on FE’ers to provide this conclusive evidence. All you ever come up with is the same ignorance & incredulity and refusal to consider anything you don’t want to hear.
    2
  881.  @thewildcardASMR  Asking you to provide the evidence that you want everyone to see is unreasonable?
    2
  882.  @thewildcardASMR  What difference would putting a face in place of the default icon make?
    2
  883.  @theflyingdutchman2542  A tailor measures you up for a suit.
    2
  884.  @andygarcia5577  Record distance is less than 200 miles and was viewing only the top of mountain from the top of another mountain. FE would enable you to see several hundred miles from sea level.
    2
  885.  @andygarcia5577  Evidence?
    2
  886.  @benjaminknotts745  Limit of visual acuity, not perspective; that’s just an illusion of objects appearing smaller than they are with increasing distance. Visual acuity means the angular size is too small to be discerned by the unaided eye. Since an object can pass beyond the limit of visual acuity well before it reaches the horizon, zooming it back into view tells you sweet FA about the horizon. The only people who think it does are those who find more than one cause for an effect to be mindblowingly complex.
    2
  887.  @cookingonthego9422  You’re making sweeping accusations of data fabrication based solely on synopses being synopses. If you want to know where we get data then read the original research where we lay it out in full.
    2
  888. Is ignoring evidence that disproves a notion a logical approach or due to an understanding of meta-knowledge?
    2
  889.  @eyestoseefe7618  "You stand still and it moves up" You are moving up too despite the fact you are standing still. You do not need to run to keep up with the escalator any more than you have to run to keep up with the rotating Earth. "why don't you notice the motion of the ground when it's Earth" At what point do I get on & off Earth as I would an escalator? "even standing still on the Escalator you know you're in motion" You can feel the vibrations from the motors, observe what isn't on the escalator and you were aware of the different in motion when you put your foot on it; the Earth rotates & orbits by conservation of momentum, not motors, you can observe the stars apparently moving over your head (with two celestial poles) and at no point are you getting on & off Earth. "Do you feel like you're in motion as you stand still outside?" No vibrations from machinery moving the Earth and everything around me (atmosphere included) is moving eastwards at the samee speed. What do you think I should sense exactly?
    2
  890. How many times have you opened a tin and found the contents differed from the label?
    2
  891.  @fusion82  Your brain can’t handle more than one variable?
    2
  892. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude; all verifiable by any Tom, Dick or Harry.
    2
  893.  Abacus  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude; all verifiable by any Tom, Dick or Harry. How difficult is it for a FE’er to explain how they are possible on a FE? You all boast to have a profound understanding of how it all really works do why can’t one of you explain? It would carry so much weight.
    2
  894.  @leonidtomnov8933  Any evidence of the dome or is it “it just gotta be there!!!!”?
    2
  895. Note of caution: when discussing science on social media avoid using words like faith & politics since some people are hooked on the idea that science is a religion and government dictated. At the time Hobbes was writing there were relatively few scientists, scentific experimentation was in its infancy and information circulation was limited. In the 21st century scientific work can be downloaded in seconds by those willing and education is readily available. If you wish to learn something or ask questions then it’s never been easier. It does seem that persuading people to do so has never been harder. I assume the issue is trust between individual & groups in the reliability of information passed around. When information is consistent from multiple knowledgeable parties and there is no plausible reason why the information is deliberately incorrect then the probability of you being deliberately misled is negligible. Consider the logistics of running a conspiracy that could control such wide-spread information; how plausible is it? When people are easily swayed by rhetoric & sophistry aka bullsh*t I don’t think is helpful to be concentrating on how trustworthy the non-bullsh*tters are.
    2
  896.  @ftlbs928 Try quoting this Law of Density. In science a law is a mathematical expression of phenomenon e.g. F = G.(m1.m2/d^2). A theory is the explanation for how the phenomenon works. Gravity is covered by both a law and a theory.
    2
  897.  @counselwell  Copernicus noted that a heliocentric system would reduce the number of corrections needed when calculating the motion of the planets; he did not present any evidence that the system was heliocentric or argue that it was. Galileo demonstrated that not everything orbited the Earth while Kepler calculated elliptical orbits would eliminate the necessity for corrections; it was their work that validated Copernicus's idea. We look where the evidence points. When the evidence available does not throw an idea into question, there is little to be gained by seriously questioning it; it would be nice conjecturing but without the evidence it would be a waste of time & resources to pursue it. Copernicus had no way to test the idea and it remained a curiosity. New evidence continually surfaces and might challenge what has been previously concluded; Galileo & Kepler produced such evidence, further research with telescopes supported the conclusion. Since he had the idea first, Copernicus receives credit. It's a crooked path because we have no control over what disruptive evidence comes to light and when; we just have to work with what is known.
    2
  898. The ancient Greeks deduced it around 500BC from observation of sun & stars. How do you perceive NASA was fooling them?
    2
  899. How do you conclude it was a hoax? There wasn’t a civilisation-ending disaster?
    2
  900. ​ @StephenJelinek  "you are correct in saying the sun rises and sets" Then why are you advocating a model in which it doesn't? "Fact in my 65 years of life never once have I felt the earth move" The body is insensitive to motion. That you can't sense the motion does not mean it isn't there. " Fact I have watched sunrises cast perfect straight line reflections on the Atlantic Ocean." How much curvature do you expect to be visible over that distance on a sphere and why? "Fact I have seen a Ice house on a lake 5 miles away. Fact I have seen a canoe tied to a dock 5 miles away." You haven't provided any evidence for either. You have made it clear you use the wrong maths in your calculations which invalidates your claims anyway. "Fact the horizon line has no bend in it." When the Earth is far, far larger than you are envisaging and you are too small & close to the surface, you aren't going to be able to discern the tiny degree of curvature. That you cant discern it doesn't mean it isn't there. What do you think would stop the signal? Why do you think the signal couldn't be generated? Why do you think the return signal would be undetectable? Why do you think the delay time would be unmeasurable? Why do you think it would be impossible to calculate the distance? Why do you think it's always done by NASA?
    2
  901. It’s YT who are no longer showing dislikes.
    2
  902.  @Trig-mm4rt Youre denying buoyancy exists?
    2
  903.  @Trig-mm4rt  He was noting what some FE’ers have claimed. Are you denying their analytical prowess?
    2
  904. Sherlock Holmes originally and dealt with solving a case (a single past event) rather than identifying a mechanism that can predict future events. Conan Doyle overlooked the unknown; you can’t be certain that you know everything. In science, once you have eliminated the impossible, you are still left with unknowns and a model that can never be proven absolutely.
    2
  905.  @Cogic Who tested Noah’s ark?
    2
  906.  @tatonemio6388  Sounds right; he thought I was deflecting from answering his simple question. I did suggest 42 as the answer to everything but it didn’t match his universal equation.
    2
  907.  @williamparisi5901  Why perspective make something disappear from the bottom up? Where does elevation factor into 8” per mile squared?
    2
  908.  @williamparisi5901  How does water observe its surroundings, make decisions and move itself?
    2
  909.  @williamparisi5901  How does water determine the shape of Earth?
    2
  910.  @williamparisi5901  Which doesnt answer any of the questions that I asked you. Why are FE'ers so hopeless about divulging answers?
    2
  911.  @KelliAnnWinkler  What accumulating evidence?
    2
  912. Are you saying it is wrong?
    2
  913. "i read a article stating 40% of scientific have seen or have knowledge of fraud and do nothing about it" You need to provide a citation.
    2
  914.  @safffff1000 The OP is posting the same thing multiple times; he’s not interested in any debate and likely will simply delete the copy that predominantly attracted the replies.
    2
  915.  @stewiesaidthat  Where on the document does it say the charge on muons varies? Gravity & motion mean relativistic effects. You do realise that the clocks remain in their casing when they leave the lab?
    2
  916.  @stewiesaidthat  I asked you where it said the charge on a muon varies.
    2
  917.  @stewiesaidthat  Since you can't reach light speed nobody is proposing time stands still for anything. If there is no time dilation then high energy muons would need to exceed the speed of light to travel the distance that they do. Your saying there is no time dilation so your hypothesis is that high-energy muons travel faster than light.
    2
  918.  @stewiesaidthat  "do you not even understand simple physics?" Since A. You are rewriting the laws of physics and B. We do not have a shared mind there is nothing simple about it. Your premises appear to be that A. There are no relative frames of reference, only an absolute one. B. The laws of motion (or at least the first) are wrong
    2
  919.  @joeperry7891  Male, female, hermaphrodite, asexual. However I assume you mean gender and specifically in humans?
    2
  920.  @joeperry7891  Genetic screw-ups aside (they do occur), sex is either male or female in humans. We have had sex change operations involving surgery and hormonal treatment for some decades whereby someone can be altered to be externally indistinguishable from the opposite sex; genetically they remain their original sex. Whether they can change sex legally (what appears in passports etc) is a matter for the politicians. Gender, however, is a separate issue.
    2
  921. Maybe, maybe not 😊
    2
  922.  @flatearth5821  You think you can only see stars if you standing at one of the poles? Still waiting on any FE’er to demonstrate where travel to either pole is banned. Do you want to try it?
    2
  923.  @flatearth5821  I’m doing the homework: I’m asking questions of a (yet another) FE’er who hails himself as well informed. Why can’t any if you answer questions? Dubay has been debunked every which way to buggery. How difficult is it for FE’ers to comprehend his misinformation?
    2
  924. ​ @flatearth5821  How informative and evidential do you think it is when you can't answer questions put to you?
    2
  925.  @flatearth5821  You mean you can't explain, you just have to refer me to a guru. You think you have the understanding so you try explaining. "temperature differences between the Arctic and the Antarctic" You understand that Antarctica is a continent surrounded by sea while the Arctic is a sea surrounded by land?
    2
  926. It had been figured out 2000 years earlier. Columbus had the wild idea that the Earth was far smaller than calculated, putting India within westwards sailing distance of Spain. History was kind to him.
    2
  927.  @usun_current5786 It never was a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies require intent and the discussion was always about an accidental release.
    2
  928.  @usun_current5786  That the Wuhan authorities are unhelpful is fact; Chinese authorities leaning on the lab to keep quiet would be a conspiracy. A conspiracy theory would claim that the details are commonly known among governments worldwide or that it us bioweapon development (or both) and are being actively suppressed. Depends on what is meant by gain of function. In this context culturing a virus so it can readily infect a more convenient research animal, eg mice rather than bats, is gain of function. It doesn’t automatically mean that genes are being added to change the mechanism of the virus.
    2
  929.  @patrickhickman8723  What do you expect to see change as you travel across the US?
    2
  930.  @therealzilch  Definitely electrolytes in there.
    2
  931. Falsehoods such as what?
    2
  932. "Most flat earthers don't believe in the upward acceleration of the earth" It used to be the upwards motion of a FE until it dawned on some people that everything moving at constant velocity was not going to lead to falling objects accelerating downwards. The belief shifted to upwards acceleration fairly recently until it dawned on some people just how high a velocity a constant acceleration would lead to, here approaching light speed after about a year. The shift in recent years has been to density somehow acting as a force, somehow producing motion in a specific direction. As scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of a natural phenomenon that is well-substantiated by extensive experimentation & observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. "If it wasn't, we'd already have a colony there" Explain how you think a series of two men on the moon with a limited payload for a few hours at a time would be able to construct a moonbase.
    2
  933.  @davisterrel  What exactly do you think hasn’t been done?
    2
  934.  @davisterrel  Skydiving gives you a few minutes of action with a camera on a freely realignable head. Space missions are much longer (SpaceX took nearly 2 days to connect to the ISS) and externally mounted cameras need to be streamlined during takeoff, ie, it isn’t possible to realign it. Even they could be then who exactly realigns it? What would stop accusations that it’s still all fake?
    2
  935. You’re overlooking scale. The decline in atmospheric pressure with increasing altitude is a shallow gradient not an abrupt drop. Maintaining it takes far less force than creating a similar pressure drop in a small container.
    2
  936.  @robertfish4734  A container is not necessary; it is far easier to visualise with a container. The compelling scientific reason is the effect of gravity in matter. And, no, the existence of gravity is not unproven. If you think density can be used in place of gravity then you need to explain how a ratio can act as a force and why in a specific direction.
    2
  937. ​ @robertfish4734  That you refuse to accept evidence of gravity does not nullify it. If nothing can stop the gas expanding to fill the container then we wouldn't have a stratified atmosphere on a FE. "like anything that has density, you have more pressure at the bottom of the pile than the top" How does density act as a force? "Stationary with no need for friction-less rapid turning' And yet the rotation is detectable. "stars that are predictable regardless of insane speeds' Distance. Again, FE'ers have no concept of scale. Does everybody need to see the Cavendish experiment performed personally for it to have occurred? Does everybody in the world have to view the Taj Mahal before the Taj Mahal can be said to exist? "it would not fall closer to the wall at the bottom' In common with all FE'ers, you have no concept of scale. "You can find the charge in your own back yard" I asked you where it comes from. "Are you talking about electricity?" You were talking about electrostatic attraction & repulsion. "Density is exactly as I described" You described atomic mass as density; osmium has a lower atomic mass and a higher density. Now you're saying they aren't the same. Make your mind up. "The charge gives a downward direction or flow" You're saying an object will move downwards because of the charge regardless of whether the charge is positive, negative or neutral?
    2
  938.  @robertfish4734  The distinction between gas pressure and atmospheric pressure evidently passes you by. Explain how Op Fishbowl exploded bombs at at heights varying from 2000ft to 200 miles with spherical clouds if they were all against the dome. Numbers are important. Estimate the charges necessary for Cavendish’s spheres to obtain the attraction. Explain why there would be just the right charge every time it was performed. The uncertainty on G is the preciseness of the value, not whether it exists or is known. Prove military & commercial sources are using a FE map rather than 2D projections of the globe. Why can’t any of you produce this FE map?
    2
  939.  @robertfish4734  Then produce one of your FE maps
    2
  940.  @robertfish4734  The Mercator projection is standard for roadmaps A projected map is going to have distorted distances, particularly around the edges. The only way to correct for it would be to project back into the globe; there’s no little calculation you can do to compensate if that’s what you’re looking for. The smaller the area mapped the less the distortion and the less apparent the error will be. Produce the FeE world map. You’re another one claiming it exists without justification. Man up and produce it. Blue marble (1972) shows Africa. You do realise that photographing a 3D object means you view much of it at an angle, not straight on?
    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.  @robertfish4734  "All marbles are shooped, All marbles, that means every one is shooped" Photoshop came out in 1990. Blue Marble was shot on film in 1972. "Why is it impossible to have a shot of the planet?" Himawari-8, EPIC and Elektro-L are collectively downloading several every hour. Still waiting on the FE explanation for they can be Photoshopped so rapidly the weather patterns are correct. "This is a photos of earth from space:" Boy, you are so gullible and unquestioning. There is no fixed altitude for taking photos; the higher the camera, the greater the captured are and the smaller a set area appears. The colours in a camera are a composed of 3 or 4 dyes or photodetectors; the dyes & wavelengths have changed over the years so the final colours of photos have changed over the years. One composite does not mean every photo ever ever ever taken just gotta be composite. The photos used to make a composite are still photos in their own right. Try thinking before opening your mouth.
    2
  943.  @robertfish4734  And I’m asking you, again, how you think weeks of work can be achieved in a few minutes. Try answering. Again: one photo being a composite does nit make every photo ever ever ever taken a composite, nor does it means the individual photos used in the composite are fake. You need to try thinking beyond “just gotta be”. The map is a piece of paper with part of a globe projection. Man up and produce your FE world map.
    2
  944.  @robertfish4734  So what’s your explanation for direct flights between southern continents? The distances on a Gleason projection are beyond the aircrafts’ ranges and even if they could fly that distance they would need to outstrip Concorde to manage the time frame. How are you saying it is managed?
    2
  945.  @robertfish4734  “I can not prove that and neither can you” You realise travel is not forbidden?
    2
  946.  @robertfish4734  Explain why you think the existence of indirect flights precludes the existence of direct flights. How
    2
  947.  @robertfish4734  We had ships long before we had planes. Do you think they are forbidden?
    2
  948.  @robertfish4734  Fundamental necessities are not minor stuff; they need explaining for the overall idea to be workable. You aren’t good at answering the “minor stuff”. The atmosphere declines with increasing altitude; ultimately you have 0 atm pressure rubbing shoulders with 0 atm pressure. Still waiting on a FE’er explanation for why a barrier is needed to separate them. So far you have produced three different explanations for the atmosphere, no evidence that yoyr done exists (not minor stuff) and two contradictory statements as to what lies beyond your dome (not minor stuff). You’re putting it down to electrostatic attraction acting on everything regardless of charge (not minor stuff), claiming the evidence for gravity is all wrong (not minor stuff), claiming density acts as a force (not minor stuff) and that mass has weight in the absence of gravity (not minor stuff). You not being able to explain key details of your envisaged system or provide evidence to back your claims can not be blown off as “minor stuff”. Man up and start explaining.
    2
  949.  @robertfish4734  Where is travel over the poles forbidden? How do flights pass over the Arctic Ocean if they are forbidden? Why would planes need to pass over Antarctica when it doesn’t lie directly between the two airports?
    2
  950.  @robertfish4734  You wouldn’t fly a plane over the magnetic north pole since the doughnut shape of the magnetic field means the magnetic poles are black spots for magnetism-related instruments. It does not stop planes flying over either rotational pole. The spacing of Africa, Asia & South America does not put Antarctica between any two of them. Europe, Asia & North America encircle the Arctic Ocean and direct routes between many airports take flights over it. You still haven’t explained why you think indirect flights preclude direct flights (not minor stuff) or explained how direct flights between the southern continents are possible on a FE (not minor stuff).
    2
  951.  @robertfish4734  The videos are not novel to me. Explain how weeks of work is achievable in a matter of minutes (not minor stuff).
    2
  952.  @robertfish4734  It’s Sunday.
    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.  @robertfish4734  Again, explain how you think density (a ratio) can act as a force and why in a specific direction.
    2
  955.  @robertfish4734  We’ve explained it you repeatedly; that you refuse to accept the necessity of an attractive force is your problem. You haven’t explained how electrostatic attraction would work on uncharged matter. You haven’t explained where weight would come from in the absence of an attractive force. You haven’t explained how density (a ratio) could act as a force and why in a particular direction. If you want to claim you’ve sussed Real Physics then you need to produce the explanations, not just throw a hissy fit because physics doesn’t support a FE. If it helps, you still haven’t played droppity and spontaneous motion.
    2
  956.  @robertfish4734  Mass is observed to attract mass in an actively predictive fashion; I fail to see why gases would be immune to such influence. All you’ve done so far is keep repeating “it just gotta be something else” because you want the Earth to be flat despite that bring readily disprovable & disproven. You need to come up with a valid alternative explanation before you can make any declarative statements about gravity. You keep saying you’ve done but all you have dine us beat around the bush.
    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. Since about 500BC. You’re thinking of the shift from geocentric to heliocentric system.
    2
  959. All medication carries a risk - all biological systems are complex and the variations are what make us individuals rather than clones. Nobody needs to hiding anything; you can’t cater for absolutely al possibilities and need to strike a balance between risk & benefit.
    2
  960.  @KangenAlec  FE’ers don’t understand how their model works....
    2
  961. Why not?
    2
  962. Have you considered checking to see if that claim is true?
    2
  963.  @ivanhoeescobar7117  “you lose all geometry” An assertion that beautifully demonstrates FE’ers inability to consider more than one variable at a time.
    2
  964.  @ivanhoeescobar7117  Other than a FE mental incapacity for handling multiple factors, why would refraction negate the effect of curvature & elevation? You’re the one insisting that curvature is the only possible factor in producing the horizon. That I’ve told you the three factors that determine the horizon should make it bloody obvious I’m not saying there’s only one but apparently not.
    2
  965. How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself? 8”/mile^2 is a parabola, not a circle. Levitation makes objects rise, not fall.
    2
  966. Blue Marble 2 is such a composite. Currently Himawari 8, Elektro-L and EPIC are downloading several photo per hour.
    2
  967.  @miloszforman6270  Some are trolls, some are genuine; you’re not limited to one or the other. As Hossenfeld said, there is curiosity about the mental processes of the genuine FE’ers.
    2
  968. Have you seen your brain?
    2
  969.  @oisinofthefianna3246  Until it’s too late…
    2
  970.  @patcowley6378  How do you conclude they are phoney? You need to give details (evidence) not a vague impression.
    2
  971.  @andrewpaige316  How do you determine videos to be fake? What would be the motive for faking a globe? What do you think stops people taking their own measurements?
    2
  972.  @andrewpaige316  Your argument is simply the logical jump “since someone can lie then the globe just gotta be a lie” with no evidence to back that. Try producing some or even just answering my questions.
    2
  973. Some believe that the eye can only see to a set distance and therefore it is the object coming within range.
    2
  974.  @patcowley6378  No, they haven’t seen lighthouses from 175 miles.
    2
  975.  @patcowley6378  Present the evidence, preferably not a list from a book that doesn’t exist.
    2
  976.  @patcowley6378  If CHicago is always visible across Lake Michigan then: 1. Why is it always the same picture being shown? 1. Where is the lower half of the cityscape? 3. Why was it considered newsworthy? The Github calculator is not accurate. It uses the 8"/mile^2 formula that assumes a perfectly smooth sphere (no hills & valleys)and no atmospheric refraction. It's a rule of thumb that was used by land surveyors in the pre-calculator days and not intended for accurate calculation over many miles. Use the Metabunk or Bislin calculators that rely on the maths, not a rule of thumb. "I sincerely want to know how light goes over the horizon" Refraction. The temperature differences between thermal layers in the atmosphere lead to variable density and the light is bent downwards slightly. Put a straw into a glass of water and see how it bends below the water surface.
    2
  977.  @tatonemio6388  There was a text excerpt floating around a few years ago that purported to come from a textbook on lighthouses that quoted such distances; the book doesn't exist, half the lighthouses referred to didn't exist (or existed). I assume he's quoting from that.
    2
  978.  @loweel2897  I’m referring to centrifugal force, not the Coriolis effect. It’s <0.5% that of gravity at the equator, enough to require balances be calibrated fir their location.
    2
  979.  @travelertime4382  you’re replying to the wrong person.
    2
  980. Read up on Wallace’s experiment with the Bedford Canal. His markers were well above the water and he compared how they lined up rather than “can I still see something”. Why do people find it preferable to believe that cities rise & sink and oil rigs change position daily rather than consider the possibility that atmospheric refraction exists?
    2
  981. Eratothenes was measuring the globe, not demonstrating that the Earth was a globe. That had been deduced two centuries earlier from the sun & stars. FE'ers stoutly refuse to use the curvature formula and insist on using the land surveyor's rule of thumb for geometric drop because it doesn't calculate refracted hidden drop.
    2
  982. When you open it you do expect it to be edible. Checking it before use does not negate that expectation.
    2
  983. Research papers describe a nugget of work not a treatise on a subject; they are highly technical and very narrow because that is what they are communicating. They build on preceding work (hence the use of references in each paper) and the understanding comes from years of study on a subject. You aren't going to convey much by writing a layman's version. Science journals are usually quite dry in their content, not sensationalist. New Scientist or Scientific American are aimed at the layman and could not be described as sensationalist either. They do aim to convey a broad idea of an area in their longer articles but even 4-6 pages limits the content to shallow by necessity. Science sections in newspapers & magazines could be described as sensationalist; they tend to simplify and generalise which is where much of the confusion arises.
    2
  984. The seabeds are very shallow indentations. The Earth's radius is 3,900 miles, the Mariana Trench is only 7 miles.
    2
  985. It has been displaced in recent years by “density is a force” but it was the successor to the FE moving upwards at a constant velocity.
    2
  986.  @JimSmithInChiapas  Sorry, have a bug and not thinking too clearly. The theorists are extrapolating from there; one person does not have that amount of pull. Being aware of some disagreement does not make them well-informed if they refuse to acknowledge what else occurs. The Lancet was only one investigation and it was terminated because of the potential effect of conflict of interest. The conspiracy theory from the outset assumed it was a leak of an engineered virus that had been created as a bioweapon, usually with the connivance of the US government. It ignored other potential sources and their probabilities and adopted selective knowledge of virology. The smart people acknowledged that there are people better qualified than they are and don’t assume everything’s a conspiracy.
    2
  987. FE’ers observe the sun’s motion, horizons, two celestial poles etc which are inconsistent with FE and still insist the Earth is flat. You think that attitude is a credential?
    2
  988.  @paulhotson5820  I asked you which clause in the treaty. They’re all clearly marked so you should have no problem saying which you are referring to.
    2
  989.  @ziomeknb  LEO is outside the system; it’s orbiting above the atmosphere. We have a closed ecosystem, not a physically enclosed system; you need life support to exist outside it.
    2
  990. Do the science and figure out how high you need to be to see the curvature.
    2
  991. Because you’re confusing simple gyroscopes and pendulous gyroscopes.
    2
  992.  @1FeistyKitty Which used a pendulous gyroscope.
    2
  993.  @1FeistyKitty  Byrd said (quite explicitly) that the then unexplored area of Antartica had a similar area to North America. You’re asking people questions and threatening to report people for answering them?
    2
  994.  @1FeistyKitty  “early attitude indicators” By employing a pendulous gyroscope rather than a simple gyroscope.
    2
  995.  @1FeistyKitty  The Antartica Treaty doesn’t “lock up” Antartica. Try saying which clause says it does.
    2
  996.  @1FeistyKitty  The southern polar region was unexplored and thus unmapped when Monte created his map; he was making it up. By 1902 the Antartic coastline had not been fully mapped; there was no way to know if it was one continent or a series of islands. You do realise that for accurate maps the requisite area needs surveying?
    2
  997.  @1FeistyKitty  Produce these English & Russian documentaries. There’s a boat race that circumnavigates Antartica; how do you think people don’t notice the incredible difference in distance? How do they manage for provisions?
    2
  998.  @1FeistyKitty  Horizons, motion if the sun & moon, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow. Please tell us how all that works on a FE. Centrifugal force means the weight of objects measurably & predictably varies with latitude.
    2
  999.  @1FeistyKitty  Of course you aren’t here to argue; you just expect prople to be stunned by your erudition, not point out the obvious errors and ask for evidence. Like all FEers you’re ducking out of explaining the sun & stars. Have you considered actually looking up “pendulous gyroscope”?
    2
  1000.  @1FeistyKitty  How can you prove anything to somebody who automatically rejects evidence, even the evidence that they can verify for themselves like the motion of the sun?
    2
  1001.  @1FeistyKitty  It doesn’t concern you that everything you have is claimed is false?
    2
  1002.  @1FeistyKitty  By utilising a pendulous gyroscope.
    2
  1003.  @1FeistyKitty  4000 sq mile area on a globe. If you are willing to spend time digging up conspiracy theories like Byrd then surely you can spend time look up pendulous gyroscopes? Sparehead explained the mechanism than I can. As Tatone has repeatedly said, gyroscopes do not prove or disprove a globe since they take no measurements. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Some spare time and too much patience.
    2
  1004.  @1FeistyKitty  You haven’t shown a video of someone dismantling an attitude indicator or at least YT has lost it if you did.
    2
  1005.  @1FeistyKitty  People like you?
    2
  1006.  @1FeistyKitty  Figure it out.
    2
  1007.  @1FeistyKitty  Why don’t any of you produce this map? The discussion is occurring because there are plenty of incredulous, ignorant and gullible people willing to swallow what swill the FE gurus serve.
    2
  1008.  @GrahamA63 Taken in a mountainous area with somebody saying those peaks just gotta be the Alps.
    2
  1009.  @GrahamA63  Obviously so.
    2
  1010.  @GrahamA63 You still haven’t explained how I use them in the lab if they don’t exist. Try doing that. Have you heard of radar?
    2
  1011.  @GrahamA63  I told you right at the beginning how we deduced Earth to be a globe; you refused to consider it. I told you how I know viruses exist; you refuse to consider it. You have no idea about conservation of momentum or how many rotations per day Earth & moon each make. Somebody tells you that the Alps are visible from Mt Snowdon and you accept with no thought merely because it is different. You don’t come across as someone who understands or queries and yet you think your understanding is superior to everybody else’s.
    2
  1012. How does a field of vision drop exactly?
    2
  1013.  @motorizedbicyclenation53cu90 Atmospheric refraction slightly increases the distance you can see; it does not cause a horizon.
    2
  1014. Lies such as what?
    2
  1015.  @Matuse  One would hope not but FE'ers never cease to amaze.
    2
  1016.  @truth9168  Wholly insufficient to mimic gravity, dependent on an objects surface area rather than mass, counterable by charging an object and doesn’t work inside a Faraday cage.
    2
  1017. The technology used became outdated; it exists on paper but is incompatible with today’s technology.
    2
  1018. ​ @GnotkeAugust  ​ @Zan Zilic Dark matter exerts gravitational attraction while dark energy remains hypothetical. Don't confuse what is cutting edge with what is established. Radiometric dating uses a wide range of isotopes, carbon being the most well known.All measurements have some error but 1% error is not going o invalidate the larger picture. The criticism of carbon dating specifically is the variation in the ratio of C12/C14 at any given time. Still waiting on valid arguments for why evolution would be the wrong conclusion for the evidence. Waving a Bible and/or denying evidence is not valid. Elementary textbooks are written to be exactly that: elementary. Thet cover the well-established basics not the cutting edge. You need to grasp the basics if you are to understand the in depth knowledge. The moon buggies were in the "luggage hold" at the base of the landing modules. They had a top speed of about 7mph and the astronauts could see the terrain they were driving across. They enabled travel for several miles rather than the limited 1000ft radius without.
    2
  1019. Scientifically you can make a reliable prediction based on the tins that you have opened previously, ie., the label is correct & the food is edible. You can't prove the contents of a tin are correct & edible except by opening it. You would not dismiss a reliable prediction simply because it does not provide proof. That is how science works.
    2
  1020.  @themakerofallmusic  The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude and two celestial poles. Perhaps you would like to do what no FE’ers has yet done and explain how the observations are compatible with a FE?
    2
  1021.  @themakerofallmusic  You mean you have no concept of scale. How degrees curvature per mile would you expect to observe on a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference?
    2
  1022.  @shakilshaikh8047  Let me guess - the posthumous interview?
    2
  1023. Provide some examples of NASA lying.
    2
  1024.  @staffan144  Some channels automatically delete web links regardless if the subject matter. Provide a title and website name.
    2
  1025. FE’ers did until recently.
    2
  1026. A parabola is an ellipse in the same way a square is a rectangle.
    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.  @riandcaz  The rate of curvature and how far away you can see something are not synonymous. Curvature is only one factor in determining the latter. As has already been said to you 8” per mile squared is an approximation for curvature only and good for a few miles; it was used by land surveyors at the time. Dubay latched into it because it was a simple equation and inaccurate enough to persuade people something was wrong. Look up the Metabunk Earth Curve Calculator which gives the simplified maths then look at the Walter Bislins curve calculator for the full maths. Photos are not the only evidence of successful Apollo missions and there is no evidence that the photos ate fake anyway. Rotation is demonstrable and demonstrated. Orbit is demonstrable and demonstrated. Curvature is demonstrable and demonstrated. The Earth’s shape is measured to within a few cubic metres (WGS). FEers can’t even provide alternative explanations. NB you’re waving a Bible. Gravity does not depend on dark matter’s existence. The amount of attraction at the galactic scale indicates the presence of dark matter; that is different.
    2
  1029. You get the distilled version, so to speak. It has been verified, many times by many people in many different ways.
    2
  1030. How does anybody deceive you about the position of sun & stars?
    2
  1031.  @stevenolove  Somebody saying you’ve been lied to can’t posdibly be lying?
    2
  1032. Some of them insist the missing continents are evidence that the photo is fake. 🙁
    2
  1033. They need to go substantially higher for the curvature of the horizon to become apparent to the eye. That the horizon recedes with increasing altitude doesn't satisfy them.
    2
  1034. You can reach the point where it would be proven in the legal sense of the word, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt, which is what most people are going understand. If you say to them that something can't be proven then they assume it means there is no reasonable grounds to support the idea. That does mean that we need to be careful how we use the term proof when conversing with lay people. There's already enough confusion with theory being used in the vernacular sense.
    2
  1035.  @dustinbusche274  M-M used the known motion of the Earth to look for evidence of the entirely hypothetical luminiferous aether. Explain how finding no evidence of aether proves its existence. You’re probably referring to other experiments that looked for evidence of aether. Still waiting on the evidence that relativity is wrong. Science is not some solo effort. Einstein drew on multiple sources while doing his own work; that is how science works.
    2
  1036. What makes it change shape, why is the effect not visible across the FE (only at the horizon) and how does it wield without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon?
    2
  1037.  @sdmfcfh1283  Why is up up and why is down down?
    2
  1038.  @sdmfcfh1283  How does density (a ratio with no vector value) define up & down?
    2
  1039. What do you think is wrong and why?
    2
  1040.  @ismimyok4117  Who were the banking elites with worldwide control in 500BC?
    2
  1041.  @tombass3288  You're assuming that the Earth doesn't have a tilted axis so the day & night hours are always 12hrs exactly. That is self-evidently wrong; the hours vary.
    2
  1042. None of you can agree on anything so what model should she use? Your video advocates willful ignorance.
    2
  1043.  @FLPoetry  Third time: where do you think an azimuthal projection of the globe centred on the north pole should place Antarctica? You talking about “wrong place” which means you have a “right place” in mind. Say where it is.
    2
  1044. They accept the existence of radio waves despite not sensing them; they see nothing contradictory in their conclusions. One doctor says she doesn’t waste time arguing with Covid patients who deny Covid exists; there’s too much to be done.
    2
  1045.  @007kingifrit  Science progresses by eliminating what is proven to be negative.
    2
  1046. You can throw away the ideas that are definitely wrong. The shape of the Earth is spherical not flat; all that has changed are exact measurements.
    2
  1047. She has skill for communicating clearly to lay people. We aren’t short of common sense 😊
    2
  1048. How do you think NASA influenced the ancient Greeks?
    2
  1049.  @tabandken8562  How big the continents appear is dependent on how high the camera; the higher the camera, the more if Earth that can be seen and the smaller a given area appears to be. Put another way, objects appear smaller with increasing distance. Look at enough pictures and you’ll see similar clouds because of the way clouds form and travel. Motion of the sun, horizons, angles to Polaris, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude, lunar eclipses - none explicable with a FE. No FE’er can produce even a basic map but you can get on a plane on one continent and fly direct to an airport on another continent with a globe map.
    2
  1050.  @tabandken8562  How many times by his his many means by how many people dies the Earth need to be measured to satisfy you that it has been measured? How many people need to cross Antarctica by how many means to satisfy you that someone has crossed Antarctica? What’s your technique for identifying fake pictures? All FE’rs claim to be able to tell at a glance but none can explain their technique; do you want to try?
    2
  1051.  @extravagantpanda7962  Earth’s starting position.
    2
  1052. Nobody does unless tracking the sun throughout the year.
    2
  1053. Gravity for all three. Still waiting on the FE explanation for atmospheric pressure decreasing with altitude.
    2
  1054.  @therealzilch  Duh - forgot you were in on that discussion 🤭
    2
  1055. What observations?
    2
  1056.  @JasonsMove  You consider eyeballing to be the only form of measurement?
    2
  1057.  @tatonemio6388  Presumably some of Tesla’s posthumous research….
    2
  1058. Would that include those who think different = right?
    2
  1059. Why does the sun’s motion contradict what is predicted for FE?
    2
  1060. Given a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to observe?
    2
  1061.  @boterlettersukkel  I was asking Marcos; none of them seem to have thought that far.
    2
  1062.  @boterlettersukkel  Wishful thinking on my part 😕
    2
  1063. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having curvular shadows, all verifiable by anybody & everybody. Not knowing what the evidence and knowing there is no evidence at two quite different things.
    2
  1064.  @rlupara  Then explain how your model accounts for the evidence I gave. And, no, “it just does” or similar is not an explanation.
    2
  1065.  @rlupara  How exactly should I study a model that none of you are willing to divulge?
    2
  1066.  @rlupara  Which I told you does not contain a model. “sun in the sky to mark the day” does not say where in the sky, how it moves across the sky or what path it follows, how there was daylight before the sun and certainly doesn’t go on to explain time zones ir even state that the Earth is flat. If you think it does all that then you need to elucidate.
    2
  1067.  @rlupara  WGS84.
    2
  1068. Some do, some don’t, a few are conmen. They don’t all fit into one box.
    2
  1069. They don’t use FE in training & use. That’s an empty FE’er claim.
    2
  1070.  @coreprime9552  Open a good dictionary and look at the multiple meanings for level.
    2
  1071.  @SuperMoshady  "if gravity is sufficient to hold gas down, why does it go up?" Hot air will be displaced upwards by the cooler denser air being pulled downwards by gravity. You;ve been told umpteen times but nothing gets through your thick skull. You can't even remember that your original questions was about hot gas.
    2
  1072. You need to check that information.
    2
  1073.  @JasonsMove  Unless of course there was a 0.01 degree angle between each section of rail. How does one variable cover multiple factors? Why are you having such difficulty answering if you know the answer?
    2
  1074. What question?
    2
  1075. Why do you think no evidence of luminiferous aether proves its existence?
    2
  1076. The shape of an object doesn’t fall under scientific theory; it’s a fact.
    2
  1077.  @therealzilch  Who knows.
    2
  1078.  @therealzilch  Presumably led by Cliff Richards 😊 (That gives my age & nationality away…)
    2
  1079.  @cloned76  Difficult as it is for you to grasp, you need to take into account all the variables when calculating how far you can see, not just one. Getting the wrong answers when you use the wrong maths is not evidence of being brilliant, insightful or revelatory: it is dumb. Professor Dave put up 10 Challenges for Flat Earthers. Try meeting them.
    2
  1080.  @cloned76  Produce your maths.
    2
  1081.  @cloned76  Perspective is how the angular distance between two points decreases within reading distance from the observer. You’re saying it isn’t that simple and the Real Maths has other variables. You’ve been asked repeatedly what they are and how they affect the angular distance. Put up or shut up.
    2
  1082.  @cloned76  Then produce this maths.
    2
  1083.  @cloned76  You earlier pronouncements were that that equation is wrong. Make your mind up. You're claiming to have the Real Maths that explains why we perceive curvature when the Earth is supposedly flat, i.e., objects disappearing from the bottom up and only the bottom up. Produce it.
    2
  1084.  @cloned76  Which still doesn't explain anything of your idea. "the border get thick on horizon line" What border and what do you mean by "thick"? "please note that at 85 km land should be below horizon of about 500mt " Third time - you need to take in to account elevation & atmospheric refraction as well as curvature and use the correct equation or curvature. Ignoring key factors is not brilliant insight; it is willful stupidity.
    2
  1085.  @batboylives ”the signs are in the Moon, Sun and Stars” They indicate the Earth is a sphere and not flat.
    2
  1086. Do you understand the difference between worst case scenario and best case scenario?
    2
  1087. Doesn’t occur to you that Sibrel could be lying?
    2
  1088.  @jordanzlotolow8254  That was sarcasm.
    2
  1089.  @jordanzlotolow8254  “Do the research” - the go to comment for those who can’t answer questions. Supposedly somewhere easy to find is the El Dorado of FE evidence but none of you can ever say where or what it is. Human senses are limited, not definitive. You aren’t going to sense one revolution per day because your senses are limited. Gyroscopes long since demonstrated the Earth’s rotation as anybody who has “done the research” would be aware of.
    2
  1090.  @stolearovigor281  Who sees which comments varies; the problem appears to be the speed of timeout with server requests. If someone wished to censor comments then they wouldn’t have the reply count drawing attention to the absence.
    2
  1091.  @stolearovigor281  How predictable - the FE'er blows it off with an insult. In what way is the motion of the sun & stars not "measurable, repeatable and observable"?
    2
  1092. Nothing is taken on blind faith in science.
    2
  1093. The concept of a FE was dumped over 2000 years ago because it contradicted the observable evidence, e.g., the sun having a constant angular velocity (enabling sundials) rather than the variable velocity a FE would have. That's why the Ptolemaic model (a spherical Earth) was the accepted model until the shift to heliocentrism. The notion was resurrected mid-19th century when Rowbotham went on a religious anti-science bender.
    2
  1094. Ask him if he has seen his brain. It would be interesting to see someone claiming there is no evidence that they do.
    2
  1095.  @Nehner  You realise that the Ptolemaic model is freely available for scrutiny?
    2
  1096.  @RobbiePNoCap  Name these assumptions. Models are built using evidence, are descriptive and predictive of reality.
    2
  1097.  @RobbiePNoCap  It’s been demonstrated repeatedly using the nearest. What you mean is that your brain is limited to “nothing or huge” and can’t grasp small measurements (or the entire concept of measurement for that matter).
    2
  1098.  @RobbiePNoCap  Please explain stars rotating, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and Polaris matching latitude on a FE. Ive been trying to get a FEer to produce the explanation for years; finally one of you is going to do it.
    2
  1099.  @The.Original.Hossman  That is rather the problem: you simply reject it but never refute it.
    2
  1100.  @The.Original.Hossman  One of you has still to tell me what the FE definition of empirical evidence is and what you mean by “assumed calculation”, particularly where neither assumption or calculation have been made. How many times do I need to ask. We have tsken a step forward in a FEer acknowledging you can look at constellations. Do note that on the FE “model” (that none of you can provide) the visible constellations remain unchanged regardless of season & location. In the real world both are observable.
    2
  1101. Elevation & refraction need to be taken jnto account when predicting how far you can see. Why can’t any camera zoom the set sun back into view?
    2
  1102.  @boterlettersukkel  He’s noting that most don’t people know how we know it is a sphere, not saying that it isn’t known.
    2
  1103. <drumroll>
    2
  1104.  @KumarBendrake  “scientists were paid to say smoking was safe” They looked for dissenters, raised their profiles and gave the public the impression of indecision in science.
    2
  1105. Firework rockets fly by magic?
    2
  1106.  @rogerdubarry8505  Cavendish wanted to determine the average density of Earth. Density is mass per volume. The volume was known from cartography. Measuring the force of the gravitational attraction between lead balls enabled him to calculate the mass of the Earth from the observed gravitational attraction. From that data he could calculate the average density of the Earth. The Cavendish experiment did not demonstrate that density is a force.
    2
  1107.  @rogerdubarry8505  Einstein said gravity was an apparent force, not ghat gravity didn’t exist. Tesla was interested in EM; he did not say or believe that gravitational attraction was due to EM.
    2
  1108.  @rogerdubarry8505  An object’s gravitational field causes curvature of space-time; another object’s motion is altered by that curvature and the change is apparently caused by a direct force between the objects. The same applies to centrifugal force; both are readily calculable & predictable as if they were direct forces and both are quite real but both are the effects of what is actually occurring.
    2
  1109. If it is the one you are referring to then it was an erroneous claim that 50 million Americans would rapidly die when given the vaccine; 2 years on it evidently didn’t happen.
    2
  1110.  @skeggjoldgunnr3167  Then read the last few pages and see if you can figure out what Alice was doing when she went down the rabbithole. Efficacy was tested across a range of mask types; none scored as useless. I can’t find any such article on Reuters and epidemiological research is not going to lab experiments. Mean temperature has risen; that some areas exhibit a decrease doesn’t alter that. Less ice =/= no ice. There were tourists onboard. The ice-breaker couldn’t break through the thicker ice; it did not get stuck.
    2
  1111.  @johnzzyyzz4343  Explain two celestial poles.
    2
  1112.  @carlharrison1765  Guarded by whom and what evidence do you have that it is guarded? A picture of a whole continent? Why?
    2
  1113.  @carlharrison1765  You can generate the same jpeg compression error on your computer bu shrinking a large jpeg file.
    2
  1114. No hassle from the penguins?
    2
  1115.  @tatonemio6388  He found the secret exit made by the Powers That Be by unknown means. It has been left open after an expeditionary team to the Lands Beyond accidentally walked over the edge.
    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. Density as a force (none can explain how) is relatively recent once they realised that upwards acceleration means an ever increasing velocity.
    2
  1118.  @Devilot109  Relative density boils down to density being a force that makes everything fall, denser objects more forcefully. No explanation ever forthcoming as to how and why in a given direction. Density as a force appeals to those who want a totally stationary earth.
    2
  1119. How would you identify a “REAL photo”?
    2
  1120.  @maler.michel  What tools and what are you looking for?
    2
  1121.  @maler.michel  How would sun & stars be illusory?
    2
  1122.  @PeterMasi_Son_Tile  Let me guess - you exist to see a curved water surface if the Earth is globe?
    2
  1123.  @PeterMasi_Son_Tile  Has it occurred to you to try dividing 360 by 25,000?
    2
  1124.  @PeterMasi_Son_Tile  It’s parabolic equation that ignores elevation & refraction and is good for a few miles. It never occurs to any of you to ponder whether you’re using the right equation; you just mindlessly accept what your gurus tell you.
    2
  1125. Thanks for the edit; appreciating why there would be error and how significant the error may be is important and someone should not be generally dismissive simply because one conclusion or prediction turns out to be correct. Subscribing to a particular opinion on a subject that lacks yes/no answers would be making the same error as you complain about.
    2
  1126.  @gerrysecure5874  “probably wrong” not “false”. The paper referred to the poor statistical methodology in many papers. Youre dismissing all Covid-related work as wrong because…?
    2
  1127.  @gerrysecure5874 I did but several years ago.
    2
  1128. The folks in theBible had no knowledge of the water cycle; to them there was an infinite supply of water in the sky. Nothing mote profound to it than their assumption.
    2
  1129.  @hansulrichsuter1898  When FE’ers don’t accept any photos as evidence that the Earth is a globe, including the ones the Apollo crews took, why would flying to the moon again for more photos satisfy them?
    2
  1130.  @hansulrichsuter1898  You can get on a plane on one continent and fly straight to an airport on another but you think the navigation is useless?
    2
  1131. They don’t have a theory, just a collection of mutually contradictory dumb “explanations” for individual phenomena that seemingly none are willing to fully divulge.
    2
  1132.  @JimSmithInChiapas Yes, I read them and I stand by my reply. I saw a discussion about process & risks and a paper about the virus’s gene sequence analysis and what conclusions could be drawn from it. The paper quite specifically did not rule out a lab leak and Ebright says it did; has the text been altered since? That still leaves my question: should they have altered their results to arrive at at a desired conclusion? The Chinese have kept schtum for the last four years and yet they aren’t accused of a cover-up. It seems they took the right approach.
    2
  1133. It’s what preceded the “density force” that none of you are willing to explain; since you all live in the moment you’ve forgotten you claimed it.
    2
  1134. It used to then it finally clicked that we would be approaching light speed after year. Recently it’s been displaced by density is really a force, spontaneous motion, electrostatic attraction, magnetism, Just Does and nothing.
    2
  1135. Scale. When the globe is very very big and you are very very small yiu only see a very very very very small area at a time. There are only 360 degrees of curvature. A very very very very small area occupies only a very very very very proportion of the arc. A tiny fraction of a degree curvature would look flat.
    2
  1136.  @tatonemio6388  I thought they can in the doctor’s black bag 🤔
    2
  1137.  XvX XvX  The sun’s motion, horizon, angle to Polaris - all observable to anybody wishing to look - indicate that world is not flat.
    2
  1138.  XvX XvX  How so?
    2
  1139.  @Jan-zm2yv  What makes you think an ocean and a butterfly have similar masses?
    2
  1140.  @joshuacollins385  No amount of regulation or design is going to be 100% effective but the probability of finding your soup to be grey sludge is so low that it isn’t a realistic concern when taking it off the shop shelf.
    2
  1141. A. It’s dated. B. The features of the Real Model vary markedly between FE’ers.
    2
  1142.  @bubba4131 Science doesn’t say that men can become pregnant; the people who conflate sex & gender claim that.
    2
  1143.  @bubba4131  Sex refers to the genetic, gender to psychological & sociological. We have had the bad habit of using the two almost interchangeably with the distinction being in the context but there are has always been a distinction between the two. Other people talking about them as if they are the same is not scientific. Clear?
    2
  1144. What scientific principles don’t work? What scientific principles are “taken to be real”? Science is evidence-based. It took evidence rather than just maths to demonstrate that quantum physics to be real. It would not be accepted in the absence of evidence.
    2
  1145. How dizzy do you think one revolution per day would make you feel?
    2
  1146. None if you have ever come up with a plausible reason how a government would gain from pretending the Earth was s globe, much less the practicality how there would be a world-wide governmental conspiracy running for mullenia.
    2
  1147. What is the obsession with cameras having to be in the moon? We have multiple cameras in orbit and live cameras on the ISS; why doesn’t that satisfy your requirement for cameras in space?
    2
  1148.  @leonidtomnov8933  Rotation: Foucault pendulum, laser gyroscopes. Orbit: stellar parallax. Curvature: motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude and accurate worldwide maps & navigation.
    2
  1149.  @leonidtomnov8933  We don’t see the same stars summer & winter. The zodiac arose from people noticing the changes.
    2
  1150.  @leonidtomnov8933  Why do you want it on the moon?
    2
  1151.  @leonidtomnov8933  When there are already multiple cameras taking the pictures & films you want then what do FE’ers consider so special about the moon?
    2
  1152.  @leonidtomnov8933  The stars in the northern hemisphere rotate around Polaris (approximately around the Southern across in the Southern Hemisphere) and depending on the latitude some of the stars closest to Polaris are visible all year around. Unless you are standing on the North Pole other stars come & go, hence the signs of the zodiac. Thuban used to be the pole star; Polaris has been central for only a few thousand years.
    2
  1153. One revolution per day; 1000mph is the tangential velocity at the equator. The equatorial centrifugal force is 0.3% that if gravity. Spacial reasoning & maths are not their strongpoints.
    2
  1154. A minimum of three sticks to demonstrate curvature but FE’ers have a problem thinking beyond two.
    2
  1155.  @44240xtp  They’re given examples like the sun rising & setting rather than visibly shrinking in size, the moon having the same phase to everybody, the moon being visible during the day part of the cycle, stars rotating (both directions) and southern intercontinental plane flights that require accurate maps and shorter distances than FE. What is there to disbelieve?
    2
  1156. You still haven’t explained how you think two colliding air molecules would impart force to the rocket or how you think a firework rocket flies without an engine.
    2
  1157. Outdated rather than incorrect.
    2
  1158.  @sammas7440  And as both of us have pointed out you need to provide some basis to justify that opinion. Asking you to clarify is not arrogant.
    2
  1159. Samuel Rowbotham went off on a religious anti-science bender in the 19th century. The sun’s motion, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles - it’s not difficult to disprove the FE.
    2
  1160.  @tatonemio6388  Thanks; that's what I thought it would be about but my French is negligible.
    2
  1161.  @dalerohling5989  No it isn’t; it’s a parabola and has only one variable.
    2
  1162. Dubay doesn’t debate anybody. Motion if the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses - all verifiable by anybody, all indicative of a globe, all disprove a FE.
    2
  1163.  @dalerohling5989  Elevation.
    2
  1164.  @dalerohling5989  ​ @Dale Rohling You think Dubay turning everybody down means that nobody is asking him? "I doubt you have viewed the so called star from the south pole" Nobody south of the equator can see Polaris, which is in keeping with a globe and contradictory to FE. Be novel and say which clauses in the Antarctic Treaty forbid travel there or limit travel to guided tours. Explain why you think 24hr sun is possible on the guided tours. h = r - r.cos(s/2r) is the formula for calculating geometric drop. Why do you think it a parabolic formula would describe a sphere? Why do you think elevation does not enable you to see further?
    2
  1165. “Who doesn’t think like you” The problem is that they don’t think, not that they are thinking differently. It’s not difficult to ask how we know something; if you can type a few words on a keyboard you can get answers. Instead we have people who think a lack of knowledge & understanding is wondrous insight miraculously surpassing the whole of human knowledge.
    2
  1166.  @JimSmithInChiapas Should they have fabricated their results to make it look like they had confirmed it came from the Wuhan lab?
    2
  1167. How many times in how many ways by how many people do his claims need to be debunked to satisfy you that they have been debunked?
    2
  1168.  @rlzpepperd9911  Both rotation and orbit are measurable. Do you think the numbers were pulled out of a hat?
    2
  1169.  @Uriel-Septim.  Argument from ignorance is also a common fallacy; not knowing how something is verifiable & verified is not wondrous insight it is neither.
    2
  1170. You both do & don't exist.
    2
  1171. Arctic or Antarctic?
    2
  1172. There's a surprising number of people fallen for FE because the gurus had unfettered use of YT.
    2
  1173. More that the people who seek to overthrow paradigms have a poor grasp of what constitutes scientific evidence.
    2
  1174. You see the light reflected from the crater; though the crater is too small for you to perceive directly the darker surrounding area means there us a goid background to perceive the reflected light. Where do you get a strobe light 50 miles across?
    2
  1175. Youtube algorithms having a tendency to promote conspiracy theories.
    2
  1176. We’re all human and make errors. It is possible to make a well-reasoned argument in favour of something while accidentally overlooking something or relying on incorrect information. In this case she is being polite.
    2
  1177.  @OGbobbyKUSH  That is how “stein” is pronounced in German.
    2
  1178. It’s fun badgering FEers to reveal the Real Answers, Real Evidence, Real Physics etc thay you desperately want people to know. ​ @hisnameyahuah 
    2
  1179. FE’ers used to believe that. That you CURRENTLY believe that density is a mystical force does not mean you always have and always will. You need to think beyond the present.
    2
  1180.  @danawilkes8322 You’re confusing the scientific and vernacular meanings of theory.
    2
  1181. You build each short section to be flat at that locale. The difference in angle between sections is about 0.01 degrees.
    2
  1182.  @patrickhickman8723  That’s how the third law applies to two colliding bodies; that it works with two colliding bodies does not limit the law to two colliding bodies.
    2
  1183.  @buckaroobonzai2909  Lakes have tides; being far shallower than seas the height of the tides is far less but quite measurable on larger lakes. FE’ers have no concept of scale or measurement. The moon does not pull the water of Earth because the Earth’s gravitational pull (due to mass & proximity) is far greater than the moon’s. Yes, more than one force can act at once. The wayer mives abd mountains don’t because water is a liquid and mountains are solid. Like FE’ers, you haven’t explained how you think a ratio can act as a force and why in s consistent direction. As with them your mind just passes over such complications.
    2
  1184. “Predictions in the press are the only predictions that common people see” What you would have scientists say differently if people don’t directly hear what is said?
    2
  1185.  @danielneukomm4097  I don't think you understand how universities and grants work. A government gives a block amount to a grant awarding body. Scientists put forward grant proposals to the awarding body which undergo peer review by committees made up of established scientists drawn from universities. The proposals that are seen to be most promising receive grants. There are no instructions what results to arrive at and we are not putting in bids to arrive at desired results. We publish our work in specialist journals; we are not silenced. Conclusions in a science are drawn from the accumulated evidence known at that time. Since research is always ongoing the evidence continues to accumulate; it is not a static pile of data. Conclusions (and hence projections) can change with time as the accumulating evidence warrants. There are no absolute conclusions. Something that seems conclusive at one time can be found not to be so; it's not proof that somebody was lying. The problem lies with how conclusions are publicised. The general public don't read specialist journals; they get to see the indirect, simplified & generalised versions of what is being found and expect to hear short, simple explanations of complex problems. "If you haven't noticed, both large corporations and governments are VERY corrupt these days" The only significant change is in the amount of publicity that malfeasance can generate. It leads to people seeing malfeasance as the explanation for everything.
    2
  1186. Why would astronauts training preclude them from going to space? Are are you talking about video compression errors and invisible wires?
    2
  1187. We aren’t. We’re discussing the inability of FE’ers to think beyond the superficial.
    2
  1188.  @indo42O  The atmosphere rotates with the Earth because of billions of years of friction with the surface has stirred it to a similar speed.
    2
  1189.  @indo42O  All momentum is modifiable if the object is acted upon. Net motion of the stellar accretion disc plus conservation of angular momentum as the forming Earth compacted. Nobody had to set it rotating.
    2
  1190. What are these “big holes”?
    2
  1191.  @indricotherium4802  "they appear in a locked face on aspect" And I pointed out that they observably don't provide the same face continuously. Why do you think you get two full moons in one lunar cycle? There is clearly only one full moon in each cycle.
    2
  1192.  @indricotherium4802  Explanations are not their forte. Those that acknowledge the existence of planets generally accept them to be spherical but claim their unfocussed telescopes prove they don't look how "They" are telling us. Some just insist they are wandering stars and it's impossible to see anything more than that (ie, telescopes don't exist). Most accept the moon to be a sphere (some insist it is just a hologram that "They" project to fool us) but can't explain tidal locking; some insist it is flat (hence the same face) but can't explain why it always has a circular outline regardless of the viewing angle.
    2
  1193. That the moon’s orbited Jupiter meant they weren’t orbiting Earth.
    2
  1194.  @Wolfman_  EPIC is the NASA camera that has been taking hourly shots of Earth for several years, all readily available online. Himawari-8 (Japanese) & Elektro-L (Russian) take even more. Blue Marble was taken on film in 1972, Earthrise in 1969.
    2
  1195.  @XraynPR  What lesson?
    2
  1196. Many undoubtedly are but there are many conspiracy theorists too.
    2
  1197.  @edwardchege2623  So explain how you think mass acts as a force and why in a specific direction.
    2
  1198.  @edwardchege2623  What. Makes. The. Mass. Move? Not a difficult question when you claim to have already figured out the answer. Try actually doing so instead of providing examples of mass moving.
    2
  1199.  @edwardchege2623  You are using a calculator that assumes you are at sea level. The photographer was on a mountain peak. Do you seriously think there is no difference?
    2
  1200.  @edwardchege2623  Force has direction, mass does not. I’m asking you how mass would act as a force; your revolutionary answer that ticks modern physics is “it just does”?
    2
  1201.  @edwardchege2623  Still no explanation for why mass would act as a force or why in a consistent direction. If you do not know then say so. Until you have a plausible reason you are just blowing hot air. Introduce gravity to a FE and it collapses itself into a sphere. Both rotation & orbit are detectable & measurable. I suggest you start by finding FE explanations for the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude, all readily observable (with travel).
    2
  1202. Accelerating upwards is outdated; it’s what FE’ers claimed until recently. Still waiting on FE’er explanations for the sun rising & setting.
    2
  1203.  @gameoflife9147  The observer would see a variable diameter and variable angular diameter. It does not explain how the atmosphere would refract the light if it was not curved, why it would refract downwards, why the refraction would always be exactly just so regardless of the atmosphere’s variable refractive index. The sun has been repeatedly measured to have a fixed angular diameter & velocity and stepping outside any evening will disprove your video. In the model there is no explanation hoe the FE sun stays up, moves and only lights a misshapen area or any explanation how a diametrically opposed moon would be visible during the day or shoe the same phase worldwide. Nowhere does it do anything to demonstrate that is what is happening. Then we’re on to the guy walking across a cambered playing field..
    2
  1204. An accelerating disc is outdated, not misrepresentation. Any explanation how density could act as a force?
    2
  1205. It originated with Samuel Rowbotham in the 19th century who went on a religious anti-science bender. To him, demonstrating science was the antithesis of Christianity was far more important than being factually correct. Even today many and possibly most FE’ers are religiously motivated. Edit: "Soon, proof will be ample of a spheroidal earth" The proof has been ample since the ancient Greeks. Today we have the Earth measured to the cubic metre, accurate maps across the entire surface (with trade & travel demonstrating the accuracy), high predictability of solar & lunar eclipses (people travel to precise locations at precise times to be in full shadow), multiple full-hemisphere photos being taken every hour and the ISS visibly passing overhead on a predictable schedule. The shape can be deduced from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching altitude, two celestial poles and the constellations changing with altitude, all directly observable. The curvature can be and is measured with as little as sticks & shadows. There is no doubt about the Earth's shape.
    2
  1206.  @justinsaunders3932  How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself? 200,000 miles up is 80% of the way to the moon; how would a sphere with a 2 degree angular diameter rise to eye level all around you exactly? 8”/mile^2 is a parabola not a circle; that’s why it isn’t used to calculate drop or how far you can see. Nasa means raise or lift in Hebrew. Do none of you think to check? Cavendish experiment; still waiting on the FE’er explanation for the effect.
    2
  1207. Aside from the abundance of artificial lighting these days, some sunlight is reflected off the moon. It’s dim but your eyes adjust to a wide range of light intensities.
    2
  1208. Does 2+2=4 or are we just programmed to think it does?
    2
  1209. But the plants crave electrolytes!
    2
  1210.  @HaggisPower  It’s what’s in the Brawndo!
    2
  1211.  @kipthecourtjester  I’m asking you to explain the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles and the constellations changing with latitude. You profess to have the knowledge & understanding so what’s so difficult about answering?
    2
  1212. Why don’t you just give up & shut up instead?
    2
  1213. It doesn’t occur to you that it’s your description of events that is politicised? Fauci doesn’t decide on what funding goes where (the NIH is a group of separate institutes), international collaborations among scientists is common and gain of function has multiple meanings.
    2
  1214.  @F0ckyourculture It hasn’t been disproven and I assume you mean nobody has collected some from the galaxy periphery.
    2
  1215. What evidence?
    2
  1216. The chap died unfortunately. It’s unlikely he was a FE’er, just saw them as a source of funding to build a steam-powered rocket.
    2
  1217. That they aren’t synonymous, not that they’re unrelated.
    2
  1218. "There should be a way after which we can trust research" You wait for data from multiple sources & experiments to accumulate; the bigger the pool of data the more accurate the picture you can draw. It is an iterative process. In biology we are looking for relatively small variations in a very complex system; statistically it is inevitable that some results will be a fluke no matter how good the work.
    2
  1219.  @jaimevivesp  Unfortunately, that a conspiracy is impossible does not stop there being a conspiracy theory claiming there is a conspiracy.
    2
  1220. It’s the vernacular meaning that has changed, not the philosophical one.
    2
  1221.  @therealzilch  They first compiled it then.
    2
  1222. Why would asking questions of the man with the answers be harassment?
    2
  1223.  @boterlettersukkel  Knocking back bloodwine in Sto’Vo’Kor would be even better 😀
    2
  1224.  @cabbagefart7432  Explain how you conclude that observer elevation is inconsequential to viewing distance on a globe.
    2
  1225.  @cabbagefart7432  When you are refusing to take elevation into account then it is evident that you consider it inconsequential. Why do you think you ate refusing to take it into account?
    2
  1226.  @cabbagefart7432  You haven't provided any calculations; you just made a handwaving claim that certain places were visible 50 miles away.
    2
  1227.  @cabbagefart7432  "The eolian islands form the Sicilian coast. Blackpool tower. Canigou in Canada" How many can you count?
    2
  1228. What do you think is wrong about Covid and why?
    2
  1229.  @sherogn  In the last four years I’ve heard a lot of BS from armchair experts who cherry pick data, can’t grasp that knowledge is accumulative and have sod all knowledge of virology, epidemiology & medicine.
    2
  1230.  @sherogn  I’ve had many people tell me something was wrong based on their lack of understanding of the above points. Try giving some examples of what you think is wrong.
    2
  1231.  @sherogn  You’re telling a scientist that “science can’t be trusted” is none of my business? You haven’t actually said why science can’t be trusted except for a vague comment; I’m asking you to state something concrete.
    2
  1232. What do you think we do in labs?
    2
  1233. It’s more how they think rather than what they think. What’s erroneous about the method of reasoning that arrives at a contradiction of observable reality as an explanation for said reality.
    2
  1234. Mercury & Venus’s orbits lie between Earth & sun; it doesn’t automatically follow that the planets are always at just the right point to lie between Earth & sun.
    2
  1235. Beyond the Earth being flat FE’ers don’t agree on any detail. None of you can provide your claimed Real Model.
    2
  1236.  @tatonemio6388  Everything’s outsourced these days…
    2
  1237. Is the rubbish picked up on time?
    2
  1238.  @thorgeirnable  I referred to local government because that level is easiest for you to envisage; roads are maintained and the rubbish is picked up. The work won’t be perfect because nothing is that simple; which pothole is filled in first comes down to opinion. Higher levels of government deal with broader issues and those may not be apparent to you. You pick a tin of whatever food stuff off the shop shelf without even thinking of food poisoning risk (and don’t start whining about “chemicals”) because of the oversight you believe is unnecessary. Something slipping through is newsworthy because it is unusual, not the norm.
    2
  1239. Fascinating ideas such as what?
    2
  1240.  @chungkingexpress94 You said they had ideas that are fascinating, not that you were fascinated with them. You still haven’t named any; what’s so difficult?
    2
  1241.  @dirkardostevergreen4827  Given that they believe conservation of momentum doesn't exist that does seem very appropriate.
    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. There are streaming external cameras.
    2
  1244. The 1st Amendment acknowledges the right to free expression; it is not obligation on others to promote it, pay attention to it or not point the stupidity in what is said.
    2
  1245. Why can’t FEers figure out 360/25000?
    2
  1246. What would be the point of a population that is incorrectly educated? How would a government managre to continue to fool people who have expertise in a subject?
    2
  1247. I started flipping through his intro. The Apollo missions had a traceable to signal to, on & from the moon, detectable equipment left there and verifiable material brought back. If the Soviet Union had any reason to believe it was fake because they couldn't detect any of that then they (and the CIS) have had plenty of opportunity and reason to say so. Nobody has been in person since because it is extremely expensive with minimal return; the LRO has been orbiting the moon for over 10 years for a fraction of the cost.The opening quote from von Braun refers to the use of a single stage rocket and preludes why multi-stage rockets were used.
    2
  1248. How many of these sceptics tried isolating and sequencing the virus?
    2
  1249. Science is evidence based; scientific conclusions are altered as evidence accumulates. Belief systems start with a fixed conclusion and ignore or selectively interpret evidence to justify the desired belief. When something has been confirmed repeatedly by generations of scientist preceding me and (despite the emphasis being on disproving hypotheses) nobody has found evidence to disprove something why is it unreasonable for me to accept prior conclusions? Should I spend an entire career personally confirming everything from Stone Age onwards?
    2
  1250.  @borikero1  The hyper-intelligent, deep thinking FE’er has figured out you can see the sun, moon & stars?
    2
  1251.  @borikero1  1. No. 2. None. 3. Neither. Try producing questions that are relevant to the shape of the Earth.
    2
  1252.  @borikero1  You haven’t proposed any questions about the globe; you have avoided revealing the questions you supposedly want answered. All youve done is raise ignorant questions about NASA, apparently unaware that 500BC long predates 1958 AD.
    2
  1253.  @freefreepalestine360  Why can’t any of you say what this law is?
    2
  1254.  @freefreepalestine360  You’re going to explain how atmospheric lensing is supposed to work?
    2
  1255.  @freefreepalestine360  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses always having a circular shadow. Still waiting on FE'ers to explain how any of that works on a FE much like we're still waiting for any of you to quote your famed Law of Perspective.
    2
  1256.  @DanielSabrel  Every celestial object.
    2
  1257. Geocentrism is Earth being the centre of the universe; that Earth is the vantage point of human astronomers is a matter of circumstance.
    2
  1258. The Big Bang was the expansion after the initial event.
    2
  1259. When Polaris lies in the axis of rotation why do you think it would move?
    2
  1260.  @andygarcia5577  It supports the existence of an axis of rotation. The change in Polaris relative to latitude indicates the Earth is a sphere. Oblation is a fraction of a percent.
    2
  1261.  @andygarcia5577  "lake water is level across. great salt lake" Except it isn't. Either people shine lasers with no thought to refraction, dispersion or angle or assume that a "long way" means the whole surface. "water seeks its own level" How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself? "aircraft 'artificial horizon' to keep altitude" It's used to keep the plane level, not maintain altitude. "maybe heard all those aurguments before maybe?" Oh, yes, we've heard them before...
    2
  1262.  @tombass3288  Tracking the motion of the sun by placing a vertical stick in the ground and measuring the speed with which the direction of the shadow changes (15 degrees/hour, not variable). Using three sticks hundreds apart to triangulate the position of the sun. Doing similar using a telescope with an equatorial mount to triangulate the angle to Polaris from different latitudes; using the same telescopes over the course of the year will also demonstrate stellar parallax resultign from the Earth's orbit around the sun. Travel between northern & southern hemispheres take a long exposure photos of the stars rotating and try and snap picture of Polaris & the Southern Cross from both hemispheres. Is that enough to start on?
    2
  1263. "“Common sense tells us that the world is flat, that the sun goes around the earth, that heavy bodies always fall faster than light bodies, that boats made of iron will sink.” Stuart Chase "Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen." Lincoln Barnett in an article about Einstein Both quotes refer to assumptions made because they are "obvious" but found to be erroneous when actually checked. Neither advocate making assumptions instead of actually checking.
    2
  1264.  @DrJohn-rl9zg  No problem. The first quote usually comes up because someone is arguing that common sense is right.
    2
  1265. Some do, some don’t, a few are simply making money from the gullible.
    2
  1266. It’s indicative of the specialisation within science; when I take an X-ray of a mouse I don’t have to have in depth knowledge of how X-rays are created, their precise properties, whether they’re a wave or particle or the effects of chronic exposure. I do want the evidence from the mouse’s bone structure to use in my research. There isn’t enough hours in a lifetime to be a polyglot in science. I do need a general knowledge (better than most people’s knowledge) of a wide of science but not to the depth you feel we ought to have. Alternative hypotheses still need to be evidence-based; they don’t have any validity from being “different”.
    2
  1267.  @grawss  Hypotheses, not invalid theories. Unless actually disproving a hypothesis, conflicting evidence may simply indicative that there are as yet undetermined factors at play. What do you expect hypotheses to contribute?
    2
  1268.  @dandamurayettey9227  If the evidence is “clear for a smart person to see” then you should have no problem saying what it is.
    2
  1269.  @dandamurayettey9227  Motion of the sun, angle to Polaris, horizons and two celestial poles, all of which you can verify for yourself. What’s your evidence for a FE?
    2
  1270. Why don’t any of you provide this midel?
    2
  1271. Distance to the sun & moon is measurable through triangulation; they are distant.
    2
  1272. The periodicity was noted; the shape of the Earth was neither presumed nor employed in any model.
    2
  1273. The deviation from a perfect sphere is minute and due to the variations in Earth’s structure.
    2
  1274. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows - all verifiable by anybody. I can pretty much type that with my eyes closed I've written it so many times. I'm still waiting for any FE'er to explain how they are possible on a FE. Do you want to try?
    2
  1275. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude; all personally verifiable, none require maths and all demonstrate that EArth is a sphere. Explain how you think they would work on a FE. The VAB are not impassable; nobody ever said that they were.
    2
  1276. On how many people woykd a vaccine need to be tested to qualify as having been tested?
    2
  1277. How did you compensate for the Earth's gravitational pull when pouring water on your globe?
    2
  1278. It was Jenner who pioneered a vaccine for small pox not Pasteur, who died 60 years before the polio vaccine was developed. Germ theory covers all micro-organisms, not just viruses. There is abundant research-based evidence that certain viruses cause specific diseases; denying it wont make it go away. Antibiotics, which specifically target micro-organisms, cure many infection-based diseases. Ignorance is not knowledge. Denying knowledge is stupidity, not insight.
    2
  1279. It’s a matter of probability. Pick up a can of soup (undamaged, before the eat by date) and you can say with near certainty that it contains soup and is edible. It isn’t reasonable to argue that the matter is in doubt.
    2
  1280. Replace sometimes with usually and you’re nearer the mark.
    2
  1281.  @cyberaxcw  So your counter-argument is innuendo. The observable motion of the sun is a constant 15 degrees/hr, it maintains a constant angular diameter of 0.5 degrees and rises & sets. How does this reconcile with FE’er predictions that both angular diameter & velocity vary and it doesn’t come within 20 degrees of the horizon?
    2
  1282.  @To.Ma.To_78  North top, south bottom is just convention and used for most projections. The azimuthal projection starts from one point (it can be anywhere) and radiates; the Gleason azimuthal projection was for visualising time zones, not an accurate world map. Mercator is the projection most people are familiar with; I assume that is what you mean by classical map. IIIRC it was designed for nautical use; a straight course could be plotted on it with the caveat that the distances would not remain proportional. I think it is favoured for display simply because the lines of latitude & longitude appear as a regular grid. It isn't usually used in atlases.
    2
  1283. It’s why Dubay says not to look at the stars.
    2
  1284. How does density act as a force and why in a consistent direction?
    2
  1285.  @ding9633  There’s a difference between noting bias in poorly edited articles and making sweeping claims of bias across the board.
    2
  1286.  @cabbagefart7432  Normal people refer to it as geometry; relativity deals with the curvature of space-time, not the measurable curvature of the Earth.
    2
  1287.  @dominiccharvet546  You think that you not knowing how means it is impossible? Not if the suit is pressurised. How do you think two gas molecules bouncing off each other would propel a remote object?
    2
  1288.  @thomasspeed3390  FE’ers can’t understand a diagram that consists of a circle with several radial arrows. It isn’t possible for any one person to personally confirm everything. When something is widely accepted it is reasonable to assume that there is evidence to back it. It isn’t reasonable to assume a massive pointless conspiracy to explain what you don’t understand.
    2
  1289.  @thomasspeed3390  I've been trying to get them to explain their ideas; their thinking is very superficial and instinctive. They aren't bothered by holes & contradictions; their sole yardstick for the whether an idea works is how much it conflicts with established knowledge. There's nothing elitist in expecting coherent arguments, particularly from people who insist they are the only ones possessing them.
    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. You may not that is the Bug Bang Theory, not Big Bang Hypothesis. Theory & hypothesis are not synonymous in science, only in the vernacular. When something is demonstrably wrong then no amount of wishful thinking will make it correct. The shape of Earth as a globe is not complicated or hard to imagine.
    2
  1292. Its not wrong to ask how we know it’s a sphere or to formulate hypotheses; it is outstandingly stupid to declare reality wrong when it doesn’t fit FE hypotheses.
    2
  1293.  @jordanemede  You can get a rough estimate by measuring the length of shadows from perpendicular poles at distant locations. No need for specialist equipment. FE’ers usually claim the FE sun is only a few thousand miles above the FE, not light years away. How difficult is it for FE’ers to do?
    2
  1294.  @jordanemede  Firstly, you’re insisting you are in a plane do what difference does it make to you? Secondly, the simple solution is to use more than two locations.
    2
  1295.  @jordanemede  What have you done to determine it isn’t 93 million miles away if you haven’t tried measuring the distance? You’re confusing glare with angular diameter. You realise that putting one stick in the ground and tracking to movement of the shadow demonstrates a constant angular velocity?
    2
  1296.  @jordanemede  You're saying she is and I'm asking you to prove the evidence and it's evidence that is easy to obtain. Why aren't any of you doing it?
    2
  1297.  @bmanmcfly  1. Neither religion claim a FE; that the Earth was a globe was accepted before either existed. Judaism does not advocate a FE even though most texts were written prior to the deduction. A minority of people in each advocating a FE on the grounds of applying literal & imaginative interpretations of select verses could reasonably described as a cult. 2. The globe was mapped in detail in the 19th century. Land surveyors do measure curvature; local surveyors can skip it since the amount of distortion is minimal in comparison to the variation in local terrain. Putting the results together produced a globe; they were not fitted to a globe. 3a. You're assuming that Nasa is the only space agency and that direct eyeballing is the only form of observation. 3b. Please give an example of this serial fakery. 3. What somebody wants to believe is not going to alter reality. 4. It's reasonable to ask how the measurements form a globe but there is no disagreement on what shape they do form. Natural philosophy assumes that everything can be determined purely by observation & thought. It was displaced by science when it became apparent that prediction and testing were necessities to achieve anything beyond the basic answers.
    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.  @bmanmcfly  "You really make every effort to avoid scrutinizing what you've been taught." An insult routinely made by FEers who think I should have unquestioningly accepted their erroneous point and can't counter the refutation. 1. You don't need a force to travel through a vacuum since there is no medium to create resistance. Your argument is that the absence of force somehow disproves an explanation that doesn't include such a force. 2. No, pear-shaped was used as an analogy to describe where the deviation was, not to express the size of the deviation. Comparison to the north pole tells you sweet FA about size relative to the equator. 3. That it can be seen & tracked to a regular schedule indicates that it does exist contrary to your assertion to everything being fake. No reference to a compilation of fakery given. 4. You are arguing that there are more than two suns. 5. You just described how science progresses. No reference to the Physics Girl video. After those errors I take it you are just trying to wind me up.
    2
  1301. If they wish to be taken seriously then why don’t they present any of the evidence & explanations they claim to possess?
    2
  1302.  @yhenry77  He was referring to the then unexplored area of Antarctica. Check the area he looked at and compare it the area of the rest of the continent.
    2
  1303.  @yhenry77  2. One person per boat, not one boat.
    2
  1304.  @yhenry77  Did you not read what I wrote or did you just ignore it?
    2
  1305. Denying rather than refuting.
    2
  1306. Produce some of the evidence for a FE.
    2
  1307.  @costakeith9048  Let me guess - only one in a million minds would understand your clear and specific statements actually meant something else?
    2
  1308.  @costakeith9048  If his advances in logic apply to his reality rather than ours then why are you lauding them?
    2
  1309. The video is about the thought processes you need to go about answering the question
    2
  1310.  @danncorbit3623  A combination of willful ignorance and wanting that special feeling of "in the know". For people who cite personal observation as the only form of evidence they are very selective on what they want to observe.
    2
  1311. Explain how density (a ratio) could act as a force and why in a consistent direction?
    2
  1312.  @georgeschnackenberg1548  Great - now how does density act as a force and why in a specific direction? The centrifugal force at the equator is 0.5% that of gravity. How do you conclude that 0.5 > 100? How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself? Why don't the people who have The Truth ever answer these questions?
    2
  1313.  @mooners40  And yet none of you can ever explain how you determined the photo to be fake or explain all the other photos taken. Do you not think we could be convinced if you did that it do you think people should just accept bald assertions?
    2
  1314. Which points?
    2
  1315.  @mooners40  It’s what preceded “density is a force”.
    2
  1316. The motion of the sun is observable by anybody with eyes. How do you think The Government is manipulating it? FE “science” relies on buggered up experiments, incorrect maths (if any), incapability to handle more than one variable or consider confounding factors, eyeballing as the only form of measurement, and “research” that consists of nodding sagaciously at their gurus’ videos. I haven’t found a FE’er yet who can figure out how to calculate degrees per mile. What do you think we do in labs?
    2
  1317.  @stevenpoynter9982  Which would mean the same time sunrise & sunset for everybody on a FE. You need to be at least twice as high before curvature of the horizon starts becoming visible across a wide angle view, something he wasn't going to manage with a 4" portal at half the altitude. The Gofast rocket noted a curved horizon. What exactly are you expecting to see from that altitude looking down on a 3,9000 mile radius planet? Motion of the sun and its constant angular diameter & velocity, horizons, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude, lunar eclipses; still waiting on the FE'er explanations. You can measure curvature with sticks & shadows (yes, it is possible to use more than two sticks); why don't you try it or do you wish to argue that your favourite bogeymen are capable of manipulating shadows?
    2
  1318.  @stevenpoynter9982  Stellar parallax demonstrates orbit; laser gyroscopes & Foucault pendulum demonstrate rotation. I take it you are like all other FE'ers - you can't answer my questions?
    2
  1319.  @3DGamer2B  You realise any Tom, Dick or Harry can determine the Earth to be a sphere and not flat? Why do you think we should live in ignorance?
    2
  1320.  @3DGamer2B  We observe the sun maintaining a constant angular diameter & velocity because we are demonically possessed?
    2
  1321. ​ @3DGamer2B  The Vatican owns an observatory adjacent to UA's. It's never owned Lucifer. Rowbotham purloined the term when writing his book Zetetic Astronomy (not astrology). He did not state he was aiming for a predetermined conclusion but that is apparent from his methodology; he deliberately avoided reasoning that would disprove FE and relied solely on experiments that would yield results favourable to FE. Science draws limited hypotheses and attempts to disprove them; progress is achieved by working what is not disproved. Disproving something is the key in science because you can eliminate with certainty what doesn't work; Rowbotham wanted to avoid disproving FE. More bluntly, Rowbotham didn't want people questioning anything associated with religion, e.g., the age of the planet, life on other worlds. He favoured ignorance of anything that might detract from religion, not seeking information.
    2
  1322. They’re seen as the epitome of wilful stupidity, not used for “pro-establishment propaganda”. Contradicting FE’ers is seen as unnecessary by the vast majority of scientists.
    2
  1323. The ancient Greeks disproved it. The field was long accepted to be a sphere by Columbus’s time.
    2
  1324.  @gralen  There seems to be a popular misconception about Columbus. He thought a westwards, trans-oceanic route to Asia was within the limited sailing distance of contemporary sea vessels based on his personal belief that the Earth was substantially smaller than measured. That is why he though he had reached India in when he made landfall in what is now West Indes. His crew nearly revolted not because they were afraid they would sail off the edge of the Earth but because their provisions would run out if they didn't turn back. Possibly there is confusion with Magellan who did want to circumnavigate the Earth. The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere from the motion of the sun, horizons and the angle to Polaris matching latitude. A spherical Earth was the centrepoint of the Ptolemaic system which was created around 100AD and was the accepted model of the solar system/universe until the shift to heliocentric system in the 16th/17th century.
    2
  1325. Depends on the country.
    2
  1326.  @tatonemio6388  North Korea would have beaten them all 😊
    2
  1327. So what causes those effects?
    2
  1328. How many flights need to make the circumpolar navigation to satisfy you that it has been done? Don’t say just one because we passed that point decades ago. Do you think Perseverance is using a cell phone?
    2
  1329.  @tombass3288  "well I'm waiting" Patience, man, some of us don't live on the web. A Flying Tiger Line Boeing 707 in 1965, a Modern Air Transport Convair 990 in 1968, Pan-Am Flight 50 in 1977 and "One More Orbit" in 2019. "they've flown to the South Pole and back but they've never flown around the South Pole and back up" You do realise that on a Mercator map that crossing Antarctica and flying up the other side of the Earth would look like "back up"? "no flight is allowed to fly within 500 miles of the North Pole" Says who? Why has nobody told the airlines that operate those flights?
    2
  1330.  @ilBaccello  They haven’t come up with anything that actually models reality regardless of their assumptions. I’ve been asking how the sun rises & sets without coming near the horizon and all I get are lofty claims of “it’s explained” or similar.
    2
  1331.  @KangenAlec  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles, accurate maps....
    2
  1332. Do you understand that evidence is accumulative, not fixed?
    2
  1333. "they were meant to have been drowned by rising sea levels by now" Partially submerged by 2100.
    2
  1334. ⁠ @phillipking6153 ​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠Produce evidence of these shadows. The FE sun would follow a different path to that observed, at a variable angular velocity contrary to ehat is observed, a variable diameter contrary to tgat obsetvdd and never rise & set ckntrary to that observed. How exactly do you think it agrees with what is observed. We have different warming at different latitudes because the Earth is spherical not cylindrical as you are envisaging. You have no clue what a scientific theory is. Curvature of space-time. The Earth rotates; grostationary satellites have an orbital period of one day, not motionless in space. Cars have the mass of a planet? Why do FE’ers fail to comprehend rhat ghe mass of objects vary? How do you make it through life without noticing? Why isn’t there an abundance of photos of Chicago from that distance? Why is it always the same few shots with only the uppermost part of the skyscrapers visible? Depends exactly where the cars are parked; even a few feet elevation makes a difference.
    2
  1335.  @phillipking6153 Hardly. Your error is presuming the Earth to be flat and only attempting those calculations and only trying it with two locations. You’re acknowledging that you haven’t even tried to calculate it from a sphere.
    2
  1336.  @phillipking6153 If the sun is 4000 miles above a flat earth eith a 25,000 mile diameter then how does it maintain a constant angular diameter & velocity? How does it rise & set? The Earth was determined to be a sphere c. 200 years before Eratosthenes; he was only interested in measuring the size of the sphere which is why he didn’t use more than two points. Why don’t FE’ers use three or more locations when trying to determine the difference beyween flat & spherical? Why the rigid adherence to only two locations?
    2
  1337.  @phillipking6153 It’s tilted 23.4 degrees relative to the orbital plane, not relative to the sun. How the sunlit side is angled relative to the sun thus depends on where the Esrth is in its orbit.
    2
  1338.  @alexanderhugestrand  a r x i v I hope that gets through.
    2
  1339. Density displaced upwards acceleration; that in turn is partially displaced by "just does".
    2
  1340. Sex is biological, gender psychological/sociological. The two words have been used interchangeably (hence the confusion) with the distinction being in the context. In science the move is towards distinct use of the two terms for greater clarity in communication.
    2
  1341. Simplify them to what level and how would you convey complex ideas that require the knowledge & understanding of the reader? NASA tries; they get called Never A Simple Answer by people who still can’t understand and are accused of self-contradiction by those don’t realise how simplified the descriptions are. Being able to explain something clearly to lay readers is a talent and it won’t satisfy many.
    2
  1342. ​ @Zer0C0re  We do have lives outside the ivory towers :-) "using any leftover funds for public charities" Which would be misappropriation, a criminal offence. A grant is a legal contract whereby sum of money is paid for a specified purpose, to pursue the project you laid out in the grant application; use for any other purpose would be illegal use of the money. It is accepted that some unused finds may well exist since the grant amount is based on estimated cost but you are obliged use it for similar purpose; if there is more than a certain percentage remaining you will need to explain the discrepancy, e.g., a lab member leaving unexpectedly. Yes, we could have a higher profile. I've noted in some discussions elsewhere that some people seem surprised that we are "real" people rather than the vague "them".
    2
  1343.  @Bobsutubes  YT deleted by reply for some reason. I suggest you look up the science news cycle which describes how what we say gets modified as it passes through different hands.
    2
  1344.  @MrFloppyHare  A warrior’s drink!
    2
  1345. You realise that modern tech is derived from science and that tech prior to science was pretty rudimentary?
    2
  1346. What do you think we do in labs? Educational textbooks are being continually written; they weren’t cast in stone millennia ago. The detail in them are the very basics of science which are continually used the world around with nobody finding fault with them.
    2
  1347. Disprove radar and trigonometry.
    2
  1348.  @David_John  Ask someone on the other side of the world if they are standing on the surface.
    2
  1349. What makes you think aircraft have a rigid airframe and don’t lose weight as they burn off fuel?
    2
  1350. A (then) unexplored area beyond the South Pole, generally known as Antarctica.
    2
  1351. What do you think we aren’t investigating exactly?
    2
  1352.  @jlstonejls123  How does the FE sun maintain a constant angular velocity & diameter and rise & set without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon?
    2
  1353.  @jlstonejls123  If the FE model is so easy to understand then why is it impossible to get coherent answers from FE’ers?
    2
  1354.  @jlstonejls123  Are you beginning to understand why we can't get coherent answers from FE'ers?
    2
  1355. You realise that the ISS orbits Earth? That it isn’t stationary?
    2
  1356.  @pvcrouter  But to what end? Satisfy the people who would dismiss it as a backdrop or CGI and complain it looks different to what they see from the surface? Launches have been covered; the purposes of the cameras are to have a visual record of the equipments’ function not entertainment. Live footage covers the few minutes it takes to reach LEO; approaching & docking with the ISS takes hours, even days rather than a few minutes. Docking has been covered from a shuttle - not enough. Assembly of the ISS covered - not enough. Multiple satellites taking multiple shots per hour - not enough. Moon crossing the Earth - not enough. Do note we are talking about people who are not simply clueless about what would be involved, let alone the cost, but who can’t grasp how a camera needs to be used beyond point & click.
    2
  1357.  @ibmibm691 The eye is a passive receptor; it detects the light that reaches it regardless of how far it has travelled. Try zooming the set sun back into view.
    2
  1358. WGS84. Catch up.
    2
  1359. All FE’ers agree they are in agreement while they contradict each other.
    2
  1360.  @antoniskoutsouras7684 Why couldn’t Weiss answer the questions put to him when he debated Prof Dave? Why couldn’t he challenge Dave’s explanations?
    2
  1361.  @antoniskoutsouras7684 You’re confusing projections and maps; you’re referring to 2D projections of a 3D globe map. Projecting a 3D surface onto a 2D surface leads to distortion; it does not support a claim that the 3D map is inaccurate. See WGS84.
    2
  1362.  @antoniskoutsouras7684 The Gleason azimuthal projection of the globe doesn’t have a fixed scale. Other than directly along a line of longitude, you can’t measure between pairs of locations on the projection and match the actual distances between them.
    2
  1363. FE’ers agree on two things: that the Earth is flat and that they are agreed on the details. Half the problem is determing what each think the agreed details are.
    2
  1364.  @DaKingof  They agree that the sun is inside/outside/embedded in the dome that does/doesn’t exist with/without space beyond it, the sun moving in a vertical/horizontal circle at multiple heights, shining in every direction but only downwards, illuminating an area to a fixed/variable distance, while to an observer does/doesn’t change in apparent size through the course of the day etc, etc.
    2
  1365.  @DaKingof  The hidden clauses in the Antarctica Treaty that only FE’ers can see and none of you can quote. Yeah, right. The Treaty is for non-militarisation of Antarctica and preservation of its environment. There are no military bases and no military patrols in reality, just inside the heads of FE’ers who belive parroting what their gurus tell them is “doing research”.
    2
  1366.  @timkaufhold6163  You're saying the Convex Earth is your evidence that the Earth is flat?
    2
  1367. Which would you trust more: canned soup or my cooking? 😊
    2
  1368. ​ @scottessex952  When photons individually carry a fixed amount of energy and there are more of them then the total of amount of energy is greater; I would have thought that self-evident. Pretty much as I said - the photon's continue indefinitely unless they collide with something. "the sun acts as a spot light." The one of you needs to explain how. "'the earth is flat " And yet measurably curved by any Tom, Dick & Harry. One of you needs to explain how. "covered by a dome" Which even one of you has yet to provide evidence for. Brains & eyeballs are organic and not closed since they receive a regular inflow of oxygen & nutrients. You need to demonstrate that Earth is a closed system. How difficult is it for even one of you to provide the answers when you all claim to know them? Do I need to resort to torture? Because gold is a precious metal and glitters. "because your ball science is non sense ..." Still waiting on valid FE criticisms. "your ballshit science has held humanity back for the last 100.years" And yet there has been more technological advance in the last century than in the rest of history. Total progress for FE'ers: zilch. "if we can draw free energy and run cars on salt water" Evidence?
    2
  1369. You think ignorant, screwed up experiments give you definitive answers? Why don’t any of you actually produce this Real Model?
    2
  1370. She's referring to the FE claim that the FE sun only shines downwards despite being a sphere radiating light in all directions.
    2
  1371. DishTV & ISS, cameras on the SpaceX launches.
    2
  1372. I question I out to FE’ers who expect to see pronounced curvature looking down the road is “Given a sphere with a circumference of 25,000 miles, how degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find?”. Many seem flummoxed by the question, nobody has provided a degrees per mile answer and somebody called it cryptic. I don’t think they understand enough to carry out the experiments you suggest.
    2
  1373. What is unscientific about evolutionary theory?
    2
  1374.  @StephenJelinek  You haven’t answered my question about trigonometry & radar. Perspective does not make anything disappear from the bottom up, just decline in apparent size. The Earth has a 25000 mile circumference , not the 25 miles you are envisaging. You do not directly the curve away from you or curvature in the horizon because you are too close to the surface. You haven’t provided any evidence of seeing the kayak. You haven’t explained why you don’t see the predicted several hundred miles. Nine if yiu ever do, just come out with examples of seeing a little further than they expect from the globe, which always boils down to miscalculation.
    2
  1375.  @StephenJelinek  Are you being deliberately obtuse? I’ve already stated that radar & trigonometry are used to measure the distance to the sun. What’s difficult to understand?
    2
  1376.  @StephenJelinek  Again, the Earth is far, far larger than you are envisaging and you are far too small and close to the surface to be able to directly view curvature. 25000 miles over 360 degrees gives you approximately 0.0144 degrees per mile, not the 14-15 degrees per mile that you are envisaging. If you can handle money then you should understand that zeros on the end of a number have significance.
    2
  1377.  @StephenJelinek  Only cretins who assume the horizon is far closer than actuality can “zoom over it”. Still waiting for any of you to provide evidence you can see several hundred miles.
    2
  1378.  @StephenJelinek  Bats use sonar, not radar. Evidently you regard ignorance as knowledge, ie, you believe your wilful ignorance means you have knowledge of a subject.
    2
  1379.  @StephenJelinek  liquid doesn’t cause refraction; it is the effect of light transiting between different densities. Atmospheric refraction arises through light travelling between different layers in the atmosphere. At dawn & sunset the angle of the sun is most oblique relative to the viewer, more air to travel through and the effect is more pronounced. At sea level the objects are similarly horizontal relative to the viewer and their will be higher levels of density change to refract the light but there is also far less distance between object & observer for the refraction to occur in. That you don’t know or understand something is not some fantastic mind-blowing insight but ignorance. Choosing to remain ignorant does not make knowledgable, just willfully ignorant. In all this exchange you haven’t asked how the distance to the sun is measured, just complained the knowledge is kept from you and claimed it does work because you don’t know how it is done.
    2
  1380. ​ @StephenJelinek  "I do not know if the Taj- Mahal exists" Which doesn't answer my question: does everybody in the world have to observe it for it to be recognised it exists? You need to explain why you think your observation (or your trusted friend's) is necessary for a logical conclusion to be reached by other people. Do you consider yourself a Great Witness? Philosophically you personally do not know if it exists. When there are abundant pictures and a booming tourist trade you can't claim there is no evidence for its existence; there is good reason to believe it exists. It isn't logical to assume a huge pointless conspiracy simply you personally haven't seen it. When multiple people have measured the distance to the sun, the measurements are consistent and agree with what we perceive about the motion of the heavenly bodies there is no good reason to conclude there is no evidence or to doubt the evidence is wrong; assuming a huge pointless conspiracy is not a logical alternative. For any form of science the methodology & data have to be provided to back any conclusions; unsupported assertions are ignored. As I've already pointed out, you not knowing how something is done is not the same as you knowing something can't be done.
    2
  1381. Most are wrong and their notions are lost to obscurity. A few turn out to be right. If you want to challenge accepted theories you need to provide the evidence to back your claim and need to be able to explain how your theory would provide all prior evidence. A hand waving “It just gotta be flat” is not a valid claim.
    2
  1382.  @KangenAlec  Still waiting on your explanation for people walking around after having had lethal injections.
    2
  1383. "many hoaxes, manipulations and exaggerations that that are around sold as science" Sold by whom? "Reliability of papers, replicability of experiments, trustwortyness of sources, are serious problems today." Small sample sizes, increasingly smaller effects and increasing complexity, not a surge in cackhandedness. "proven by the much shorter life expectancy of those that eat it" Evidence?
    2
  1384.  @dgkcpa1  Making references to a “man behind a green $$$ curtain” is the kind of argument FE’ers, antivaxxers & Q-Anon folks make rather than actually producing a constructive criticism of what they think is incorrect and why. FE’ers don’t seem to understand the concept of measurement and are apparently incapable of designing valid scientific experiments.
    2
  1385. You realise that the E numbers are indexed not secret and that dosage has significance?
    2
  1386. "are established falsehoods, and dangerous ones at that" Research doesn't stand still; something wasn't realised to be dangerous at the time rather than people were misled. Milk is healthy for most people, fluoride in low doses is good for you, how dangerous hexachlorophene is depends on the dosage, DDT is not safe as an aerosol but topical contact is OK, triethyl lead does improve the combustion process but the resulting aerosol product was found not to be safe, CFCs were good refrigerants but their eventual release in to the environment wasn't, lung cancer from smoking was not apparent when people were dying much earlier in their lives to begin with, no evidence yet that GMO's are dangerous, Trump is not a scientist or a product of science, mercury fulminate is an explosive not an insecticide (do you mean mercury bromide?), dark matter is regarded as hypothetical not factual. "we don't actually know how something as obvious as gravity really works" You don't need to know how gravity works to be aware that it exists.
    2
  1387.  @1FeistyKitty There is no matter in a vacuum to exert mechanical force on anything. The higher pressure outside causes the collapse. You realise that gas cylinders can hold high pressures without exploding?
    2
  1388.  @1FeistyKitty You have yet to produce any evidence that indicates Earth is not a globe.
    2
  1389.  @1FeistyKitty  It’s amazing what people like you don’t think about. The guy had to be checked by doctors before he continued. No equipment is perfect; failures will occur. It doesn’t follow that every piece is therefore faulty. The “narrative” was always the hose becoming detached.
    2
  1390.  @1FeistyKitty  Oh boy, FEers are still insisting they can see all of the buildings…. Where do you think the lower halves went?
    2
  1391.  @1FeistyKitty It’s measurably a globe.
    2
  1392. Whether the planetary system is heliocentric or geocentric has no bearing on the shape of the Earth. If you the system could be geocentric then you need to come up with the maths for how it could be possible.
    2
  1393. The ancient Greeks deduced the shape of the Earth from the motion of sun, moon & stars; 2500 years on we are STILL waiting for FE'ers to provide explanations. Launching a spacecraft into LEO takes a large rocket; launching a MANNED spacecraft beyond LEO take a very, very large rocket. The Apollo missions used Saturn V's, single use and all used. The Artemis missions use (present tense) the newly developed SLS. Without the political will to fund MANNED missions beyond LEO in the intervening time, there has been no need to develop launch rockets powerful enough. UNMANNED missions are frequent; satellites & probes require far less lift because they are far smaller than MANNED spacecraft. That includes multiple satellites beyond LEO (eg. geostationary satellites) some of which take frequent picture all of which are instantly dismissed by people such as yourself despite your complete inability to explain what you think is wrong with them. "all these scientists are brainwashed early on to be atheists" The matter never gets raised in science education. "Experiments are determined by the observer's free will changing them" You have no idea how experiments are conducted.
    2
  1394. Do you want to try say what is right and why?
    2
  1395. Artemis project is due for the first launch soon. Aluminum hull, carbon fibre insulation and the astronauts’ water tanks placed in the hull and travel through the weak periphery at speed. It’s not a hush-hush secret.
    2
  1396.  @blitzlegga  Would you try sticking a jet engine on the Kittyhawk?
    2
  1397.  @AnOfficialYouTubeProfile  True though I mean as in the Wright brothers, in case there is any confusion.
    2
  1398.  @dontanton7775  Something that started in the mid-19th century is unlikely to be a recently started psy-op. I was explaining why FE’ers are taken as the marker for dumb.
    2
  1399. They expect to see a blurred image since they assume a 1000mph tangential speed would appear as 1000rpm.
    2
  1400.  @Nehner  How would you get a satellite to be motionless to enable you to take such a picture?
    2
  1401.  @Nehner  OK, so you have no idea how satellites work. All satellites are in motion (ISS included); they remain in orbit because of the combined effect of gravity pulling down and momentum moving them sideways. DishTV ran a TV channel for 2-3 years from a camera mounted on their geostationary satellite at 35,000 miles. How long does this video need to be to satisfy you? What do you expect to see exactly? If they were balloons then their low position could be readily detected by triangulation. Since they would be within the atmosphere they would be subject to the vagaries of weather and require constant propulsion, which would require a constant supply of fuel. The ISS has been visible crossing the sky at a fixed rate for 20 years; how do you feel this is achieved?
    2
  1402.  @Nehner  The ISS has modular construction, each module taken up separately by space shuttles. There’s no air in a vacuum that could create the drag that limits aircraft speed and distance. Acceleration requires fuel; once at the desired speed the momentum will keep it moving. I assume you find big numbers difficult to comprehend. Use of balloons for some tasks does not magically preclude the existence of satellites. I asked you how the ISS could be mimicked with a balloon. Screaming “Doesn’t exist! Doesn’t exist!” when it can be seen passing overhead on a tight schedule is dumb.
    2
  1403.  @TheOricine  What exactly do you mean by “top down”, what do you find wrong with the Cavendish experiment and where exactly do you think there is atmospheric pressure immediately adjacent to a vacuum?
    2
  1404.  @TheOricine  Your claims require locations & measured distances and the exact methodology used. The aim of a science paper is that it spells out exactly what was done so that anybody with appropriate knowledge & equipment can reproduce the results.
    2
  1405.  @1FeistyKitty You mean you’re bamboozled by the questions. Look up pendulous gyroscopes.
    2
  1406.  @1FeistyKitty And yet you bought the computer that enables you to post.
    2
  1407. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles: all observable.
    2
  1408. They say it is "obviously fake" but they can never explain what these obvious features are. Most of them don't understand the difference between Photoshop and CGI and certainly can't comprehend that neither could be used before they existed.
    2
  1409. Each FE’er claims they have the true model; none of you can put forward evidence to support the true model you are disagreed upon or rebut the globe. You do actually need to produce evidence to back your models, not just make airy statements about your profound knowledge.
    2
  1410.  @ronpapi9539  No variation in elevation in those places, not a lack of curvature.
    2
  1411.  @bensonmofo  450 light years remains the accepted distance. A set of indirect measurements 10 years ago suggested 330 light years. You misquoted Einstein. Get things right when trying to present an argument.
    2
  1412.  @bensonmofo  Either you don’t understand what Tatone wrote or you’re a troll.
    2
  1413.  @bensonmofo  A lawyer has to present plausible alternatives.
    2
  1414.  @JimSmithInChiapas  “missing” comments are a problem with server speed rather than deliberate intent to hide something.
    2
  1415.  @Smokeybuhda Like many non-scientists you have the research grant process totally back to front. None of the Thinkers have actually thought to just ask. Have you not considered the possibility that we agree on something because that is where the ever-accumulating evidence points? Have you never wondered what we do in labs?
    2
  1416.  @Vkarlsen  I don't have faith in the "just gotta be something else 'cos it just gotta be" approach to determining answers.
    2
  1417. Some of them really do go on about what their senses tell them is the only valid evidence and how not sensing something is proof it doesn’t exist. They never explain how they think radio and microwave ovens work.
    2
  1418. To be precise, inside/outside/embedded in the dome that does/doesn’t exist.
    2
  1419.  @jb0433628  If they are so well censored then how do you now they were there? Check sites like Snopes before repeating what you hear.
    2
  1420.  @jb0433628  Why they are they reporting them on Facebook rather than databases established for the purpose where they do get scientific attention?
    2
  1421. You don’t know the steps FE’ers have gone through or you’re just denying them?
    2
  1422.  @mooners40  It pulls everything downwards. Difficult as it will be for you to comprehend, more than one force can act simultaneously and, no, gravity is not an irresistible force.
    2
  1423. Did you bother checking any of this before plastering it everywhere?
    1
  1424.  @shaununderwood1721 The laser doesn’t have to be emitted by the ship, just the target illuminated.
    1
  1425.  @JimSmithInChiapas Gain of function has more than one meaning; it isn’t limited to increased pathogenesis. No human treaties, ethics or desires is going to stop nature dabbling.
    1
  1426. It predates the modern Flat Earth Society.
    1
  1427.  @opxchaos5757  how many times by how many people do his claims have to be debunked to satisfy you that they have been debunked ? One of his videos was quite enough. If you’re ignorant and gullible they sound really good and you never notice that he doesn’t explain anything. You can’t figure out for yourself why birds can fly and oceans can’t?
    1
  1428.  @opxchaos5757  You haven’t noticed that oceans don’t possess wings or that birds have less mass than an ocean?
    1
  1429.  @opxchaos5757  The Earth was deduced to be a globe c. 500 BC. NASA was formed in 1958AD. How do you conclude all the Evidence came from NASA? Have you never asked how you could demonstrate it for yourself?
    1
  1430.  @kylefillingim9658  Nobody is disputing that red shift can have multiple causes; what you need to explain is your reasoning for conclude that the red shift currently ascribed to expansion can be adequately explained by the other causes. "Science has created a chain of Assumptions linked to other Assumptions" An accusation that is usually made by those who don't actually know how conclusion was reached and hence assume an assumption.
    1
  1431.  @kylefillingim9658  You're arguing that inability to achieve absolute proof in science somehow invalidates all conclusions reached and makes everything valid regardless of how little evidence supports the notion. That simply displays ignorance on the role of evidence in science, how conclusions are actually reached and ho uncertainty is handled. "How much of the redshift is ascribed to expansion, and why are the other causes not even mentioned" You're the one claiming to be well-versed on the subject. I take it you have a read a simplified account that deals specifically with the red shift identified as having been caused by expansion; the other causes aren't mentioned because they have been eliminated as the causes of the red shift being discussed. " mainstream politicized science" You mean science as perceived by the general public, the grossly simplified and generalised presentation as opposed to the highly detailed & complex science as actually performed by scientists? "Science is for everyone" For everyone actually prepared and able to learn about the subject in depth first. 1. I suggest you read Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong". 2. If you think you have a better understanding of cosmology then, as Scott suggests, try publishing your ideas in a journal
    1
  1432. It’s not stupid to ponder how we know something to be true.
    1
  1433. You can measure the angular diameter using a camera with a solar filter and a scale on the image. Distance has been measured by a few methods. Bouncing a radio signal off Venus when it was a right angles to the sun to measure the distance to that then using viewing angles & basic trigonometry to calculate distance. Similar angular diameters, not identical, and coincidences occur. Tidal locking is common with satellites, not unusual. If there is no moon then there is nothing to explain. If there is any moon then it needs to be explained.
    1
  1434.  @JohnChilders-x9t And yet gravity is demonstrable and “density force” is not.
    1
  1435.  @JohnChilders-x9t  Cavendish experiment, 1798, reproduced countless times since with similar results. STILL waiting on the FE’er explanation. Funny thing is, no matter what direction your “density force” is predicted to push something (STILL no explanation why it eoykd at all) the object falls in one direction only. Why is that?
    1
  1436.  @JohnChilders-x9t  Then explain the attraction that is always observed in the Cavendish experiment. You can’t explain how density, a ratio with no direction, is supposed to act as a force and why in a particular direction?
    1
  1437. They usually deny climate change.
    1
  1438.  @MrSirhcsellor  I wouldn’t say that they question science, just dismiss it.
    1
  1439.  @klocke5247  What would be making a FE sun & moon accelerate upwards? They have never supplied an explanation for why a FE would accelerate upwards much less objects in clear view.
    1
  1440.  @klocke5247  It was a rhetorical question. With a FE it could at least be claimed there is an unknown source underneath the FE providing the force but the sun & moon are clearly observable. FE'ers always fall back on the Law of Just Does.
    1
  1441.  @blkgardner  The technology is reliant on the preceding pure research having supplied the underpinning knowledge, e.g., the computer science that enabled the programming in you phone to work and the rare earths that make the circuitry possible.
    1
  1442.  @blkgardner  I’m a research scientist; you don’t have to tell me that. It also has no bearing on what I actually said. R&D departments cover the Pasteur & Edison quadrants and are reliant on the inflow of information from the Bohr quadrant. Apple designed & built your iPhone but they didn’t start from scratch.
    1
  1443.  @blkgardner  Someone not knowing what evidence exists and knowing the evidence doesn’t exist are two quite different things but are frequently assumed to be the same. University departments aren’t responsible for peer review; the journals arrange that and it is noted that the rigor varies. There are currently junk journals in existence and they are being eliminated from reputable records. Professors usually have tenure; they can’t be fired for saying something. The onus is on them to do the research; nobody is going do it fir them, especially if the claims are outlandish. Few are going to deny advances; experience means they are well placed to query claimed advances. “Good faith” is not perfect; it is far from unreliable. If we knew the answers before we started then it wouldn’t be research. There is no way of knowing beforehand which lines of research will be successful.
    1
  1444.  @blkgardner  Licences recognise expertise; they do not grant expertise. In Britain doctors & lawyers are licensed by their professional societies, not the Government. Degrees are awarded by universities, not the Government. PhD’s are not handed out or bought; they have to be worked for and you need to demonstrate your expertise. Few positions in science are tenured or even permanent; if you don’t maintain your expertise then you’re unemployable. Falsification & plagiarism are the two big taboos. If you are found doing either then you are fired and/or cut off funding. If you wish to criticise then learn how our system works first.
    1
  1445. The APA guidelines cover style & format, not content.
    1
  1446.  @leonidtomnov8933  Where are these antennas mid-ocean?
    1
  1447.  @leonidtomnov8933  What keeps them all in just the right place, what keeps them powered, how many do you think are required to cover the Pacific Ocean, who is responsible for their maintenance, how do they think they can triangulate to the same position as GPS satellites?
    1
  1448.  @Jurmeh  It also requires that you think through what you are claiming, not leave it to other people to do so for you. The universe is not as who presents it?
    1
  1449. You can’t scientifically disprove deities; there’s no way you could run a test. You can readily disprove a FE; watching the sun rise & set suffices. Edit: typo.
    1
  1450. It is what they insist on; however, they are not consistent with it, eg, no problems accepting WiFi.
    1
  1451.  @josearaujo8616  They insist anybody & everybody could be trying to deceive therefore only what they can directly sense personally is valid.
    1
  1452.  @josearaujo8616  See my initial reply; that is what they insist and yet they are greatly inconsistent with it. They don’t seem to have any problem with the inherent contradictions. I didn’t say FE’ers attitude was reasonable.
    1
  1453. The modern form of Flat Earth originated in the 19th century as a religious anti-science movement; it assumed the Bible was the only source of knowledge, displacing even observable reality as the only source of truth. It gets used pejoratively for people who reject all evidence to the contrary in favour of their chosen truth. Despite the searching no evidence has been found of mass tampering of voting systems (or even potential explanations for how it would possible in the US system) but it doesn’t stop some from claiming it occurred. I’m sick of hearing about Covid conspiracies and having to explain concepts like numbers to people.
    1
  1454.  @Lord_Volkner  "the evidence DID show mass tampering with the voting" Are you going to produce any? "I saw it with my own eyes" Saw what exactly? Why did the politicians who want Trump in fail to find evidence? Secret collusion with Biden? Controlled opposition? More micro-managing by the secret cabal that's running everything?
    1
  1455.  @Lord_Volkner  If it was blatant then the umpteen investigations would have turned something up. The Florida governor was jubilant because they found 200 isolated cases of people voting when their right had been rescinded as if that was evidence of organised tampering running into millions of votes. Don’t use inflammatory language, don’t make accusations, don’t use weblinks. Just describe as clinically as possible what you said you saw. If the MSM was as controlling as you think then nothing would have been heard about it at all.
    1
  1456.  @Lord_Volkner  Your accusation of "big tech/MSM echo chamber" requires an implausible of control or co-operation. You also seem to be assuming that anybody making claims of tampering is impeccably honest. We are talking about mass tampering on a sufficient scale to alter the outcome of the 2020 election, not individuals voting illegally or trying to alter somebody else's vote; the latter occurring (and it is reported - I gave you an example) is not evidence of the former. I would note that the US has a level of distrust bordering on paranoia with people cheerfully believing everything official can't not be a lie. Strangely they do think driving on the right is the correct side of the road for Americans and have no complaints about their trash being picked up on the scheduled day.
    1
  1457.  @Lord_Volkner  Again, plausibility; you're describing a cabal micro-managing everybody's business. You're looking for a bogeyman to blame everything on. It is amazing how many small groups of people or a single person individually owns practically everything. On the interviews I found he says nothing about anything other than finance.
    1
  1458.  @3kinformaticamanutencaoeve91  The low hanging apples are long gone. Simple problems get quick solutions, complex problems require more time & effort. You seem to want everything quickly regardless of complexity.
    1
  1459. They aren’t renowned for thinking. The Earth accelerating upwards preceded “density is a force”.
    1
  1460.  @PaulMcMinotaur  The scientific & vernacular meanings of theory differ.
    1
  1461.  @PaulMcMinotaur  I'm quite aware that scientific theories are open to change if evidence appears that warrants it but the vernacular meaning is guess; the two are not the same.
    1
  1462.  @stewiesaidthat  Because the clock is travelling in the same reference frame as the astronaut.
    1
  1463.  @stewiesaidthat  Two frames of reference; astronaut in one, observer in another.
    1
  1464.  @stewiesaidthat  "these 'twins paradox' videos can't distinguish a 'man' from a 'woman'.. " Different branches of science; we aren't limited to one for everything. "Mickelson-Moreley" Michaelson-Morley were looking for evidence of luminiferous aether and compared two directions perpendicular to each other. Motion through aether would have slowed one. "Showing how B2 bombers are able to fly farther on a 'single' tank of gas isn't going to convince them either." You still haven't said where & when these experiments were carried out or anybody made that claim.
    1
  1465.  @stewiesaidthat  Players in one frame, spectator in another.
    1
  1466.  @stewiesaidthat  "biological entity into their 'twin paradox'?" Visualisation of the paradox. "You keep doing the same expirements over and over and expecting different results." No, we don't. An experiment needs be repeated multiple times to eliminate the possibility of chance causing the results in the first. We do perform an endless series of different experiments. Do you think we spend an entire career performing one experiment over and over and over?
    1
  1467.  @stewiesaidthat  Grow up.
    1
  1468.  @emmanuellerousseau7314  Why would the Earth's rotation prevent a lake being calm? Why the fish not have conserved momentum? Why are FE'ers so reluctant to reveal the Real Physics?
    1
  1469. What do you think we do in labs?
    1
  1470.  @insidetrip101  You don’t seem to think we do gather empirical data to arrive at a consensus so I’m curious what you think we do in labs?
    1
  1471.  @insidetrip101  The consensus arises from the accumulation of empirical data. Disproving the consensus is what can put you in the running for a Nobel prize.
    1
  1472.  @insidetrip101  You simply don’t trust anybody else to be competent?
    1
  1473.  @insidetrip101  Similarly as a scientist. With the sheer volume of data and a wide range of specialities in science it is not possible to be au fait with everything. It is not reasonable for each person to personally replicate everything that has ever been determined. It doesn't matter how much personal thinking I need to do in my own field; I am dependent on accurate conclusions on what is done elsewhere. I know that consensus is arrived at from extensive work by many similarly qualified people; it is agreed upon because the evidence is extensive and consistent, not because one or a few people thought it a good idea. I have to keep an eye out for inconsistencies mainly because it would indicate that I am doing something wrong or the equipment is malfunctioning; it's possible but unlikely I have stumbled upon something new. For clarity's sake, you are aware that consensus is unusual than usual?
    1
  1474. The stars predates humans.
    1
  1475.  @faqpeach1701  1. By an attractive force acting on the atmosphere. Why do you think the air pressure decreases with increasing altitude? At what point on the globe do you think there is an abrupt drop in pressure that requires a container? 2. By an attractive force acting on the gas. 3. By an attractive force acting on the gas. "flat earth explains answers to these 3 questions" But none of you are prepared to divulge it. You're just claiming there is no drop in air pressure with altitude and that there just gotta be a container because there just gotta be. Why not actually produce your explanation? It would be far more convincing.
    1
  1476. ​ @ronpapi9539  "Yry using a pinlight" Which would still be visible everywhere across a FE model and still wouldn't rise & set. "The Sun is near and only 30 miles in Diameter" How did you make those measurements? "Ice Wall Treaty signed by all Nations" Produce a copy of this Treaty. "The Sun appears to set only because the Human Eye has limitations" What limitations? The eye is a passive receptor and detects whatever light reaches it regardless of how far it has travelled. The sun maintains a constant angular diameter through the course of the day; the perceived angular diameter is far large than that the limit of our visual acuity. So what limitations are you referring to?
    1
  1477. ​ @ronpapi9539  "Globeheads who are cornered with Truth" None of you have provided evidence that would corner us; that you can't see the holes in your claims doesn;t mean we can't. "'The Moon is also the same size as the Sun" Similar, not identical and both vary slightly. ""They are not 93 million and 245 thousand miles away" Evidence? "They reside in Earth's upper atmosphere" Which would have long ago raised air temperature to unsurvivable temperatures. "I accept the explanation presented" On what grounds? "If he was wrong then the Creator would have intervened" The Creator he said existed and he said was telling him the account? "There is No Edge Kimosabe." And yet you are claiming there is an ice-wall that everybody forbid to approach. How do any of you claim to know what is beyond an insurmountable ice-wall that none of you have seen? "Who brought the Camera and where are the photos" The astronauts on the Apollo missions and there's an archive that you can download them all from, including Earthrise and Blue Marble. "CGI" How was CGI achievable in 1966 & 1973? "Man cannot breach the Firmament" Produce the evidence of this firmament and its impenetrable nature.
    1
  1478.  @wizard1404  Try actually answering my questions. How difficult can it be?
    1
  1479.  @HaileAozfie  You need calculations to comprehend the difference between a circle and a straight line? Most kids learn shapes in nursery school; what happened to you?
    1
  1480.  @316woodworks9  Stationary or moving relative to what?
    1
  1481. Don’t confuse established knowledge with that at the leading edge; it’s always fuzzy there since you are dealing with the unknown.
    1
  1482. Do you have any evidence such shills exist or are you presuming it?
    1
  1483.  @Eman_Puedama  None of those observations indicates they are being paid by some covert intelligence operation. Alt.devilbunnies ran for years with people posting about the devilbunny take-over and the resistance by the Army of Fudd; no useful purpose than the entertainment of those conversing.
    1
  1484.  @Eman_Puedama  People post on whatever subject interests them, however pointless it seems to others. There doesn’t have to be an ulterior motive.
    1
  1485.  @Eman_Puedama  Volunteers correcting some of the copious amounts of misinformation out there. People post on whatever subject interests them.
    1
  1486.  @Eman_Puedama  Shills get paid; they are volunteers. They use subterfuge to attract conspiracy but then reason with them. I do have a conviction that someone needs to supply evidence when positing a theory. Usually the evidence is in favour of the consensus since that is what scientific consensus is based upon. If someone wants to challenge existing theories they need to provide evidence to back their claim; FE’ers can’t.
    1
  1487.  @LJ...69.  FE’ers can’t grasp simple principle because you lack minds?
    1
  1488.  @therealzilch  Vision of Asterix drinking the magic potion 😊
    1
  1489. As I've already said, we can deduce the shape of the Earth form the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses; all are readily observable. We are still waiting on FE'ers to supply their explanations.
    1
  1490.  @ceeaki22ndcentury  "these planets like we see them CLEARLY" You have heard of telescopes?
    1
  1491.  @ceeaki22ndcentury  I take it you haven’t heard of telescopes.
    1
  1492.  @justinsaunders3932  Reread what I wrote and try to think beyond the present.
    1
  1493.  @1FeistyKitty  You consider “any change just gotta be quick and huge” to be The Truth? Mirages are caused by temperature inversions; they will still occur in clear air.
    1
  1494. What give buoyancy its direction?
    1
  1495.  @therealzilch  Silly me....
    1
  1496.  @yafois988  Fg = G.(m1.m2)/d^2 Cavendish experiment.
    1
  1497. What do you think a school has taught you that us inaccurate science?
    1
  1498.  @krabelpaan  I asked you what you think is inaccurate about the science you were taught. There's nothing debatable or dogmatic about evolution; gender refers to gender, not sex; nutrition in high school is limited to the differences between protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals & vitamins. mRNA vaccines are not experimental nor are kids being given anti-Covid shots. When an illness is widespread 1% mortality adds up to a lot of bodies. You do realise that we rely on experimentation and publish the methodology & evidence?
    1
  1499.  @rafaeltorres5421  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses, all if which you can verify for yourself and all still unexplained by FE’ers.
    1
  1500.  @rafaeltorres5421  How did you determine that it is fake?
    1
  1501.  @Nehner  The Earth moving relative to what? Do you want a huge grid spread out behind it?
    1
  1502.  @rafaeltorres5421  Why do you think a phone call can't be patched into a radio signal? Or do you think it would require a cable all the way?
    1
  1503.  @Globeisahoaxx We have abundant proof; you just whine about harassment when asked to produce yours.
    1
  1504. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well-substantiated by extensive experimentation & observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory.
    1
  1505.  @rolflandale2565  Why would you change a scientific theory without any evidence to indicate the existing theory is wrong? Are you saying we should arbitrarily change them regardless of the evidence? And don't claim we don't look for such evidence.
    1
  1506.  @rolflandale2565  Try looking in arxiv.
    1
  1507. You can walk in to a bookshop and pick up science books written by scientists. You are taught basic science in school. People like Hossenfelder are on the web distributing information. Science is not hush-hush. If you mean the results of ongoing research then that is a different problem. It's a high volume of data, very detailed, requires expertise to fully understand and contains a significantly higher probability of error. It's not going to give you the kind of definitive answers that people want. You also have the problem of cost of publication; that is usually met by a requirement of subscription or payment. There are archives of pre-publication copies, some run on the basis that the publicly-funded research should be accessible but it does require that interested people are willing to look rather than expect to be dropped in their laps.
    1
  1508.  @Turjak_art  University involves self-study; lectures are only part of it.
    1
  1509.  @josephinebennington7247  Newton envisaged it as a direct force between masses though he asked the same questions you did. According to Einstein, since there is no absolute frame of reference everything is in motion and inertia means everything keeps moving in a straight line unless something acts upon it, space-time curvature is what change an objects course. That curvature is caused by a gravitational field around mass (don't ask me how - way beyond my knowledge of physics).
    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.  @GeorgeGeorge-yb2sz  The Youtube video is about modelling cloud patterns, not predicting climate change; different data required. The two are not comparable. Why do you think data coming from geological records would be so limited? Activists of all ilk simplify what they are saying to try presenting an easily understandable case to people. You can't quote what an activist says as evidence when arguing a scientific case. You are still confusing activists with climatologists. Debate is a sport; it is not science. "Most were specialized in some sort of research subject " And we are discussing research. "I know all PhD’s are very sensitive when they are being compared to someone they consider to be “less intelligent” and only posses a Masters or a Bachelor’s Degree" It's not "less intelligent"; it's less informed on the subject. A BSc is only the beginning. When the subject is research which degree somebody holds is very relevant. The discussion we're having is about presenting something an activist says in place of the actual research.
    1
  1512.  @GeorgeGeorge-yb2sz  Your inference was that if 2 days of cloud cover took 3.5 days of computing then 2000 years of climate changes would require 3500 years to compute. I am again pointing out that they are two different things. Complex systems aren’t simple; complex means complex. Which is why nobody expects to get it first time and why it is ongoing research. There has been continuous climate change throughout Earth’s history and no reason exists why peoole shouldn’t study it. All research is ongoing. It never ends. The only way to get a model that fits all data is to keep modifying models or creating new ones; that is what is happening. That is how science works. Models are modified not data skewed. You don’t seem to understand the fundamental processes of all scientific research and you’re asking me why climatologists aren’t spending their time explaining the nitty-gritty detail to you or to the people who initiated four investigations of an ambiguous email?
    1
  1513.  @GeorgeGeorge-yb2sz  There was nothing cryptic or detailed about my comments. I pointed out the incorrect presumptions of your gotcha points; I didn’t need any great knowledge of climatology to do so, just familiarity with how science is conducted. Skewing the data would require altering it; you mean ignoring it. You do get errors in data collection; if they think some data was skewed (off) then they would need to specify how the data could be incorrectly collected, not just declare it incorrect. “They said something was wrong” Again, research is a never ending process and nobody expects to get a fully functional model first time. You’re simultaneously accusing people of declaring the model to be correct and the data wrong in thosd circumstances. Which way do you want it? I work on cardiometabolic syndrome; the knowledge gained at the cellular level will contribute to a medical approach to dealing or oreventing the problem; I would think that is useful in the long run and I don’t see how it could be used to create weapons. Money has come from different government research agencies; the only condition applied was that the money was spent on the project that we laid out in the grant application. That is how research science works.
    1
  1514.  @skylermoody7771  As was pointed out in Sirhcellors reply, the Saros cycles give fair approximations of when eclipses occur but not precise times & places. I’m asking you how we are able to be in the right place and right time when you consider such details incalculable.
    1
  1515.  @skylermoody7771  The probability was calculable but not the exact time & path; that is what this discussion is about.
    1
  1516.  @skylermoody7771  They assumed the Earth to be flat. They calculated the probability of eclipses from their periodicity but could not calculate and still can’t calculate the time & path of an eclipse.
    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.  @coreym162  "I mentioned about how I discovered the truth about the moon landing" The alternative explanation is that HD images were only available after the computing power had been developed sufficiently to incorporate the features from the Apollo photos into the pictures you have been told were taken from space. Highly implausible and still pointless but possible.
    1
  1519.  @dominiccharvet546  Why is there a down direction, why is there an up direction and why do they just happen to be diametrically opposed?
    1
  1520.  @dominiccharvet546  By looking for attraction between objects that are side by side.
    1
  1521.  @dominiccharvet546  Why is there a down direction, why is there an up direction and why do they just happen to be diametrically opposed? "Things that are heavier that air fall." What makes them fall? What sets them moving? What determines the direction of motion? "The North star never moves and everything spins around it" Why do they rotate in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere? How are there two celestial poles? Why can't the North Star be seen from south of the equator? Why doesn't the motion of the sun & moon match any of what FE'ers claim would be observed? Have any of you tried triangulating the height of either? What evidence do you have that the dome exists?
    1
  1522. The strength of an object’s gravitational field will decrease with increasing distance from the object; is that what you are referring to?
    1
  1523.  @mrglasecki  The gravity associated with that particular mass, not all gravity. Are we talking at cross-purposes?
    1
  1524.  @mrglasecki  Are you saying that gravity causes the heliopause?
    1
  1525.  @mrglasecki  Since the heliopause is seen as turbulence from where the material flowing from the sun encounters interstellar gases I'm curious as to where you think relativity is being used to explain it.
    1
  1526.  @mrglasecki  Which is what everyone says so where do you get the notion that people are saying it’s due to gravity?
    1
  1527.  @mrglasecki  The IIS is in about 0.9xg; the astronauts float because they & the ISS are in free-fall. The pressure on the submarine has nothing to do with the submarine's weight. You haven't actually done anything to see if the weight does change with altitude. You're talking about electromagnetism not gravity. Just because something can apply pressure does not mean they are all the same force. If it was gravity then you would be able to crush a plastic can by the same method but you can't. The iron core is hot due to the pressure (an indirect effect of the gravity) not electromagnetic force. That the motion within the outer core generates magnetic field does not mean EM brought about the heat. None of that has anything to do with the heliopause.
    1
  1528.  @mrglasecki  Induction is a process, not a force.
    1
  1529.  @stephenjones9746  Only if one is prepared to accept the answers rather than adhere to denialism.
    1
  1530. All the ones who pay taxes contribute to public funding of research. Politicians have to pander to the public for votes (not mention politicians who are stupid about science) and have to listen to stupid demands.
    1
  1531. Give an example of science or medicine being fake.
    1
  1532.  @shellibabick  Agree on what grounds exactly?
    1
  1533. We're all capable of stupidity; it's a rare person who hasn't kicked themselves for doing something stupid. Willful ignorance would be compounding that stupidity once it comes to your attention.
    1
  1534. Nobody went back because it was expensive with minimal return and far more could be achieved for less using unmanned missions.
    1
  1535.  @timothycarey3883  The sun lights the side if the moln facing the sun and only the side faving the sun. How much of the lit area we can be see from Earth varies with the moon’s orbit around Earth. That is how lunar phases occur. Only when the earth passes directly between sun & moon does the Earth’s shadow fall on the moon. Earthlight (sunlight reflected from Earth) is very faint. If you look at the moon in partial phase at night then sometimes you can dimly see the dark area; that is Earthlight shining on the moon.
    1
  1536. It used to be a disc moving "upwards" at a steady rate. Once it dawned upon them that nothing would drop it became accelerating "upwards". Once it dawned on them that nothing could accelerate without power and without reaching lightspeed it became "density is a force". Since it is dawning on some that they can't explain how density could act as a force we're moving in to the Law of Just Does.
    1
  1537. The probability of an eclipse based on periodicity, not the mechanism by which eclipses occur.
    1
  1538.  @jazznotes3802  They assumed the Earth to be flat; assumptions are not fact nor are facts just assumptions however much you would like them to be.
    1
  1539. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses - all indicative of a globe, all disprove a FE. The world’s surface was mapped & measured long before space travel. Why beyond the VAB?
    1
  1540.  @1FeistyKitty  Probably picked up the weblink.
    1
  1541. Samuel Rowbotham went on a religious anti-science bender mid-19th century. He relied on smoke & mirrors.
    1
  1542. It’s the projection of a globe map onto a flat surface that causes the distortion in the flat map.
    1
  1543. They could formulate different hypotheses but they are not going to arrive at any conclusions without making predictions from the hypotheses and then taking measurements to test the predictions.
    1
  1544.  @thedayhayfilms  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles, lunar eclipses having circular shadows - none of that requires measurement of distances, just the willingness to look & think.
    1
  1545.  @thedayhayfilms  All directly observable, not assumed.
    1
  1546.  @thedayhayfilms  South celestial pole; observable from everywhere in the southern hemisphere. In a flat room you would be able to see all the celiing lights from any vantage point. In a spherical room you can inly ever see half of them.
    1
  1547. Individual research papers are very narrow in scope; most apparent contradictions come down to significant differences in what is actually being looked. Sometimes it is a matter of somebody disproving a prevailing hypothesis; there’s no easy way to jump that far ahead. Yes, the system could do with a revision of funding & publishing but it’s not a simple matter.
    1
  1548. You are so hooked on personal observation that you fail to realise that there are 8 billion observers on Earth.
    1
  1549.  @JasonsMove  How does one variable cover multiple factors? Simple question. Try answering.
    1
  1550.  @JasonsMove  How does one variable cover multiple factors? Simple question. Try answering.
    1
  1551.  @JasonsMove  ​ How does one variable cover multiple factors? Simple question. Try answering.
    1
  1552.  @JasonsMove  ​ How does one variable cover multiple factors? Why are you having such difficulty answering if you know the answer?
    1
  1553.  @JasonsMove  Critical thinking notes one variable in an equation supposedly accounting for multiple variables in the scenario. Why are you so reluctant to answer the question?
    1
  1554.  @JasonsMove  What problems do you envisage the pilot having and why? How does one variable in an equation cover multiple factors?
    1
  1555.  @JasonsMove  "on your ball a pilot would fly off into outer space without constant struggle of space magic (gravity)" The plane's aerodynamics provide lift, countering the downwards pull of gravity. The pilot can change altitude (elevation above the ground) by reducing the lift through either slowing or adjusting the airflow. Since the plane requires air to remain airborne there is never any danger of it flying into space. "He would never be able to land a plane on an a runway running north and south do you want more?" Yes; I want to you to say why you think it wouldn't be able to. I have an excellent grasp of maths. How does one variable in an equation cover multiple factors?
    1
  1556.  @JasonsMove  I'm a research scientist. Your wisdom resembles that of Cliff Clavin.
    1
  1557.  @JasonsMove  How does one variable cover multiple factors? You're blinkered, not searching.
    1
  1558.  @bugz1116  You realise rockets orbit Earth?
    1
  1559.  @romangrzesk7798  Read what I wrote, particular the first eight words. How explicitly do I need to say something?
    1
  1560. Who would you trust and why NASA?
    1
  1561.  @Nehner  And you completely miss Humboldt's point....
    1
  1562.  @Level_No_Curve  "your claim of a gradient somehow causing an air pressure system not to euiliberate" That the pressure gradient observably exists doesn't bother you?
    1
  1563.  @Level_No_Curve  You’re the one arguing that pressure equilibration with space would occur without a barrier. Why doesn’t the atmosphere equilibrate within your container? Why is there a permanent pressure gradient?
    1
  1564. "According to geometry a 3 dimensional plane is a sphere" Which geometry?
    1
  1565.  @dashley2525  You mean so big that the curvature on the surface is immeasurably small?
    1
  1566.  @dashley2525  That we can see horizons disproves that. We can’t directly perceive the curvature but we can see the effects of it, eg, horizons and the effect of centrifugal force against gravity. Time doesn’t slow with distance from the centre but with the velocity of the object relative to Earth.
    1
  1567.  @kruse8888  You're confusing natural philosophy with science; there was an association with the Church and natural philosophy in Europe during the Dark Ages because that is where education was pretty much limited to. There was never any consensus of a FE in either natural philosophy or science; the shape of the Earth was deduced to be a globe by the ancient Greeks, the original source of natural philosophy. Nobody has come up with any evidence since that the Earth is flat. "Both the Egyptians and the Babylonians thought the earth was flat" They assumed it. "And “my rant” against scientists is yet another construct of your mind" You quoted scientific conclusions as being dependent on paychecks.
    1
  1568.  @kruse8888  Which concurs with what I first wrote.
    1
  1569.  @kruse8888  I read it all; it concurs with what I first said.
    1
  1570.  @paulhotson5820  And thus is 2022; Agenda 21 has been superseded and yet we are all still alive & breeding.
    1
  1571.  @alekhaalrem1408  We find ourselves answering the same basic questions repeatedly, frequently being asked by the same people who've been given the answers multiple times; you'd get short with them. You wouldn't be the first to state you aren't a FE'er before enthusing about FE'ers reasoning skills. You described them as creative, smart, thinking for themselves and questioning what they're told, how some of their points making sense (though none ever say which or why) and why people should be doing their own research. You set yourself up as a FE stooge.
    1
  1572. A FE would not have a horizon; the view would be open for hundreds of miles and disappearing into a gradual haze.
    1
  1573.  @rawstarmusic  Weather permitting, we see a horizon from any point and any elevation on Earth. FE has no horizon. The latter does not explain the former; it's wrong. The ancient Greeks deduced it from horizons and the motion of the sun & stars.
    1
  1574. How many times does it need to be explained? When calculating how far you can see you need to take into account curvature, elevation and atmospheric refraction, not just curvature.
    1
  1575.  @martinlukas3945  Such as?
    1
  1576.  @martinlukas3945  Generally those who deny evolution see genetics as unaltering; they don’t dispute our genes are carried by DNA.
    1
  1577.  @therealzilch  Thanks, I was trying to remember which mountain it was.
    1
  1578.  @danmac1871  What are the good points that FE’ers have?
    1
  1579.  @danmac1871  Your confusing curvature & elevation. 3 miles gives you a gemetric drop of about 6 feet. Each carriage would be at a 0.0001 degree angle compared to the attached ones.
    1
  1580.  @JasonsMove  How does one variable cover multiple factors? Simple question. Try answering. Explain how 0.5<100 is an equation and why you consider it bs? Why can't The Enlightened answer simple questions?
    1
  1581.  @JasonsMove  Explain how a parabolic equation describe a circle? Why can't The Enlightened answer simple questions?
    1
  1582.  @JasonsMove  How does one variable cover multiple factors? Explain how 0.5<100 is an equation and why you consider it bs? How does a parabolic equation describe a circle? Why can't The Enlightened answer simple questions? Youre claiming to possess the answers so why do none if you ever produce them?
    1
  1583.  @JasonsMove  I can’t read it until one of you writes it. Why can’t any of you do so? It would be far more persuasive. Try doing it.
    1
  1584.  @JasonsMove  Where in that formula is elevation & refraction accounted for? It assumes your eyes are on the ground and that there is no atmosphere so where do you think they are accounted for?
    1
  1585.  @JasonsMove  "so you think the 6’ in height is the difference? " Where does your equation take that difference into account? It's a simply question that you profess to know the answer to. Why can't you just say? "We are talking over 10miles…" You were talking about 3 miles; do you 3 = 10? And 6' elevation (plus that of whatever ground you are standing on) nullifies the geometric drop at 3 miles. Explain how 0.5<100 is an equation and why you consider it bs. I asked you earlier and still no reply. Why do you find it so difficult to answer questions?
    1
  1586. ​ @JasonsMove  How can any of you replicate a FE model than none of you can produce in the first place? The globe model works fine; it's FE'ers inability to grasp numbers and multiple factors that's the problem.
    1
  1587.  @abelmontoya5  As I said, you need to consider the limits of your personal knowledge & understanding.
    1
  1588.  @wanwaric  We shouldn’t refer to stupidity as stupidity no matter how far backwards the stupid bend to demonstrate their stupidity?
    1
  1589.  @allylilith5605  Try avoiding inflammatory language and refraining from making accusations. Try breaking up any diatribe into comments containing single points. It seems improbable that there would be a clause banning trials when the data from inoculations & diagnoses is being collected & analysed by multiple parties anyway. A clause about intellectual property does make sense but that would deal with a buyer not using the vaccine to pirate their own. Asking questions is not evil; telling porkies to deter people from getting vaccinated is.
    1
  1590. It’s not stupid to ask questions like “how do we know what shape it is?”, build hypotheses and test them. It is stupid to ignore the answers and (effectively) declare observable reality to be wrong.
    1
  1591.  @haydenphillips297  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles, circular shadow with lunar eclipse - all verifiable by anybody, all indicative of a globe, all contradicting a FE. If you think they are compatible with a FE then be novel and try saying why.
    1
  1592.  @haydenphillips297  <eye-roll>
    1
  1593.  @James_Randis_Spirit  It’s an effect of curvature rather than a direct observation of the curvature. Less than a degree of curvature is not something directly obvious to the eye.
    1
  1594. You realise that a sphere has a finite surface and defined amount of curvature for a set distance? Where do you think the extra area is? Evidence of liquid hydrogen layer? What makes migration from Africa to Asia impossible? Do you realise that things can happen without any requirement for a human to observe & document it? Five Mars rovers. How can somebidy confuse 1 with 5. Lunar landings are generally successful, Mars landings less so. 12 men; there were six Apollo landings. They also left equipment like reflectors that the denialists have yet to explain. It’s the first to blow up after launch; the others launched fine and the main engines returned as planned.
    1
  1595.  @Trig-mm4rt  No; I did specifiy that the view would gradually disappear into a haze at ground level. The eye is a passive receptor; it will detect any light (above a minimum intensity) that reaches it regardless of how far it has travelled. The altitude & brightness of a light source capable of lighting a FE would be always visible across a FE.
    1
  1596.  @Trig-mm4rt  Gravity is inherent property of mass; mass has gravity regardless of where it is since mass is mass. Gravitational attraction occurs between two (or more) masses; I asked if you knew of the Cavendish experiment and you haven’t replied. The sun is not getting bigger day by day; it will swell in several billion years time when it starts running short of hydrogen.
    1
  1597.  @Trig-mm4rt  Which and, more importantly, why? No answer to the vanishing point being a vanishing line?
    1
  1598.  @Trig-mm4rt  " I simply responded to the original post about the sunset and rise. Which I was right." Your opinion appears to be that it would work despite several people telling why it can't and your inability to explain how you think it could. "What's your question again about a vacuum things moving without resistance? I never made that claim" You need your own reasoning explained to you? You wanted to know what keeps galaxies etc moving in a vacuum; evidently you think something should be slowing them down. I'm asking what you envisage a vacuum could provide to slow something down. Space isn't made out of anything. I assume you are confusing the rubber sheet analogy in explaining spacetime distortion with there actually being some kind of material. What do you envisage "levels of space" to mean and why would rotating galaxies require multiple "levels"? You need to grasp basic physics before progressing to discussing relativity. "Bc planets weigh a lot so how are they are being held up." What do you envisage to be pulling them down? What do you envisage down to be? I don;y have to explain something that doesn't exist; if you want to assert it does then you need to explain what.
    1
  1599.  @bobweiram6321  You’re saying the Mercury & Gemini series didn’t exist? Does it really need explaining to you why 60 year old technology is incompatible with today’s?
    1
  1600.  @airflowfpv7791  Motion of the sun, horizins, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude. Its easy to determine the shape if the Earth from the above but it does require the ability to think; your thinking can’t get beyond eyeballing.
    1
  1601.  @airflowfpv7791  Centrifugal force at the equator is <0.5% the strength of gravity. Explain why you think 0.5 > 100.
    1
  1602.  @airflowfpv7791  Buoyancy is dependent on gravity’s existence and acts in opposition to gravity; how do you confuse two different directions?
    1
  1603.  @airflowfpv7791  Put a stick in the ground and track the direction of the shadow through the course of the day. Put a solar filter on your camera and track the size if the sun through the course of the day. Photograph the sun rising & setting. Travel south & north and check what constellations are visible and which way the stars are rotating. Gravity downwards, buoyancy upwards; in what way would you say that was the same direction? You realise centrifugal force is calculable? Obtain a fine balance, calibrate it in the far north then travel to the equator and check the weight of the calibration weight. In what way do you think none of that is doable?
    1
  1604.  @airflowfpv7791  Just man up and answer his questions.
    1
  1605.  @tonyornelas9374  Explain why you think the atmosphere wouldn’t rotate with the globe.
    1
  1606. The mechanism relied solely on observed periodicity of eclipses not any model of the universe. Studio lighting casts multiple shadows.
    1
  1607.  @KangenAlec  We knew the Earth was a globe millennia before NASA but numbers are a bit much for you.
    1
  1608.  @flyingfishnet  If you asked more questions beyond the VAB then please repost them; some of the comments are invisible to my server.
    1
  1609.  @flyingfishnet  Do you understand that the tensile strength of metals decrease with temperature?
    1
  1610.  @flyingfishnet  The chances of an Apollo mission being hit by a meteor with sufficient force to puncture the hull were remote. That such a collision would have ended the mission does not make any collision happen. People have been claiming the Apollo missions were a hoax since the 1970's and we are still waiting on anybody to actually provide evidence rather than incredulity & denial. Nobody has produced any "impossibilities". YT modified its search algorithms to downgrade misinformation; nothing was deleted. The great majority of your architects & engineers have had nothing to do with skyscraper construction, none are personally familiar with the WTC structural details. I asked you about how temperature affects the tensility of metal and all you have done is refer to the melting point of steel, something that indicates that you aren't familiar with the problems, just the conspiracy theories. Have you considered the possibility of questioning the conspiracy theories? They are very dependent on getting people to question everything but them.
    1
  1611.  @flyingfishnet  You just bore out what I said about conspiracy theorists.
    1
  1612. Are you aware that there is a world outside the US?
    1
  1613.  @fjd2547  What is true is not decided by a one experiment; it meeds to be tested and verified by multiple means before it can be accepted.
    1
  1614.  @fjd2547  The sheer volume of information for relatively little useful purpose. Clearing up outdated ideas, misconceptions and obvious (but incorrect) possible alternatives is one thing but a repository of all negative data is a whole different scale. Who would be willing to spend time building & maintaining the latter?
    1
  1615.  @fjd2547  Anybody in the world can put something on the web; active contributors to Wikipedia are a tiny fraction of that. Two completely different scales. As I said, a smaller enterprise aimed at covering common misconceptions and how plausible alternatives were disproved is feasible and fits what you are looking for. A repository of all negative information is not. First hand observations by qualified, practicing doctors are not unsupported assertions. They are perceived as anecdotal evidence and potentially useful, not gospel truth. If your life is at risk would you prefer they try something that is observed to be apparently relevant & effective or wait the 10-20 years it takes us to research it inside out?
    1
  1616.  @fjd2547  You seem to be having difficulty understanding. I am describing TWO versions, one of which is impractical, the other being practical and WHAT YOU ARE WANTING.
    1
  1617.  @fjd2547  How does making suggestions to make an Anti-Wiki feasible make me a zealot against the idea?
    1
  1618.  @fjd2547  “Possibly an anti-Wiki of the most popular misconceptions or key experiments that disproved a then commonly held idea?” That’s what I wrote in my first comment. That is how an Anti-Wiki would be feasible. Stop firing from the hip.
    1
  1619.  @numidianarchers195  ​ You still haven’t said why you consider it impossible. Economically unviable; the outlay was greater than any return. Lika predated Gagarin, not post-dated Apollo, and she died from hyperthermia when the cooling system failed, not because of the VAB. The VAB would fry you if you tried floating around jn them; astronauts pass through briefly in a shielded capsule. Aldrin made a comment on why we haven’t been back.
    1
  1620. ​ @numidianarchers195  Which bits are you saying haven't been rebutted? I've no intention of rebutting a long conspiracy movie that you would ignore anyway. "$100 billion for each of the six billion people" And all it requires is someone to develop all the technology required for reaching asteroids, redirecting them, get them into orbit, mining them and transferring the materials to the surface. Any idea what kind of financial outlay is required? Do you have any concept of time? "The fact that no one is utilizing the technology" Currently we can send small probes to asteroids. How do you consider that sufficient to mine asteroids?
    1
  1621.  @numidianarchers195  The ISS has been in orbit 20 years, space shuttles have come & gone, the Artemis 1 flight ended last week and you haven’t noticed any of them? More could be done for less using unmanned probes. The main impetus behind the Apollo missions was the propaganda value of finally getting one up on the Russians. Once tgat was achieved the political will declined snd they held the purse-strings. And, no, they could not have built a lunar base with Apollo craft & Saturn launchers.
    1
  1622.  @numidianarchers195  They passed thriugh the weak periphery at speed in a shielded craft; radiation dosage was the equivalent of 2 x-rays. What do you perceive the of problem to have been?
    1
  1623.  @numidianarchers195  You wouldn’t use heavy elements to shield against particle radiation; it generates EM radiation. You need light elements with a high electron to neutron/proton ratio to slow & deflect incoming particles. Apollo craft had an aluminium hull, carbon fibre insulation and water tanks; that was sufficient to reduce the internal dosage to safe levels.
    1
  1624.  @richardhammond7406  Another FE’er who can’t produce anything but insults.
    1
  1625.  @efgtest  How do you explain two celestial poles on a FE?
    1
  1626.  @efgtest  The gurus don’t say, the acolytes don’t say and questions are frowned upon; how can any of you explain anything or pass on key information?
    1
  1627. Sure, another 30hrs of ignorance & incredulity but still no explanation for the phenomena I listed. Do you want to claim that They are manipulating the motion of sun, moon & stars or just assert thst FE’ers are the only people capable of observing how they really move?
    1
  1628. It’s more that authority of any kind is increasingly sneered at and many people consider ignorance to be knowledge. Geodesy is not a theoretical science. Experiments are a fundamental part of science; that we run experiments does not mean our accumulated knowledge is baseless. Fabrication is a seriously frowned upon in science and would seriously hamper or end your career. It is not standard practice.
    1
  1629. The speed Halley’s comet moves at and the distance from the various planets (space is very, very big).
    1
  1630. You mean the Coriolis effect?
    1
  1631. An object can pass beyond the limit of your visual acuity long before it reaches the horizon; zooming it back into view tells you nothing of what happens at the horizon. Why do you think it’s always done with ships and never with the sun?
    1
  1632.  @bigfletch8  What makes you think a comet has a similar mass to a planet?
    1
  1633.  @bigfletch8  Which weaponry?
    1
  1634.  @bigfletch8  What did you do to measure the angle of the camera?
    1
  1635.  @bigfletch8  It does consider the vast distances involved; you do know the equation for gravitational attraction? Eyeballing is not an accurate form of measurement and several degrees won’t leap out at you. The missiles home in on the laser guiding; adjust their heading inflight. Why exactly would you expect a whirlpool at the North Pole?
    1
  1636.  @bigfletch8  How many times does gravity need to be detected to satisfy some people that it has been detected? When air, water & Earth are all moving at the same rate where is the friction going to occur?
    1
  1637.  @bigfletch8  Cavendish experiment; are you saying it is actually God fiddling with it. The Earth has had 4.5 billion years for friction at the surface to get the whole atmosphere moving.
    1
  1638.  @iamme39  F= ma If there is acceleration of mass then there is force. You need to explain how relative density generates such force and why in a specific direction Hold your phone in the flat of your hand; it is supposedly relative density that pushes flat against your hand. Turn your hand over, relative density supposedly pushes it firmly against your hand but it falls downwards away from your hand. Place your phone flag against and relativd density supposedly holds it firmly against the wall by pushing sideways but instead it falls downwards. Explain.
    1
  1639.  @iamme39  An electromagnetic field would affect only material that is magnetic or paramagnetic. Why no indication of that happening?
    1
  1640.  @SuperMoshady  Becuase more than one force can act simultaneously.
    1
  1641.  @SuperMoshady  "if gravity holds it down, why does it go up?" More than one force can act simultaneously. I have explained already why the hot gas rises: it's displaced by the cooler denser gas. "What direction does steam go?" Steam rapidly cools, condenses and most is lost as water droplets. Less dense objects will be displaced upwards until they reach a pressure gas that has equal density to the object. At that poitn gravity and buoyancy are balanced and the object remains at that height. "If there are multiple forces action g on the gas, you're trying to say that it still goes up, right? " No, I am specifically describing why hot air surrounded by cooler air rises. "Because there is something stronger than gravity acting on the gas particles?" That you can sit or stand upright is indicative that gravity is not an irresistible force. Multiple people hav etold you that so what is so difficult to understand? Continuous =/= irresistible. "The gas stays in the cave because it is produced in the cave. It will always be in the cave" What's the magical barrier at the cave entrance?
    1
  1642.  @SuperMoshady  Good grief, how difficult is to understand? All the gas is pulled down by gravity, the cooler gas more so than the hotter gas so the cooler gas displaces the hot gas upwards. "why were you telling me it depends on the density of the surrounding medium that controls if an object rises or falls?" Stop playing the idiot; I've explained it twice already. "but here on earth, gas goes up, right?" HOT gas goes up. "What are the gas particles colliding with at the top of the atmosphere?" Nothing; gravity is pulling them down and with negligible pressure at that elevation there are few other particles capable of sending them elsewhere.
    1
  1643.  @AnOfficialYouTubeProfile  I suspect both.
    1
  1644.  @SuperMoshady  Open system (sunlight coming in) but a closed ecosystem (you need artificial life support to travel outside it) Gravity contains the gas.
    1
  1645.  @SuperMoshady  Open system, closed ecosystem; I was quite specific. Because multiple force can and do act simultaneously.
    1
  1646.  @SuperMoshady  "how can earth be open and closed?" Open system, closed ecosystem; I was quite specific. "I've been told several times that gravity is too weak to hold gas down, that's why it goes up" Nobody has told you that in either thread. As with most FE'ers, you're just unwilling or incapable of understanding what was said to you. "Are the gas particles colliding with gravity at the top?" No, they are being pulled down by gravity just as the rest of the atmosphere is. "How does gravity get stronger away from earth? " It doesn't. You're just unwilling or incapable of understanding multiple factors. "If there's no surface for gas particles to collide with..." They don't need to collide with anything. "gas pressure cannot exist next to a vacuum" Nowhere in the atmosphere is there pressure adjacent to a vacuum. "how does gravity contain the gas pressure?" By pulling the gas atoms & molecules downwards. "Gas doesn't have any weight' You're making the usual FE'er assumption of numbers simply being "nothing" or "huge". "Gas particles don't change direction until they collide with something" Or acted upon by a force, e.g., gravity. "If there is no surface to collide with at the top, there can be no pressure, the gas would fill the space vacuum" You're confusing pressure with concentration.
    1
  1647.  @SuperMoshady  "how can earth be open and closed?" Open system, closed ecosystem; I was quite specific. "several people have told me gas is too weak to hold gas down" Nobody has told you that; you're just too dim to comprehend what was said. "You were just telling me that gas pressure needs a surface for collisions" I told you that measuring pressure required a surface. "If gravity is already too weak to hold gas down at the surface" W=hich it isn't. "Gas doesn't have weight. How do you weigh a gas?" With finer scales than you find in your kitchen. "I'm confusing concentration with pressure?" Yes, but I doubt you can comprehend the difference.
    1
  1648.  @SuperMoshady  Open system, closed ecosystem; I was quite specific. That you can't comprehend the difference between system and ecosystem even after I distinguished them is your shortfall. "Right, pressure needs a surface" No, measuring pressure requires a surface. "What surface is the gas colliding with at the top?" Whatever pressure gauge you have taken up there. "why does it go up 300 m up into the sky? " Because multiple factors can act simultaneously. "What scale weighs gas? " A fine scale. "What is the difference between gas concentration and gas pressure?" Pressure is the action against a surface; concentration is the number of atoms/molecules in a given volume.
    1
  1649.  @SuperMoshady  I answered the question when I first specified the difference. That you can't or won't understand it is your problem. How do you think a pressure gauge is and how it works if you don't believe it has a surface? Multiple forces can act simultaneously; gravity is just one of the forces. FE'ers must have helped somebody carry something numerous times but you all find the concept so difficult to understand; it speaks volumes about how far you won't or can't think.
    1
  1650.  @SuperMoshady  Because it is an open system and a closed ecosystem. All directions included down.
    1
  1651.  @SuperMoshady  I specified the difference between system & ecosystem. Gravity pulls the gas down as it does all mass; there is no need for the particles to bounce off anything.
    1
  1652. Moving, not falling. If the sun & moon were as low as you envision then it would be easy to triangulate their position; why can’t any of you do it?
    1
  1653.  @PresidentZaddy  Are you saying that Byrd triangulated the position of sun & moon?
    1
  1654.  @chaleco82  Would you respect their right to run around telling all & sundry that you are a crook?
    1
  1655. An air hose became detached; no quality control is perfect.
    1
  1656.  @pwilliams8051  Let me guess - you can just tell that it is closer?
    1
  1657.  @pwilliams8051  Relative to the Earth? It doesn’t. Still waiting on FE’ers to divulge your explanation for what we observe.
    1
  1658.  @pwilliams8051  It’s the incoming angle.
    1
  1659.  @pwilliams8051  You think light travels backwards?
    1
  1660.  @pwilliams8051  Angle of incidence is the incoming ray, angle of reflection or refraction is the outgoing ray. Are you claiming light travels backwards? Simple question but being a FE’ers you won’t answer it. How does the sun maintain a constant angular dismeyer through the course of the day?
    1
  1661. The Law of Just Does 😊
    1
  1662.  @DD-mu5me  Do you understand the difference between a short distance and a long distance? You haven’t produced explanations for how the natural phenomena that I listed would work on a FE. Is there a problem?
    1
  1663. Morbid curiosity about their thought processes.
    1
  1664. You can say with reasonable certainty that the tincontains soup and that the soup is edible.
    1
  1665. You realise that Tobacco Science was essentially one person?
    1
  1666. ​ @RodanX21  "It can't be proven either way by any one individual" Travel. The chap with the stick & bike used to bike to travel to multiple distant locations and took measurements of the stick's shadow at specific times. You can measure the angle to Polaris from different latitudes. You can observe two celestial poles. "Otherwise there would be no debate" There is no debate. There are snake oil salesmen peddling flat earth to the gullible fools who talk about authority being out to fool them; it never occurs to them that their guru might be fooling them. "Your senses tell you something is true" Which is why scientists rely on measurements, not impressions or the eyeballing preferred by FE'ers. "It's not about what can be "proven "true or not." It's very much that. Do you think we just muse and make pronouncements? What do you think we do in labs?
    1
  1667. Reproducibility.
    1
  1668. Look up the meaning of “scientific theory”. It differs from the vernacular.
    1
  1669.  @mutsepuk  You’re claiming evidence isn’t important. Too right it is not greatly loved by the ignorami.
    1
  1670.  @mutsepuk  You’re assuming all information is relevant and that all minds are equally capable of drawing conclusions.
    1
  1671.  @mutsepuk  The Big Bang Theory does not make any such assertions so I don't see the point of your comment.
    1
  1672.  @mutsepuk  Has it occurred to you that scientists are real people? How many times by how many people in how many ways does Dubay need to be debunked for you to even consider the possibility that he has been debunked? Earthrise & Blue Marble, both single frame shots on film. Himawari-8, EPIC & Elektro-L are collectively downloading single-frame full hemisphere shots per hour. How may photos need to be taken to satisfy that one has been taken? Why should I listen to alternative viewpoints that can't produce any evidence to back what they're claiming, can't provide any coherent explanations and whose chief mainstay is "just gotta be"?
    1
  1673. Gravitational attraction us towards the centre of the Earth.
    1
  1674. Not dodgy science but the politicians’ dodgy interpretations.
    1
  1675. They are usually at least one of the three. Still waiting for a FE’er to pose an unanswered question that hasn’t been answered countless times.
    1
  1676. Lunar eclipses always have a circular shadow.
    1
  1677.  @joriankell1983  Sex and gender are two different things; the former is genetic, the latter psychological/sociological.
    1
  1678. I take it that you have no idea that there is a south celestial pole or that the stars rotate in the course of the night?
    1
  1679.  @AjaxNorton  You can’t usually see stars in daytime; during the night they are visible and can be observed to rotate.
    1
  1680.  @AjaxNorton  That it’s called the North Star should be an obvious clue that it is in the north, not the south.
    1
  1681. That would be the Dubay who is endlessly debunked yet remains so alluring to the ignorant & gullible? How can density act as a force exactly? Dubay won’t tell me so maybe his acolyte will?
    1
  1682.  @raybone3 Why would you expect to observe the sun for anything other than an average of 12hrs per day?
    1
  1683.  @raybone3 Why would axial tilt relative to the orbital plane require the shape of Earth to change?
    1
  1684.  @raybone3 You said a constant curvature disproves axial tilt causing varying daylight lengths; I’m asking you to explain why you think that sunce it makes no apparent sense. Solar day is a constant 24hrs. Orbital plane, that described by the Earth’s orbit around the sun. If there was no tilt to the rotational axis then it would be perpendicular to the orbital plane and we would have equinox the year around.
    1
  1685.  @super_ficial  "There's no way that a large source of heat that is far away can render an object frozen at the top and bottom but hot in the center" By the surface being curved and the heating caused by IR interacting with the atmosphere. Do you want to explain why that wouldn't work? "we can see moonlight on local clouds but not on distant clouds" And effect apparent regardless of where each observer is standing. How can the FE moon be local in multiple locations simultaneously? Your effect requires it to be night time; how does night occur when the FE sun is always above the FE? Why does everybody see the same face of the FE moon? Why does everybody see the same phase on the FE moon? How does the FE moon maintain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity regardless of the observer's location? "your thoughtlessness is summed up in a single sentence" That means you've thought it all through and are goin to answer those questions.
    1
  1686. How does the sun maintain a constant angular diameter & angular velocity and rise & set each day?
    1
  1687.  @xperience-evolution  Who’s telling me the think that the sun rises & sets?
    1
  1688.  @xperience-evolution  It was assumed that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the centre of the universe and later that the sun was the centre of the universe. Assumptions are not proof.
    1
  1689.  @bobabout2842  You mean it spouts nothing but the canards that have been disproved over and over and over again?
    1
  1690.  @nolajoe580  Fine balances rather than kitchen & bathroom scales 😊
    1
  1691. How does density act as a force and why in a consistent direction?
    1
  1692. It was the favoured explanation long before the FES existed. Still waiting on true Scotsmen Real FE’ers to produce a valid explanation.
    1
  1693.  @jjevans1693  Still waiting on your true Scotsman guru to produce a valid explanation. His claims sound good to the gullible & ignorant but are crap if you’re prepared to think.
    1
  1694.  @jjevans1693  Finally - a FE'er who knows how objects fall! Which is it? Density is a force but not a force? Droppity? Spontaneous motion? Electrostatic attraction that is independent to charge & area? Magnetism that attracts everything and repels nothing? Which is it? Or is something that none of you have yet mentioned?
    1
  1695.  @jjevans1693  Those are the typical claims of FE'ers of what gravity really is. Why don't you try answering the question?
    1
  1696.  @jjevans1693  Hopefully simplified enough for you to understand - why do objects fall on a FE?
    1
  1697.  @jjevans1693  You never asked me to explain gravity or at least any such comment from you does not appear on my feed.
    1
  1698.  @jjevans1693  I take it that you don't know how & why objects fall.
    1
  1699.  @jjevans1693  <shrug> Gravitational field inducing curvature of space-time and affecting the motion of objects. The Cavendish experiment (reproduced countless times with similar results) indicates attraction between mass as does the Schiehallion experiment. The existence & orbit of Neptune was correctly predicted using the Law of Gravity. Attraction varies by location as predicted by the variation in elevation and radius. Objects fall; something causes it. What's the real FE explanation?
    1
  1700.  @jjevans1693  "FIRST: The Cavendish experiment has been debunked for years" So FE'ers keep saying but I have yet to find one willing to actually say what the problem is. ' "Second: Gravity is not a law, it's a theory." It's both. A scientific law describes the natural phenomenon (e.g., attraction is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separating distance), a scientific theory is how the natural phenomenon works (e.g., space-time curvature). "Third: Have you ever seen two objects attracted to each other by virtue of there mass alone?" Cavendish experiment. You just need to explain why you think that is debunked. "All objects seek density equilibrium" Density doesn't have a vector value nor is it a force; neither is a difference in density between objects. What supplies the force and how does it act in a consistent direction?
    1
  1701.  @jjevans1693  What supplies the force and why in a consistent direction? What additional force are you saying there was in the Cavendish experiment? How do the reproduction have just the right amount of additional force to make it look like gravity?
    1
  1702.  @jjevans1693  Another FE’er who has no idea where the force comes from. Most metals can’t be magnetised, lead included. I pointed out earlier that gravitational attraction is proportional to the product of the two masses. You seem to be presumjng the attraction is huge or nothing, not scalar.
    1
  1703. Try asking 😊
    1
  1704. Rail-launched frisbees?
    1
  1705. One degree per 69 miles is too slight to perceive from ground level. You can observe the effect of curvature like objects disappearing below the horizon.
    1
  1706.  @Nehner  That would be the "200 proofs" that has been repeatedly debunked and appeals only to people such as yourself?
    1
  1707. No. Einstein had a different explanation for gravity.
    1
  1708.  @chertfoot1500  That was partially dehydrogenated oil aka trans fat.
    1
  1709.  @jocelynturmel3282  What do you think is wrong with my statement?
    1
  1710.  @jocelynturmel3282  Chemistry covers the physical structure & properties of compounds; how the body handles compounds falls under biology. The chemistry was understood, the biology was limited by today’s standards.
    1
  1711.  @jocelynturmel3282  What was dangerous about the chemistry?
    1
  1712.  @chertfoot1500  They worked with the data that existed. The sugar was added for a sound reason and in keeping with what was believed to be healthy; it wasn’t done with disregard for health. Science is not static; our knowledge increases with time. Decisions are made with what is known at the time.
    1
  1713.  @Solheimgard  How many times in how many ways by how many people do the “200 proofs” need to be debunked to make just wonder if Dubay is lying to you?
    1
  1714. Why does the sun crossing the sky not make sense?
    1
  1715. ​ @crooger3594  Which boils down to a hypothesis that the Earth is a sphere. In answering this particular question you need to be able to come up with direct observations from which anybody can deduce that the Earth is round (or at least curved). The ancient Greeks managed it with the motion of the sun, horizons and how the stars positions apparently changed with location; Eratosthenes managed to measure using sticks to calculate the angle to the sun, a method that works today with multiple locations. That the Earth is a sphere is so long accepted that I suspect most people wouldn't perceive or recall a means and may well have never been taught one. I think true FE'ers are incorrigible; there are people who just wonder and would be open to simple explanations. "vibrating together in a certain shape (crystals)" I'd be careful where you say that; there are people who would view that as supportive of their mystical beliefs about vibrations.
    1
  1716. Do you know how many miles circumference the globe has?
    1
  1717.  @phathokum1855  You're trying to disprove something but you don't know the barest facts about what you are trying to disprove?
    1
  1718.  @phathokum1855  Which would produce one time zone worldwide. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadow. Still waiting on the FE’er explanations.
    1
  1719. There is no evidence that we are in a simulation (it’s a purely philosophical question); they agree with it just to sound like they are thinking and to get out of explaining their reasoning for claiming this is a FE.
    1
  1720. It isn't stupid to ask how we know something (all part of learning); it is stupid to assume not knowing how we know equates to knowing we don't know. FEers do seem to revel in remaining as ignorant as possible.
    1
  1721. “Density makes things move down” replaced upwards acceleration which had itself replaced upwards motion. She’s out of date rather than wrong.
    1
  1722. You mean jpeg compression artefacts. Try it with the original photos.
    1
  1723. Alaska is close to Siberia but the contiguous 48 states are not and they span North America.
    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. It originated from Samuel Rowbotham in the 19th century, who was on an anti-science religious bender. The Flat Earth Society was formed in the 1960's as a joke. Recent resurgence is due to people who saw they could make money from the gullible. It doesn't take a conspiracy; there are people dumb enough to fall for it. If you wanted to distract from a real conspiracy then you would introduce other semi-plausible conspiracy theories, essentially dividing the suspicious. The anti-intelligence principally arises from the anti-intelligent who think anything that differs from the "official dialogue" just gotta be right regardless of plausibility and evidence.
    1
  1726.  @JohnWatsonFlatEarth  When you throw a ball does the ball keep moving when it breaks contact with your hand?
    1
  1727.  @aelobalthrop1413  Again, multiple factors. If there are gases there is convection; they will mix. You will get a very gradual separation between the two but not something that would apparent in a chamber that size or within a reasonable length of time. In a gravity free chamber there would be no separation. Density is never going to be a force. Molecular binding has a very short range. You’re thinking of electrostatic charge that would appear on an object’s surface. There is no charge on Earth’s surface and if there was a charge on everything it would vary according to material & surface area, not mass or density.
    1
  1728.  @aelobalthrop1413  A noble gas won't form bonds with other atoms; it doesn't mean it is immiscible with other substances. Gases consist of free floating molecules; there is nothing stopping different atoms/molecules mixing and they would not spontaneously separate like immiscible liquids. If was magnetism then only magnetic or paramagnetic objects would be affected and objects lacking either would float. I've already said why it isn't an electrostatic charge. If it was an electromagnetic field then objects inside a Faraday cage would float; they don't. The strength of gravity is directly proportional to mass; a microscopic object will not and will never have the gravitational attraction of a macroscopic body because it does it not have, and will never have the same mass. Orbits are a result of an object's pre-existing motion being affected by gravitational attraction of a much larger body. An orbit is the end-product of inertia (maintaining the lateral velocity) and attraction (inwards velocity). Gravitational attraction is going to induce motion in one direction only, ie., directly towards the large object. Multiple factors are routine; you can't start by assuming one factor must be responsible for everything. The ISS has air-conditioning. The air convection will be far, far greater than gravitational attraction from an astronaut's body.
    1
  1729. Motion of the sun, moon & stars and the presence of a horizon is how the ancient Greeks figured it. I can’t get any FE’er to explain to me how a FE sun can rise & set without coming 10-20 degrees of the horizon.
    1
  1730.  @kmasuen4107  How do you explain lunar eclipses?
    1
  1731.  @kmasuen4107  The wholly undetectable extra heavenly body minus any kind of model.
    1
  1732. Not Flatearthers per se (it’s a waste of time trying to inform the willfully ignorant) but the approach of basing conclusions on personal observation and knowledge. FE’ers took off because the gurus made use of social media’s algorithms that fed people more of the same with no regard for misinformation.
    1
  1733.  @DAVIDMILLER-nc9vo  The shape of the Earth is a fact not a hypothesis; it’s quite measurable.
    1
  1734.  @DAVIDMILLER-nc9vo  The shape of the Earth is one of the “certain facts”. Look up the meaning of scientific theory.
    1
  1735.  @presleymeck  Explain how you think genetics disproves evolution. How much of the human evolution we need to know about to determine that it occurred? Space-time not space in time. The curvature isn't dependent on an object's density but is proportional to its mass.
    1
  1736. Patients needing treatment can't be put in suspended animation for the decades or centuries required to fully elucidate physiology. We've made great strides in understanding it and continue to do so but patients need treating with what is known at the time, not eventually. All treatments contain an element of risk; even all the variables are known and understood they still make predictions difficult. For it to be worthwhile pursuing research on an alternative medicine there needs to be a sound basis for why it could work and some preliminary evidence to back it. I was offered a place on one test; the proposed link between the active reagent and root cause was tenuous. As with most such tests, it was ineffective for most but a few people reported a positive effect which suggests a placebo effect or sheer coincidence. The initial stimulus for the research was some people reporting a marked palliative effect on a recalcitrant condition; still being reported outside the trial I gather but the result does not appear to be a direct effect of the treatment itself.
    1
  1737.  @jaymanstruth  What are your grounds for disagreeing with what is demonstrable?
    1
  1738.  @jaymanstruth  Rotation is demonstrable with a Foucault pendulum or laser gyroscope. Orbit is demonstrable by observing stellar parallax.
    1
  1739.  @jaymanstruth  We aren’t particularly concerned; it’s morbidly fascinating watching FE’ers screwing up. Try actually rebutting the results.
    1
  1740.  @schitlipz Motion of the sun & stars. All observable by anybody & everybody.
    1
  1741.  @___Anakin.Skywalker Then let’s have your explanations for what we observe. You all claim to know them and insist that you want us to know them so spill the beans.
    1
  1742. Refuse rather than refute.
    1
  1743. It’s what preceded “density force” and “just does”, itself ousting moving upwards at a constant velocity. I note that you don’t say what they do believe. What strong ideas?
    1
  1744.  @QuranicIslam  What strong ideas?
    1
  1745.  @QuranicIslam  All of them rely on ignorance. Unless the light is a point source (an ideal) then the shadow diverges into umbra (full shadow) and penumbra (partial shadow), the divergence increasing with distance from the object. The umbra will shrink until the the shadow is entirely penumbra. It's a simple diagram but too complex for FE'er minds it seems. "High altitude" is meaningless without an exact figure. You can send a balloon to a "high altitude" that is insufficient to discern curvature for the angle of view of the camera; without sufficient elevation it tells you nothing. Some balloons can get high and carry a wide enough angle camera to capture it. Other balloons are still too low but carry a fish-eye lens because they are compact & light; those cameras are along for the ride, not to test whether you can see a curved horizon. It does not follow that a curved horizon means a fish-eye lens; that just a get-out claim used b FE'ers. That would be the simulation that shows the FE sun having a variable angular diameter & velocity and in view 24hrs a day?
    1
  1746.  @QuranicIslam  Irritation from repeatedly dealing with the same claims. They may sound plausible but they are not good or strong ideas as you originally said. They would make good questions to ask about the globe but FE'ers seem to jump that step. That Hossenfelder was out of date on that point it doesn't detract what she said about their thought processes; it's not as if "density force" is any more rational than the Earth moving upwards.
    1
  1747.  @QuranicIslam  When 2+2 =4 and only 4 while misinformation can be a multitude of numbers, accurate fact tends to disappear underwater, so to speak. FES website is largely hijacked by people poking fun at FE’ers rather than supplying disinformation. The latter is a deliberate attempt to maliciously spread incorrect information.
    1
  1748. It’s what preceded the “density force” and “just does” and is still advocated by some. That FEers can’t agree on any details orher than “it just gotta be flat” is pretty indicative that you don’t have answers & a working model.
    1
  1749. It’s easily disproven; the sun rises & sets predictably and maintains a constant angular diameter & velocity. 2500 years on we are still waiting for FE’ers to explain how that works. The problem with FE debates is figuring out what the idiots think is happening from the questions that they ask. Somebody with foreknowledge of their tangled thinking can answer them readily. See Professor Dave debating David Weiss.
    1
  1750.  @MsDaisy-ix9he We get FEers making comments identical to your OP. Her comments on the supposed FE model are dated rather than incorrect in themselves. FEer maths & experiments unfailingly make fatal errors.
    1
  1751. Try deleting the videos from your history.
    1
  1752. It concerns the FE’er thought processes, not presenting a case for the globe.
    1
  1753. As in it isn’t stupid to ask questions though it is stupid to ignore the answers. Since the Earth being a globe is so well established kids aren’t usually taught how we deduced it in the first place.
    1
  1754. Cartography doesn’t require flight.
    1
  1755. He’s making the claim; the onus is on him to provide evidence not on you to disprove his claim. If you wish you can refer to accumulative evidence of people crossing Antarctica or circumnavigating it; you aren’t limited to personal observations.
    1
  1756. The OT was written at a time when it was commonly assumed that the Earth was flat. Ancient Hebrew had one word covering sphere & disc, akin to the word round. The OT is never specific either way and which it was perceived is not relevant to what is written.
    1
  1757.  @CayoBuay  “Translations are written by translators” would be appropriate for you.
    1
  1758. Why doesn’t it block the stars? Why doesn’t it cause tides?
    1
  1759. False positives and errors occur; it’s why conclusions are not drawn from a single paper but from what different people with different methods have done and how reproducible those results are.
    1
  1760. Still no explanation for what you think the problem is?
    1
  1761. The video is about FE’er thought processes.
    1
  1762. When FEers believe anything & everything can be refuted with “nuh, uh” what exactly would you accept? We’re still waiting on FEers to produce properly executed experiments that would back their desired conclusion.
    1
  1763.  @reynapoles6843  Why do you all fall back on “do the research”? Why can’t any of you produce the answers you all claim to know?
    1
  1764.  @reynapoles6843  A geocentric system was a reasonable hypothesis for the limited information available, information that included Earth being a sphere. We’re still waiting on FE’ers to produce any evidence. Above you’re arguing there’s an undetected magnetic field caused by something undetectable that attracts non-magnetic objects equally well to magnetic object but doesn’t repel anything for readins you can’t begin to explain. Why do you think that is valid data?
    1
  1765.  @cookingonthego9422  You’ve read a third party’s synopsis but not the research itself? Have you considered reading what is actually in the research rather than assuming a synopsis is all the details?
    1
  1766.  @eyestoseefe7618  "1038mph - 4mph = you're 1034mph behind the ball you think is spinning" 4mph relative to the Earth.
    1
  1767.  @eyestoseefe7618  "The reason the same star is visible after 24 hours is they spin above us" Explain two celestial poles.
    1
  1768.  @eyestoseefe7618  Let's see if I understand you. When I am stationary relative to the Earth I'm rotating with teh Earth but if I take a step I have to start running to stay up with a rotating Earth?
    1
  1769.  @eyestoseefe7618  "you think a Plane flying 500mph outruns the ground spinning 2x that speed so I'm not surprised" 500mph relative to the Earth & atmosphere.
    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. How does density act as a force?
    1
  1772.  @williamchamberlain2263  Friday!!!
    1
  1773. Short answer - they don't explain how it works other than occasional vague claims about it being combustion (and therefore within the atmosphere) or electric.
    1
  1774.  @rajarsi6438  Considering the quality and reliability of a piece of evidence is "management level thinking"? Are you proposing all evidence just gotta be reliable because it is evidence or claiming the "science level" you have reached means all evidence is true?
    1
  1775. None if you can agree what those beliefs are let alone offer plausible evidence & hypotheses.
    1
  1776.  @fusion82 Evidence?
    1
  1777.  @fusion82 How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself? What would pull water off Earth?
    1
  1778.  @fusion82  Explain why you think 0.5% > 100%.
    1
  1779.  Abacus  I was replying to the comment you made to John Jay; sorry for the misunderstanding.
    1
  1780. @TShaun68 There are already cameras on SpaceX launches and it doesn’t satisfy you.
    1
  1781. @TShaun68 People haven’t accepted every other proof yet so why would this be different? Multiple satellites are photographing the Earth at least hourly and that doesn’t satisfy them. SpaceX launch videos don’t satisfy them. What stops them from dismissing Artemis as all CGI?
    1
  1782.  @ftlbs928 What makes you think gravity would be an irresistible force?
    1
  1783. Their ideas have changed over time; until recently the Earth accelerating upwards was the favoured explanation. Basically they can't understand the concept of multiple variables so it doesn't occur to them that the objects' masses have anything to do with the attraction between them & Earth, just the Earth's mass.
    1
  1784.  Danny Michelle  It does but since neither of us has the mass of a planet the attraction is far far less than that found with a planet. Gravity is proportional to the product of both masses; it is not a set strength.
    1
  1785. Scientific conclusions are based on evidence; they are accepted because there are no plausible alternatives, only speculation. Assuming you are actually referring to paradigms (scientific terms get used incorrectly) they are accepted because they are consistent with all the evidence, not because of blind faith or groupthink. Since they can’t be directly tested it’s a matter of noting any evidence that doesn’t fit. People who “question science” are usually uninformed and just trying to buck authority, not actually contribute something useful.
    1
  1786.  @StephenJelinek  <eye-roll> The purpose of using sticks & shadows is to measure the angle to the sun not to see if the sticks cast shadows. Measurements taken with three or more sticks are compatible with a globe and incompatible with a FE. Multiple sticks around the world demonstrate the Earth is a globe.
    1
  1787.  @StephenJelinek  Whether the globe orbits the sun or the sun orbits the globe is irrelevant; the sun observably rises & sets, something which is contradictory to FE.
    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. ​ @StephenJelinek  You think a bunch of clueless jerks shooting a mirage with total disregard why they can see something only briefly are trustworthy? You can see the sun rise & set for yourself every day but you think a YT flim-flam artist is more trustworthy that what you can personally observe?
    1
  1790. ​ @StephenJelinek  8"/mile^2 is rule of thumb for drop, not how far you can see. It refers only to curvature. How far you can see is dependent on refraction, elevation & curvature. Not taking refraction & elevation into account will not give you an accurate calculation of how far you can see. Simple as that; you're using the wrong maths. "The 275 mile Guinness Book of world record photo is real" Taken from the top of a mountain (elevation) of a mountain tip (elevation) projecting above the horizon, briefly seen close to dawn (refraction). The maths works fine. FE predictions are for several hundred miles with no horizon; still waiting on the FE photos. "If we never were taught the heliocentric model we would never conclude we are on a spinning ball" Think that through; the ancient Greeks did. "Science has not been able to reconstruct a spinning ball model." And yet our detailed model works faultlessly and none of you can find anything wrong with it beyond "I don't see how..." in the apparent belief that ignorance is knowledge. Meanwhile FE'ers can't explain ANYTHING let alone come up with a model.
    1
  1791.  @StephenJelinek  And I just told you how you know for yourself those videos are crap and I've told you twice why you're using an inappropriate equation.
    1
  1792. ​ @StephenJelinek  I have - FE is a lot of smoke & mirrors with no substance. Willful pig ignorance is seen as the epitome of enlightenment, stupidity is seen as high intellect and making blindingly obvious screw ups in "experiments" is seen as enhanced accuracy.
    1
  1793.  @StephenJelinek  The thought doesn’t occur to you that your FE gurus are deceiving you? You find it more probable that a mysterious cabal has been manipulating reality since the dawn of time to flawlessly run a pointless conspiracy than a guy on YT is pulling a fast one on you? Watch “10 things all flatearthers say”. It runs you through the smoke & mirrors the FE gurus use.
    1
  1794.  @StephenJelinek  The bathing pool outside the Great Temple is specified as having a diameter of 10 cubits abd a circumference of 30 cubits. What is the value of pi?
    1
  1795.  @tatonemio6388  The guy who wants one number for curvature, geometric drop, hidden geometric drop and refracted hidden drop?
    1
  1796.  @glad14  Why wouldn’t a sundial work on a globe?
    1
  1797.  @williamparisi5901  "Can you please help me find the curve" Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows.
    1
  1798.  @KelliAnnWinkler  Conclusions can change if the ever accumulating data indicates such a change is warranted; they aren’t set in stone. People seem to get upset when we do that.
    1
  1799. What points? Once a drug is in use data is drawn from a far larger number of people with a wider range of physiology.
    1
  1800.  @ethandarcy5940  Masks were in limited supply early on, people didn't need them during lockdown, hospital staff did need them and if Fauci had told people they worked then they would have sold out faster than toilet paper. Vaccines work two-fold. In individuals they enable the body to produce an earlier response to an infection, limiting the chance of noticeable infection and reducing the probability of passing on the infection. As a group, herd immunity can be achieved through reducing the transmission rate to the point where it is unlikely you would encounter the virus in the first place. In the long run a virus can be eliminated from a population though that is dependent on the rate of mutation. Nobody has ever claimed it is a magic shield that virus bounce off. If a vaccine is effective against all strains of a virus and the vaccine is implemented quickly & effectively enough then potentially you can eliminate a virus. If the virus is one that rapidly mutates or is given long enough to mutate (or both) then strains can arise which are resistant to the vaccine. In this case the vaccine is less effective against the omicron strain that first appeared two years after the original virus.
    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. It's not distrust; we recognise that everybody is prone to error, that when you're looking at small changes in limited sample sizes there is the possibility of chance in only one set of results and there are always unknown variables capable of interfering with work.
    1
  1803. ​ @Chrisiskewl100  Distrust implies that other people are trying to deceive you. You mean scepticism of limited data.
    1
  1804.  @Chrisiskewl100  We are living in a time where distrust is rampant and where we have people claiming science is all fraudulent on a just gotta be basis. It helps to be exact when describing where doubt is legitimately placed & why and not unintentionally encouraging the paranoids.
    1
  1805.  @stewiesaidthat  Nice lot of gibberish.
    1
  1806.  @Chrisiskewl100  Perhaps, but you get jaundiced explaining it to people who think any element of doubt is the smoking gun that scientists know it’s all wrong.
    1
  1807.  @stewiesaidthat  eV is a unit of energy, not charge. Your hypotheses are that high energy muons travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum and that the high velocity shortens their lifetime?
    1
  1808.  @stewiesaidthat  So by claiming relativity to be wrong you are not actually saying that relativity is wrong? You state that someone has to to apply more force throwing a ball forwards than backwards on a moving train; that is contrary to the 1st law of motion. Either you think the 1st law is right or wrong; make your mind up. Increasing the kinetic energy of an atomic clock is just going to make it move faster; it won't alter the atomic vibrations. If you believe it will then you need to demonstrate that the acceleration due to applied force is insufficient for the amount of force applied, ie., some of the energy is being utilised elsewhere. "You need to perform them in a multitude of different ways etc" Which is what we do. That a single experiment is performed multiple times to ensure the results from each individual experiment are not statistical fluke does not mean it is the only experiment ever ever ever EVER tried by scientists.
    1
  1809.  @stewiesaidthat Explain why you think if I throw a ball at 10mph while travelling at a train doing 120mph why will it not reach the end of the compartment? If I use a laser pointer will it not reach the end of the carriage on a 120mph train but will on a 60mph train? What additional distance do you see either needing to cover? What additional distance do you see either needing to cover? How does acceleration & deceleration change the physical dimensions of an atomic clock? Are you actually talking about the physical dimensions or the space-time in which the cock exists? If so why would the three dimensions of space-time change but not the fourth? "A stationary ball (observer) on a moving train is aging at the same rate as the one sitting at the station" You're describing two different frames of reference (one in motion (relative to Earth) and the other not) as one absolute frame. "it would show up in an invariance in energy consumption" You're assuming one frame of reference again; both would continue to consume energy at the same rate, the total consumed varying between them since one would have been running longer than the other. Whether you realise it or not, you have a problem envisaging multiple frames of reference.
    1
  1810.  @stewiesaidthat  "When the clock is moved around that resonance changes thereby interfering with the timing mechanism" Evidence? "That wave has to travel just a tiny bit further to complete the circuit thus causing a delay in the timing" You are assuming the floor as the absolute reference and neglect to notice that the clock & its circuitry are in their own reference frame, ie., you're visualising the signal between the two passing via the absolute reference frame rather than directly between the two in their own frame of reference. '"When it comes to voltage, as the length of the wire(path) increases, the voltage drops off, causing a loss of current and everything to run slower." When clock & circuitry are in the same reference frame there is no change in the length of the path. "When it comes to voltage, as the length of the wire(path) increases, the voltage drops off, causing a loss of current and everything to run slower." Again, you are seeing the ground as an absolute reference frame rather than the inside of the train as a relative reference frame. As long as each train remains at a constant velocity then the balls are thrown the same distance (length of the carriage) within the relative frame of reference. Neither of the balls have to play catch-up with the either train.
    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. It's a demonstrable and demonstrated fact, not a "fact" and I am a scientist, not a "scientist". Our motive is objecting to the spread of ignorance and the dumb attitude that 2+2 = what ever you want it to. Man has been building up knowledge for millenia and we have people who want to chuck it all away on the argument that everything is just belief. Curiously they still want to have all the mod cons that arise from applied science; they make no connection between knowledge & application.
    1
  1813.  @joeperry7891  There is misinformation involved, eg, that the Earth was seen as flat until the 1950’s, gravity is just an idea, scientists never test or prove anything. FE’ers have long since been seen as the epitome of willful ignorance. Some are open to evidence of a globe being supplied, having their questions answered and explanations given for how they can confirm it for themselves. However some cheerfully deny observable reality and wont consider the idea that their claims are demonstrably wrong. Look up Morton’s demon. When I say 2+2= whatever I am referring to people who think facts are a matter of personal belief; pointing out that 4 is the only answer is regarded as forcing your opinion on others. Some things are a matter of opinion but many things are fact; that you will fall if you step of the top of a tall building is not a matter opinion and believing you can fly is not going to alter that.
    1
  1814.  @tonedumbharry  “Taught in school” is usually referring to something being very basic. It’s so basic that there is no dispute in science of its accuracy.
    1
  1815.  @flatearth5821  And yet two are observable. How is that possible?
    1
  1816. Some people are smarter than others and explanations are generally aimed at mass audiences.
    1
  1817.  @mcclemons89  "I'm more dense than the surrounding air molecules. I will fall" How would density (a ratio, not a force) make you move and why in a consistent direction? "I've answered everything." I'm sure you think you have but you haven't; you're falling back on the Law of Just Does rather than actually explaining.
    1
  1818. Why don’t they have these explanations when asked?
    1
  1819.  @patrickhickman8723  Why not try answering the question?
    1
  1820. How probable do you think it is that a nefarious organisation has poisoned the can of soup that you are holding?
    1
  1821.  @1FeistyKitty  1. Provide evidence that the FES is “controlled opposition”. 2. Which means she is dated but that is irrelevant when the topic is about FE’er thoughts processes. 3. So FE’ers keep saying. 4. Relevance? 5. Relevance? 6. I’ve yet to mention a FE’er who does.
    1
  1822.  @1FeistyKitty  If it’s all science then why don’t any of you provide it? Why do I only ever encounter people reliant on ignorance & incredulity? Why do I find myself explaining basic spatial reasonjng over and over and over? The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changjng with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular cross-shadow - all verifiable by anybody, all indicative of a globe, all disproving a flat earth and all still unexplained by FE’ers. Start there.
    1
  1823. Some are just argumentative, some believe and some are just milking the latter. There’s no single category.
    1
  1824. You’re confusing elevation and curvature.
    1
  1825.  @General4474  https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc Is this shot close enough?
    1
  1826. The stars are very, very distant and moving in the same general direction as the sun as the galaxy as a whole rotates. It takes 10’s thousands years to result in changes that are apparent to the unaided eye. Essentially it boils down to scale, a concept that FE’ers can’t grasp.
    1
  1827. Why not say what REAL flat earthers do believe? It’s far more informative.
    1
  1828. Been asking them for years. Generally the reply is "ask somebody else".
    1
  1829. You may be a gullible fool but she is not.
    1
  1830. You need to distinguish between scientists and political activists.
    1
  1831. People objecting to peddling ignorance & incredulity does not make ignorance & incredulity the truth.
    1
  1832.  @1FeistyKitty  FE’ers go out of their way to prove they can’t grasp multiple factors and have poor spatial reasoning but you expect me to regard them as insightful?
    1
  1833.  @1FeistyKitty  The “thud” was the despin mechanism stopping the rotation as the propulsion cut off and the upwards motion continued for over 2 minutes. The moon is 249,000 miles away; 73 miles is zilch compared to that. How much change did you expect to see and why? Have you ever seen videos of cars being crash tested? Explain how you think a rocket can smash into your dome without the camera even jiggling.
    1
  1834. There’s a difference between asking if there is any merit in the claim and espousing a claim that is readily disprovable and for which you can provide no evidence. FEers are considered synonymous with idiots because they cling to something that is disprovable & disproved. Do you have any specific questions?
    1
  1835. How does light get from source to eye without travelling?
    1
  1836.  @paulsmith8510  Why the reluctance to answer questions?
    1
  1837.  @paulsmith8510  How does visible light get from source to eye without travelling? If it can't travel then it can't reach the eye, human or animal, for either to react to it. "What speed does light travel for them?" Why do you think the retinal receptor cells dictate what speed light travels at? They absorb the light, not emit it; how do you envisage them changing the speed of light retrospectively?
    1
  1838.  @paulsmith8510  How does visible light get from source to eye without travelling? If it can't travel then it can't reach the eye, human or animal, for either to react to it. "What speed does light travel for them?" Why do you think the retinal receptor cells dictate what speed light travels at? They absorb the light, not emit it; how do you envisage them changing the speed of light retrospectively?
    1
  1839. The gravity would be sufficiently strong to pull the FE into a globe. The Kuiper belt is on the orbital plane, not a disc shape. All spherical objects have circular cross-sections; it does not make them discs. The Earth is not a drawing. The gravity would be sufficiently strong to pull the FE into a globe. The Kuiper belt is on the orbital plane, not a disc shape. All spherical objects have circular cross-sections; it does not make them discs. The Earth is not a drawing. The geocentric model was ditched first the heliocentric system in light if accumulating evidence, not the evidence denied. Einstein was not disproved; relativity is correct. One equation was modified, which is routine in science with accumulating evidence. The law of gravity is Newtonian physics and remains correct and has not been abandoned.
    1
  1840.  @joegonzalez6241  That’s due to the air turbulence around the truck. You’re suggesting gravity coukd have a selective effect?
    1
  1841. There thinking is superficial and they are unwilling to progress beyond their first hasty conclusion. Tell them about using sticks & shadows to measure curvature and the response is that you can’t do it with only two sticks therefore you can’t do it.
    1
  1842.  @ytrichardsenior  I would say that depends on what arguments they are offering. The philosophy would be exactly that (how do we know it is a globe?) when most FE'ers simply head into variations of "it just gotta be flat" and display abysmal reasoning.
    1
  1843. How far you can see is determined by curvature, elevation and atmospheric refraction, not by curvature alone. That your gurus don’t mention elevation & refraction is not fandabulous insight but their pandering to your gullible ignorance.
    1
  1844.  @robertfish4734  No gravity = no weight. Why don’t you just say where you see gas as getting its weight from?
    1
  1845.  @robertfish4734  Stamping your foot and screaming “Gravity doesn’t exist!” doesn’t make it go away.
    1
  1846. They can’t agree on any details, none of them can explain beyond the superficial how a FE would work nor understand what their individual claims would predict to be observable nor comprehend simple maths & physics. None of them will divulge the Real Map, Real Physics, Real Maths etc. What exactly do you think there is to understand?
    1
  1847. Fundamentals: motion of ghe sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses. 2500 years and we are still waiting for FE’ers to explain.
    1
  1848.  @mickeywicked478  The infrequency with which FE’ers can type explanations & references doesn’t perturb you? Why do you think evidence isn’t necessary?
    1
  1849.  @krupt5995  Earth & object would accelerate towards each other; since the Earth has far more mass than the object there is no perceptible acceleration in its part, just the object accelerating towards Earth.
    1
  1850.  @krupt5995  Why would the objects's motion be unaffected by gravity? Why don't two objects on opposite sides of the Earth cancel out the Earth's acceleration?
    1
  1851.  @krupt5995  When space-time is caused by mass, why would the curvature increase without an increase in Earth's mass? With 4.5 billion years of expansion through increased space-time curvature not long resulted in black hole? Why does the space-time curvature no affect an object's motion?
    1
  1852. Artemis going to the moon means we can’t have gone before? Orion has sensitive electronics onboard (Apollo not so) and passes through the centre of the VAB, not the weak periphery.
    1
  1853.  @chadkline4268  Ah, diddums.
    1
  1854. The problem with unreproducible results is not (usually) due to incompetence or fraud; people tend to assume that since they don't know of other causes. It is chiefly due to factors like small sample size making it more likely to get statistical aberrations or (unlike school practicals) measuring small changes that can be affected by environmental factors like variations in equipment performance. Look up the funnel effect.
    1
  1855. Let me guess - you mean 8”/mile^2 doesn’t calculate what is hidden by curvature?
    1
  1856.  @ivanhoeescobar7117  It doesn’t calculate what is hidden by drop because it isn’t the equation for calculating what is hidden by drop; its a rule of thumb for purely geometric drop. That’s why it’s so popular with FE’ers when they calculate hidden drop: one variable is simple enough for them to understand and they het the wrong answer. What are you saying is the real wrong maths?
    1
  1857.  @ivanhoeescobar7117  It’s a rule of thumb for geometric drop; it was used by 19th century land surveyors when setting up early theodolites. Geometric drop is an effect of curvature, not curvature itself.
    1
  1858.  @ivanhoeescobar7117  Explain how you think a parabolic equation is going to describe a circle.
    1
  1859.  @ivanhoeescobar7117  Which is why you wouldn’t use a parabolic equation to describe a circle but it does make a rule of thumb for geometric drop. It doesn’t calculate hidden drop or refracted hidden drop because it doesn’t take into account elevation & atmospheric refraction. Still waiting on a plausible FE explanation for lunar eclipses. So far its a choice of the moon changing colour fir unstated reasons or an invisible, undetectable moon that you know exists for unstated reasons and which periodically turned opaque for unstated reasons though otherwise remains undetectable fir unstated reasons.
    1
  1860.  @ivanhoeescobar7117  As with most FE’ers, the use of the word elevation went over your head. Curvature leads to geometric drop. Curvature & elevation lead to hidden drop. Curvature, elevation & refraction lead to refracted hidden drop. All three lead to the existence of a horizon. Not difficult to comprehend for most people but more than one variable is beyond FE’ers comprehension hence your love of an equation with only one variable and your conviction that curvature, geometric drop, hidden drop & refracted hidden drop can’t not be the same thing.
    1
  1861.  @Nehner  Explain how density would act as a force and why in a consistent direction.
    1
  1862.  @ronpapi9539  Youre posting to multiple people and can’t think who “us” refers to?
    1
  1863.  @ronpapi9539  It would be easy to triangulate the position of the FE sun & moon and from that calculate their size & elevation. Why don’t any FE’ers do that?
    1
  1864.  @ronpapi9539  Why do you none of you try zooming the set sun back into view?
    1
  1865.  @ronpapi9539  What’s the FE’er definition of a parabola?
    1
  1866.  @ronpapi9539  How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself?
    1
  1867.  @ronpapi9539  You changed the meaning of "us" and pretended to be confused.
    1
  1868.  @ronpapi9539  Nothing unintelligible; the question was just too complex for you to understand.
    1
  1869.  @miloszforman6270  It was rewritten by a FE'er and has since been rapidly corrected. Check again. I can't imagine Wikipedia using the word "guys". There's no evidence that it has been used as part of a government conspiracy; that is something claimed by FE'ers as part of their defence, rather than actually providing any evidence to back their claims.
    1
  1870.  @miloszforman6270  I was pointing out that your Wikipedia quote used informal English; when anybody can edit Wikipedia it would be a clue that the section was fishy. He’s making the no true Scotsman fallacy; there are a few true FE’ers (supposedly with answers & evidence) and hordes of others who are actually the bogeymen’s puppets making FE’ers look like idiots so the Real FE’ers aren’t listened to. It’s not uncommon for the term “controlled opposition” to be used by Real FE’ers who still can’t produce evidence, map, model etc.
    1
  1871.  @miloszforman6270  True Scotsmen don’t speak to people?
    1
  1872.  @glennrobards585  Unless your head has been opened up then there is no observable proof you have a brain. It is possible to use a variety of scans to show there is something inside your skull but they rely on phenomena such as magnetism & X-rays that you can't see; obviously they don't exist either? Your computer is using either cables or wi-fi (or both) to communicate but you can't see electrons or radiowaves either so are you just imagining the communication? Difficult as it is for some people to realise, your very limited senses are not going to tell you anything of what lies outside their sensitivities. That you can't sense magnetism, radiowaves or radiation or see anything as small as an electron tells you sweet FA about their existence; your senses are not going to give you a definitive conclusion that they don't exist. The Foucault pendulum and gyroscopes provide evidence that the Earth is rotating; Globebusters went so far as to purchase a laser gyroscope to demonstrate that it rotated. That your ears are insensitive to one revolution per day does not mean there is no revolution, merely that your ears are insensitive to those speeds. Now, answer the questions: have you observed your brain?
    1
  1873.  @patcowley6378  Jesus may have walked on water but most people stand on land when looking somewhere. It is not routinely visible, it is one particular picture that keeps being used, yuh haven’t explained where you think the lower half of the cityscape is or why something routinely visible would be considered newsworthy. If it’s not a mirage then are you arguing Chicago moves backwards & forwards, up & down and has wobbly buildings?
    1
  1874.  @AnOfficialYouTubeProfile  Perhaps it is on Lake Superior in the mystery FE map :-)
    1
  1875. 1. Depends what units you use. 2. Rounding numbers to 666 or twiddling calculations to arrive at 666 is not significant. 3. What relevance is it? Why can’t any of you produce your own measurements & calculations?
    1
  1876. Correct on the timing but Eratosthenes was who estimated the circumference about 200 years later.
    1
  1877.  @mikaelfransson3658  The result of a large impact in Earth’s early days when it was still hot liquid; theres no reason either of them shouldn’t be spherical. Melting ice would raise sea levels but would not reshape the Earth.
    1
  1878.  @irurouni  How do you conclude that has she sympathy for their arguments?
    1
  1879.  @k3630  The extra factor that you are looking for is time. The formation of stars & planets is a very gradual process, small differences in matter concentrations affecting the otherwise random movement of matter.
    1
  1880.  @k3630  Neither are speculative; that you can’t understand how something works does not mean you understand something doesn’t work.
    1
  1881. What do FE’ers do to scrutinise observations and design experiments?
    1
  1882.  @jeffreyv8306  Not that I’ve noticed; like most people who think they can disprove well-substantiated conclusions they tend to ignore key factors, make unfounded assumptions or use inappropriate maths. Theories and laws are two different things; a law states a mathematical relationship between variables while a theory is the explanation for the relationship. There is both a Theory and a Law of gravity. You’re referring to the distinction between hypothesis & theory.
    1
  1883.  @jeffreyv8306  They don't think it through, be it experiments or explanations, sticking with quick & intuitive instead. Science requires that you do think it through when formulating hypotheses or designing experiments; apply the scientific reasoning that they ought to have done and their suggestions fall apart. I've not seen any alternative theories; they haven't thought it that far through. The original idea was the FE moving upwards at a constant velocity; it hadn't occurred to them that you wouldn't fall down if you jumped. Velocity was replaced with acceleration with no thought given to propulsion or how great the accumulative velocity would become. Now they're onto density acting as a force with no thought how.
    1
  1884.  @jeffreyv8306  I'm a scientist; I'm used to analysing ideas, formulating hypotheses and designing experiments. I have yet to find anything by FE'ers that would meet the basic standards in science. There have been a few that are willing to more thought in that most but they still fall short.
    1
  1885. If they want people uneducated then why waste money on education at all?
    1
  1886.  @guteksan  Schools existed before governments took on education; charitable schools ensured most kids had rudimentary 3R's while private schools were producing good education to a minority. A government might set a curriculum but the accusation usually be made is that they write the textbooks; conspiracy theorists seem to have little concept of where books come from.
    1
  1887.  @guteksan  I’ve had to explain grant application procedure a number of times; they have it backwards in their heads.
    1
  1888. As I recall Clinton described DC as having the charm of the north and the speed of the south 😊
    1
  1889.  @JimSmithInChiapas  What conflicts of interest? New viruses or strains thereof arise all the time in nature. Leaks from a lab are infrequent.
    1
  1890.  @JimSmithInChiapas The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they assume the conclusion then look for evidence to support it. Some conspiracies will turn out to exist but most won’t; assuming that there is a conspiracy when trying to determine if one exists is a conflict of interest in itself. He may not have been an appropriate person but he doesn’t wield wondrous powers across multiple agencies. You shouldn’t use a possible bad egg to infer all investigations are biased.
    1
  1891.  @JimSmithInChiapas  Am I downplaying it or you upplaying it? You’re saying that one person out of a horde across multiple agencies managed a worldwide coverup.
    1
  1892.  @JimSmithInChiapas ​​⁠Regardless of how smart somebody is they aren’t going to be well informed about everything. Knowing something that is public knowledge does not make somebody well informed on the subject, particularly if their mind is made up before learning. A lab leak was always plausible; it was unlikely compared to the other potential source of origins.
    1
  1893.  @JimSmithInChiapas I mean A plausible source, you mean THE plausible source. No matter how stringent the lab protocols are the risk will never be totally zero; compared with risk from the local wet market it wasn’t a plausible alternative. We’re arguing over unimportant details.
    1
  1894. Testing, testing,1,2,3….
    1
  1895.  @bellottibellotti9185  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neu8fnxmXl0 Explains Wallace's method and the errors in Rowbothams.
    1
  1896.  @dannymccarty344  How do analogue photos taken film qualify as CGI? Detectable reflectors left on the moon, verifiable material brought back and photographed landing sites. Do you bother checking anything?
    1
  1897.  @dannymccarty344  Where are the computers in analogue cameras? How were there computers installed before computers were invented? No moon rocks have been misplaced and they have been verified by scientists worldwide. I suspect you have heard about some of the Goodwill moon rocks being unlocatable and assuming it means all the material.
    1
  1898.  @dannymccarty344  Why not just answer my questions?
    1
  1899.  @patrickhickman8723  Vertical is in line with the direction of gravity at that locality, horizontal is perpendicular to it. That’s how your plumb lines work. You still haven’t explained how you ascertained whether or not remotely placed plumb lines were parallel.
    1
  1900. The experiment was looking for evidence of luminiferous aether.
    1
  1901.  @paulhotson5820  How does the FE sun rise & set without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon and maintain a constant angular velocity & diameter through the course of the day?
    1
  1902.  @paulhotson5820  Which clause in the Treaty forbids travel to Antarctica?
    1
  1903.  @paulhotson5820  You can observe the sunrise & sunset once a day each with your own eyes. You're conflating glare with direct light. The glare will be reduced by the sun passing behind a cloud, the angular diameter won't be. Using a camera with a solar filter to remove the glare then observe. How does this magnification work? Why is it unaffected by atmospheric conditions?
    1
  1904.  @paulhotson5820  Explain the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude and two celestial poles. "The so-called 'planets"'" You haven't heard of telescopes? "the star patterns would never look the same two nights ina row" As is normal with FE'ers, you have no concept of scale. "Facing North, the stars turn counter-clockwise, from right to left, facing South they turn clock-wise" I don't think you understand what clockwise means...
    1
  1905.  @paulhotson5820  "Science is a working methodology based on repeated experiment (trial and error) and observation in order to test a "hypothesis" as true or false after achieving "identical" results! " And we use maths in formulating hypotheses, designing experiments and evaluating results of the experiments. How do you think it should be done?
    1
  1906. The large dinosaurs may well have been gone as a result of climate change resulting from continents moving and volcanic activity. The asteroid finished the extinction process.
    1
  1907. If you imagine me standing in the surf with my eyes 6' above the water and looking at a 60' high ship then apparently my view is being blocked by the 6" wave lapping against shins. The FE'er telling me this couldn't explain how it would work.
    1
  1908.  @1FeistyKitty  You mean pendulous gyroscopes.
    1
  1909.  @1FeistyKitty  You have a very long thread of comments demonstrating that you haven’t thought.
    1
  1910. It’s what preceded “density is a force”. You need to give details of places to answer that question. I use viruses as tools fir implanting genes in the lab. How do you think that is possible if they don’t exist? 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 - are yiu going to divulge fhe FE explanations that you all claim to possess?
    1
  1911.  @GrahamA63  Open-mindedness is rhe willingness to listen to and consider alternative ideas, not to mindkessly believe what is different. I pointed out the fundamental weaknesss in your video; the person making the claim needs to produce evidence and “these just gotta be the Alps” is not evidence nor magically remove the local mountain peaks. I adked yiu how I use viruses if they don’t exist. Aren’t you goinb to answer? I told you how the globe was originally deduced. Why can none of you explain how they could work on a FE?
    1
  1912. “They’re fooling you to fool you” was bandied around.
    1
  1913. What stellar event covered up mid-19th century and how was it achieved?
    1
  1914. They think the FE resembles the Gleason projection rather than the Mercator projection.
    1
  1915.  @RoySATX  Yes, masks do reduce the transmissibility of the virus, medical masks far more so than cloth masks. In case you are unaware of it they catch the respiratory vapour the virus travels in, not isolated viruses. People were initially advised not to wear them to prevent a shortage in hospitals; once production was ramped up the matter changed. Vaccines are around 95% effective in inducing immunity; they enable the body to combat an invading virus, not physically prevent you from encountering. They do lead to herd immunity, which means you are far less likely to encounter the virus to begin with; that is what is meant by vaccines preventing infection. A vaccine lowers your chances of developing symptoms if you are infected assuming that you have been successfully immunised and that virus hasn’t mutated to a resistant form. The fewer infected people there are then the less chance of mutation. There were no serious complications in the test cohorts. You do realise that there is a world outside the US?
    1
  1916.  @charharn7011  One area is cooling; there is still a net increase in temperature.
    1
  1917. It isn’t stupid to ask how we know something and try to deduce it from observation (it is how the ancient Greeks managed it). Unfortunately they do go off the rails rather quickly having started.
    1
  1918. Nobody is claiming there are more than two sexes; the discussion is about gender which is sociology/psychology, not biology. Nobody is saying there are no long terms side-effects per se. Vaccination of any kind may induce long-term effects in a small minority. There is no reason to believe an mRNA vaccine will be any different. Climate change is a complex system; it won’t break down into a few simple laws like the principle taught in school. All cutting edge progress will appear contradictory; at the edge of human knowledge we are dealing with the unknowns. Few people will be aware of how we know the Earth is a sphere; it’s so long established it ceases to be important. Raising the subject is interesting intellectually but it’s also like asking how we know X-rays exist. Please don’t confuse the antics if politicians & activists with science.
    1
  1919.  @hanskloss7726  "It is not antics if it forms a basis of the policy affecting millions." I said that politicians & activists engage in antics; we don't. "As for 2 sexes: There has been an article in SciFi recently.." You realise that "Fi" is an abbreviation for fiction? "a scientist commented on it" We have lives outside the lab. "maybe it would help to civilize the debate?" There isn't a debate about the shape of the Earth to civilise.
    1
  1920.  @LuQuay1984 Have you considered asking for the explanations?
    1
  1921.  @GnotkeAugust  scheduled for 2024 on the Artemis project. Nothing to gain from manned missions until now.
    1
  1922.  @GnotkeAugust  You realise that there were 6 landings on the moon, not one? Ford is still making cars in the same way spacecraft have continually been built since the 1960’s. We can’t build Apollo & Saturn V for the same reasons Ford can’t make Model T’s; assuming se could they would be as useful as a Model T. There was no good reason to continue manned missions to the moon; less money could be spent doing far more with unmanned missions. It is not suspicious the Apollo missions were cancelled, just sound economic sense.
    1
  1923.  @GnotkeAugust  Why would it be arrogant to accept the evidence for the Big Bang and subsequent progression of events?
    1
  1924. Double standards; they accept radio waves & magnetism exist because it is convenient to do so but deny gravity is possible because they can’t see it.
    1
  1925.  @Globeisahoaxx You could you just post the evidence instead of whining about harassment.
    1
  1926. Someone's reasoning can be correct (not stupid) but unwittingly dependent on incorrect facts or presumptions (almost certainly wrong). It's reasonable to ask how a conclusion was reached and reasonable to consider how you can determine the answer for yourself. As she subsequently said, FE'ers reasoning does go off the rails when they fail to note the limit of their knowledge and rely on the presumption that only their personal observation can be correct.
    1
  1927. How do you determine there is "massive scientific fraud and junk science"?
    1
  1928.  @floridaman318  Something which us echoed by many, none of whom are willing to explain how they arrive at that conclusion but frequently show zero understanding of how science is conducted.
    1
  1929.  @floridaman318  "Junk science" refers to the quality of some low end journals; publishing papers is paramount to advance your career, numbers published was more important than quality, online journals made it easier to publish and it's difficult to reverse that development. However, the accusation was "reality of massive scientific fraud and junk science", a sweeping statement dismissing science generally.
    1
  1930.  @floridaman318  Fraud occurs; it does not mean a significant proportion is fraudulent much less a majority but the assumption is made by people who read of high-profile cases in the media.
    1
  1931.  @floridaman318  No, the evidence does not. High profile cases in the media and it's become the go to explanation for anyone who can't figure out why replication is difficult.
    1
  1932. Throwing them off the ISS would be better; that way they can see for themselves that it isn't a studio.
    1
  1933.  @themakerofallmusic  I take it you can’t actually answer my question?
    1
  1934.  @steelyatron  How exactly do you think pre-publication peer review works (step by step) and how do you perceive it to have changed?
    1
  1935.  @steelyatron  It helps if everybody is on the same page about a process when discussing said process.
    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.  @steelyatron  ​ How exactly do you think pre-publication peer review works (step by step) and how do you perceive it to have changed?
    1
  1938.  @steelyatron  "Well, you go first then." Your comment indicated that you would reply so why not do so?
    1
  1939.  @steelyatron  If you think you are more aware of the peer review system works better than the people involved in it? Why not enlighten us with insight?
    1
  1940.  @steelyatron  I haven't made any comment on the efficacy of the peer review system; I'm asking you how you think it works. You seem reluctant to answer.
    1
  1941. How would that stop B’=A?
    1
  1942. @K W The ball would continue to move eastwards when it leaves your hands for the same reason it continues to move upwards: conservation of momentum.
    1
  1943. The fundamentals haven’t changed in decades and even centuries.
    1
  1944.  @maxi-me  It's extremely unlikely that the occurrence of the BB will be challenged or even the broad details; the finer details will undoubtedly be challenged one way or another and may or may not be altered depending on that. There is a difference between the two. That is what I mean by the fundamentals. Life on Earth is cellular, the genetic coding lies in DNA and the heart pumps blood around the body; those are fundamental principles and they are so well-established that there is no reason for them to change. The reasons for concluding them are not tenuous. How the mechanisms work will change as we learn more. Unfortunately people outside science conflate the cutting edge with the established and assume there is no sound reason for any of it.
    1
  1945.  @thomscott8678  What evidence is Jesus going to impart?
    1
  1946.  @riandcaz What do you think would happen to an aeroplane in level flight on a globe?
    1
  1947.  @myhobbyjournal8899  You’re confusing the cutting edge with what is very well-established where every conceivable question has been asked, the predictions are 100% reliable and it is utilised countless times a day without fail.
    1
  1948.  @user-od2xl9ys7p  I can’t see your prior comment; I replied to My Hobby Journal. I meant precisely what I said. Some things are settled beyond any reasonable doubt, the shape of the Earth being one of them, eg, matter consisting of atoms, the periodic table, DNA being the cellular coding molecule. Plenty of people query something in science but it is the people who turn out to be right who are remembered, not people who asked questions since that is routine in science. When something is repeatedly questioned from every conceivable angle and found to be thoroughly consistent it is a waste of time, effort & money to continue questioning it unless something concrete turns up to act as a basis for the action.
    1
  1949.  @sqribe  They were accused of promoting the over-use of an opiate.
    1
  1950. It was “probably wrong” and had to do with small sample sizes not fraud & corruption and referred to reproducible rather than repeatable. There was a technique I couldn’t reproduce but the complication was flakes of material from a different brand of rat food. Research is expensive and exploratory; small size samples are necessary to stay within budget while searching through possibilities. It also competitive so if you think you have found something then there is a need to publish quickly.
    1
  1951. I would also note there is a profound difference between cutting edge science and well-established conclusions that have been confirmed and applied by multitudes for years. Referring to the latter is not an appeal to authority.
    1
  1952. It’s explained to them repeatedly how the ancient Greeks managed it with observation & thought. It’s pointed out that long distance travel & trade is a doddle because we have accurate maps. They can refute it, just ignore it. Look up Morton’s demon on rational wiki.
    1
  1953.  @mr.be.5630  Whete foes the sun come & go to? How does it maintain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity? What do you think would pull water off the globe? What have you done to measure the distance to sun & moon? How do we observe planets through telescopes if none exist? How does density act as a force and why in a specific direction?
    1
  1954. Science doesn't start out with a desired output. Since we aren't immune to confirmatory bias the emphasis is on disproving hypotheses, not supporting pet ideas. What appears in school textbooks is the very basics of science; it's not cutting edge but very well established conclusions.
    1
  1955.  @vittoriovellani5942 Biological stupidity and willful stupidity.
    1
  1956. Archaic as in disproved 2500 years ago. People wanting to believe it will not bring it back from the dead.
    1
  1957. Based on what?
    1
  1958. You’re referring to centrifugal force not gravity. How thoroughly does an object need to be measured to satisfy you that it has been measured?
    1
  1959.  @danielch6662  Where is the lampshade? How does the FE sun rise & set without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon? Why do we always see the FE sun as a circle?
    1
  1960.  @1FeistyKitty  And so? Was nobody struck by lightning before we figured out how lightning worked?
    1
  1961.  @jjevans1693  She made one comment about the FES. The bulk of the video covers the erroneous reasoning processes of FE’ers.
    1
  1962.  @jjevans1693  Evidently it all went over your head but that's typical for FE'ers.
    1
  1963. Are you aware there is a world outside the US?
    1
  1964. It was considered settled by the time Ptolemy produced his model of the universe. The Earth has since been fully measured and photographed from every angle. FEers have yet to offer plausible explanations for the ancient Greeks’ observations.
    1
  1965.  @ekulenwaiku4654  The rays are coming through gaps in the cloud layer. Has it occurred to you that the observable movement of the sun is contrary to it being close?
    1
  1966.  @angrybritches1854  The stars are distant and moving in the same general direction as the sun as the galaxy rotates. Their positions have changed over thousands of years; you're assuming any change has to be huge rather than considering what changes would occur. Stars faint, sun bright; stiol waiting on the FE'er explanation for how you think short & long exposures simultaneously are possible. Still waiting on FE'er explanations for how optical distortions & visual limitations lead to a horizon. Nobody says the Big Bang was from nothing except the people who can't be arsed to asked.
    1
  1967.  @LJ...69.  What do you think would be blocking the line of sight to the stars? Rotation, orbit, axial wobble and globe are all demonstrable; denying them is not intelligent.
    1
  1968.  @angrybritches1854  The vast majority of the universe is vacuum. FE’ers “theories” are half-arsed guesses that none of you bother thinking through. Conversely our scientific theories are built on evidence and well-substantiated in their own right.
    1
  1969.  @angrybritches1854  What makes you think Tesla was right about everything? What have you done to check if astronauts are freemasons? "That's a critical argument, I've never heard" Seriously? The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere principally from observing the sun & stars, e.g., the sun rising & setting on a horizon, the maintaining a constant angular speed through the day, the angle of the stars being used for navigation, constellations changing with the seasons.
    1
  1970.  @angrybritches1854  That there are freemasons who happen to be astronauts dies not mean all astronauts are freemasons. What inconsistencies with the globe? Polaris is 450 light years away. A few thousand miles is not going to make a profound difference. Commercial flights don’t go high enough (30k-60k ft) for curvature of the horizon to be apparent to the eye. Curvature away from them would be only several degrees over hundreds of miles; it’s not something you could expect to be obvious.
    1
  1971.  @FLPoetry  Curvature & motion (rotational & orbital) are measurable and measured. The shape of the Earth was deduced c. 500BC from observation of sun & stars; still waiting on the FE explanations. Ignorance on your part is not insight, knowledge & understanding; it’s willful pig ignorance. I’m not psychic; I can only work by with what FE’ers do provide. You keep whining than you have a model but since none of you seem capable of providing it (just as you are going to refuse to supply it) we have to work be with the crap you do produce. FE’ers agree on two things: that the Earth is flat and that you are agreed upon the details. What you don’t agree on is what you have agreed upon; each of you comes out with their version of the “agreed” details.
    1
  1972.  @FLPoetry  When the globe is expressed as an azimuthal projection from the north pole then the area around the south pole appears as a ring on the periphery of the projection. Where else would you expect it to appear and why?
    1
  1973.  @FLPoetry  Why do you think maps are limited to a 2D surface?
    1
  1974.  @L.I.B.  It was assumed that the Earth was flat; it was not demonstrated to be flat. Hills & valleys aside it looked flat so they assumed that it was flat. The ancient Greek philosophers considered how the shape could be determined and noted the existence of horizons, the motion of the sun, the placement of the stars and lunar eclipses having circular shadows, all contradictory to the notion of a FE, indicative of the Earth being a sphere and all still unexplained by FE'ers. You won't try doing it; one of you ever do. "If its projecting a Globe than Antarctica is the circumference" Indeed. "But that's not how your model works" The south pole is in Antarctica and on an azimuthal projection centre of the north pole the south pole (directly opposite the north pole on a sphere) would be the periphery of the projection; consequently the continent on which the south pole exists would be spread around the periphery of the projection. Where else would you expect it to appear? "You'r stealing our map with your words. Please understand this." Gleason labelled the map as being an azimuthal projection of the globe. How explicit did he need to be?
    1
  1975.  @L.I.B.  "maps are 2d because there easier to read that way" I asked you why you think the maps can only be 2D surfaces, not why we make 2D projections of 3D surfaces. I'll put it another way: why do you think a 3D map is impossible?
    1
  1976.  @FLPoetry  Projecting a 3D surface on to a 2D surface inevitably leads to distortion. With the azimuthal projection the distortion increases with distance from the central point. The south pole is directly opposed to the north pole so the maximum distortion occurs there. The distortion specific to the azimuthal projection means Antarctica is stretched around the periphery of the projection. It's why you wouldn't use an azimuthal projection for long distance maps; the distortion quickly reaches ludicrous proportions. If you want an accurate 3D map then you need to look at a globe, not a flat projection. It's not difficult to understand for non-FE'ers.
    1
  1977.  @FLPoetry  Good grief, man. Just answer the question.
    1
  1978.  @JimSmithInChiapas How do they explain the high velocity?
    1
  1979.  @007kingifrit  I think you miss the point: science progresses by proving something negative not by proving something positive since the latter can’t realistically be done.
    1
  1980.  @007kingifrit  Falsification means disproving an idea and thus eliminating it. Practically all societies recognise two genders and most recognise there there is variety in how masculine or feminine various individuals feel & behave. You were referring to gender fluidity which requires the existence of gender to be fluid in. Few people feel the need to change gender; don’t superimpose your desires in everybody else. Psychology is a science.
    1
  1981.  @007kingifrit  People have sexes but there is no distinction in male & female behaviour?
    1
  1982.  @007kingifrit  People don't have identities?
    1
  1983.  @007kingifrit  And yet psychology is still a science...
    1
  1984.  @007kingifrit  Read back a few comments. The problem with recreating psychology experiments are the amount of confounding factors; the furniture in the room and the ambient weather can affect the results. Nothing to do with fakery, just complexity. Not dissimilar for physics; they aren't trying to recreate high school experiments but phenomena that are far more sensitive than anything you've tried. Do bear in mind that you not knowing what can affect the results does not mean you know what is affecting them.
    1
  1985.  @007kingifrit  Reproducing your own results can be difficult because of the confounding factors; some of us have to work with that, not just pontificate about fakery. I'm having to worry about the brand of pipette tips I use, the lot numbers of the growth factors and the exact time of day when each assay is carried out; I doubt any of that has crossed your mind. I referred to psychology earlier. Evidently you didn't notice.
    1
  1986.  @muhdaqil2932  It was assumed to be stationary not demonstrated to be so.
    1
  1987.  @muhdaqil2932  Nobody had tested to see if the Earth was stationary or moving, just assumed it; the shape of the Earth has been measured countless times. Insanity is doing the same things over & over but expecting different results.
    1
  1988. "visibly corrupt and intertwined social institutions promulgating an overarching "agenda"" Which is a conspiracy theory; anything and everything is part of The Agenda regardless of the practicality of the claim.
    1
  1989.  @GtRCpU  It’s called context-specific. It doesn’t confuse most people.
    1
  1990.  @joshuajackson4742  Like what?
    1
  1991.  @EuNaSabe  If it’s so easy then why can’t any of you do it?
    1
  1992.  @EuNaSabe  You think the US Navy will blow you out of the water if you measure the distance that you are travelling? The distances between places are already known - people are already travelling. You just need to assemble those distances into a coherent FE map. So far none of you have done it though you keep claiming you possess a working map.
    1
  1993.  @EuNaSabe  You have evidence that ships & planes are routinely failing to arrive at their destinations? Are you advising people not get on long distance flights?
    1
  1994.  @EuNaSabe  You’re saying there are no accurate maps. Both MaxFan & I are asking how long distance travel would be possible without maps?
    1
  1995.  @tabandken8562  How do you observe two celestial poles in a FE? Why would the stellar parallax (measurable) be immense when the nearest star is 4 light years away?
    1
  1996. They dropped the idea in favour of density being a force.
    1
  1997.  @therealzilch  Been having a similar discussion elsewhere for over a week. He can’t explain it but remains adamant that he can.
    1
  1998. You have abundant evidence from which you can predict it is edible; the chances of getting an inedible soup (personal flavor preferences aside) are too remote for worthy consideration while shopping.
    1
  1999.  @efgtest  You’re referring to the Sagnac experiment at the same time as suggesting laser gyroscopes don’t exist? The Sagnac effect can be explained by either luminiferous aether or relativity; in the absence of any evidence for the former and abundant for the latter it is not reasonable to conclude the firmer is the cause. If you think otherwise then explain.
    1
  2000.  @efgtest  You haven't explained why think lumeniferous aether is the correct explanation for the Sagnac effect.
    1
  2001. Put forward by whom?
    1
  2002.  @1Bonnie777  Can you see radio waves?
    1
  2003.  @1Bonnie777  Indicative of the double standards of FE’ers.
    1
  2004.  @1Bonnie777  Your eyes are passive receptors; they detect the light that reaches them regardless of how far it has travelled.
    1
  2005.  @jpaul1599  You can measure the speed in light in a lab; where’s the star?
    1
  2006.  @jpaul1599  Do you think starlight is special? If so, then on what basis?
    1
  2007.  @jpaul1599  If you have nothing to contribute about the distances to the sun & moon is it really wise to be claiming that you are better informed than everybody else on the subject?
    1
  2008. The soup label is evidence; it isn’t proof.
    1
  2009. FE'ers unwillingness or inability to think beyond what they individually can see does not make them right.
    1
  2010. We are doing our job properly. The results being filtered through politicians & business execs and listened to people who expect simple answers is a problem. Which pharmaceutical conclusions do you think are wrong?
    1
  2011.  @fireflower6915  Every research paper I find refers to neurotoxicity as their conclusion.
    1
  2012. What kind of labels do you want and why?
    1
  2013.  @rlupara  You’re arguing that Russell’s teapot exists… Proved what wrong? You haven’t put forward anything other than making a handwaving claim that everything is laid out in detail in Genesis 1 when it isn’t. Do you seriously think “the sun is in the sky” is a detailed description of the path the sun follows and why it occurs?
    1
  2014. Your senses & perception are limited; we have to put forward verified evidence to back what we’re saying; errors in conclusions become evident as evidence increases, eg, Galileo’s observations with telescopes.
    1
  2015.  @coreprime9552  Provide a link.
    1
  2016.  @coreprime9552  A direct line from A to B across the surface of the globe.
    1
  2017.  @coreprime9552  Level =\= flat. Open a good dictionary and look at the multiple meanings for level.
    1
  2018.  @coreprime9552  How was CGI used to shoot photos on film in the 1960’s?
    1
  2019.  @JasonsMove  How does an equation be with one variable take multiple variables into account? Why not answer the question?
    1
  2020.  @JasonsMove  ​ How does one variable cover multiple factors? Why are you having such difficulty answering if you know the answer?
    1
  2021.  @JasonsMove  Critical thinking notes one variable in an equation supposedly accounting for multiple variables in the scenario. Why are you so reluctant to answer the question?
    1
  2022.  @therealzilch  That requires thinking about two ends rather than one join; the number’s too big for most FE’ers minds.
    1
  2023.  @JasonsMove  "he’s got some good stuff" While you are incapable of answering questions.
    1
  2024.  @therealzilch  Asking muktiple times doesn’t elicit a single answer; that seems invariable. 😊
    1
  2025.  @JasonsMove  Then explain how you think one variable covers multiple factors. How difficult is it for you to explain?
    1
  2026.  @shanktheglobe954  "We know the atmosphere acts like a lens" So FE'ers keep claiming but you have yet to provide any evidence that it is can and does. Atmospheric refraction is not akin to a lens and, with regards to the sun, would at most provide a slight, transient elevation of the sun as it approaches the horizon. It isn't going to magically change the apparent size of the sun all day every day for one person, let alone for 7 billion plus observers simultaneously and continually.
    1
  2027.  @shanktheglobe954  They occur in a predictable point at a predictable time. That atmospheric content affects how it looks in terms of clouds & redness belies your notion of a constant atmospheric lensing effect.
    1
  2028.  @shanktheglobe954  That was the video where I pointed out all the errors in the first minute alone?
    1
  2029.  @shanktheglobe954  Pointing out your errors is trolling you? What happened to "truth seeking"? "to observe magnification is rare" Yet you are relying on it being constantly present to explain the sun maintaining a constant angular diameter. "globeheads assume the atmosphere is a simple density gradient" No, we have to keep pointing out to FE'ers that pressure decreases with increasing latitude rather than remain constant no matter how high you go. The concept of different air densities due to temperature is a concept beyond most FE'ers, something that is apparent when explaining mirages to them. "I can replicate a plasma orbit and you can't replicate a gravitational orbit" Two different forces. The latter requires planetary mass for the effect you wanting demonstrated. "I know the 15 degree per hour rotation is caused by earth's magnetic field" How? "I've personally seen the sun change size, the moon too, especially near the horizon" So many FE'ers claim that and it always comes down to the atmospheric content reducing the glare, not the actual angular diameter changing.
    1
  2030.  @shanktheglobe954  I watched it. Merely claiming the sun moves in a horizontal circle above a FE provides no explanation for constant angular diameter and angular velocity.
    1
  2031.  @shanktheglobe954  In what way is he misrepresenting what you said?
    1
  2032. Still waiting on FE’ers to produce these proofs, or even an explanation for how observations that disprove a FE would actually work onna FE. No more funding, times passes, technology becomes too dated to yse, personnel retire & die.
    1
  2033.  @cloned76  Try taking account elevation & atmospheric refraction along with curvature when calculating how far you can see on a sphere; works fine for everybody.. Meanwhile you also need to figure out how the motion of the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles and constellations changing with altitude are compatible with a FE.
    1
  2034.  @cloned76  Reread my last posts. If you’ve done the maths then produce it. Explain why perspective is going to hide anything.
    1
  2035.  @cloned76  “perspective effectively distorts local proportions” How?
    1
  2036.  @cloned76  The apparent size decreased with increasing distance. You need to explain why a different rule suddenly applies at just the point where sky meets land.
    1
  2037.  @cloned76  "'quantization and the collision of 2 perspectives" Explain what that is supposed to mean. "The thick border on horizon" What thick border? "one common mistake is assuming perspective doesnt change proportions" Still waiting on an explanation why it would vary.
    1
  2038.  @justoguillermomontoya3821  Newspapers make money by selling copies. Worse case scenarios sell more newspapers than best case scenarios.
    1
  2039. The fraud comes down to the actions of individuals and the fraudulent work represents 1-2% of what is published.
    1
  2040.  @JimSmithInChiapas  Nice example of a dramatic headline to sell copies.
    1
  2041.  @JimSmithInChiapas  I didn’t say it wasn’t a significant problem; I’m referring to the scale of the problem. Dramatic headlines that suggest the bulk of publications are fraudulent are not accurate or helpful
    1
  2042.  @JimSmithInChiapas  I didn't say that there isn't a significant problem. I object to people making blanket claims that it means the bulk of work is fraudulent or that eventual conclusions from multiple sources must be wrong; that means they aren't cognisant on what the problems actually are. "Angelica M. Stefan and Felix D. Schönbret" Not that one, no. Thanks for the reference. "In the wake of the replication crisis, detecting and preventing questionable research practices has become a major concern for many researchers." I didn't say I'm not concerned.
    1
  2043.  @JimSmithInChiapas  You & I know the problems - the OP’s understanding is that the raw data is made up and that that explains the difference between newspaper headlines & outcome.
    1
  2044.  @JimSmithInChiapas  Do you think that is the only article on the subject? There’s been plenty else to read on the matter.
    1
  2045. The existence of Covid vaccines is a narrative?
    1
  2046.  @jordanzlotolow8254  There’s this concept called measurement but it does seem beyond FE’er comprehension.
    1
  2047.  @jordanzlotolow8254  Confidence yes, logic no. You summarily dismissed the examples I gave, offering no rebuttal beyond a vague claim of “other shapes work”. Since you wish to claim that thousands of years of observation & reasoning are wrong then onus is on you to demonstrate that, not demand other people refute the details you avoid supplying.
    1
  2048.  @stolearovigor281  Motion if the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses always having a circular shadow. Are you going to be the FE’er who finally reveals how those are supposed to work on a FE or are you just going to duck & dive like the rest, denying what anybody & everybody can observe and accusing us of being brainwashed by the <insert bogeymen>?
    1
  2049.  @julianbrionesiii2438  weight is the action of gravity on mass; if no gravity then no weight. You need to explain where your FE weight comes from and what gives it a direction. “Just does” is not a valid answer.
    1
  2050. Why would gravity be an irresistible force?
    1
  2051.  @julianbrionesiii2438  Mass is constant and does not have direction; weight is variable and has direction. Since they are distinct they are not the same thing. You need to come up with a plausible explanation for where weight comes from.
    1
  2052.  @julianbrionesiii2438  You're not good at answering questions, are you? What causes weight? Why would gravity be an irresistible force? Why can't water curve? Stop waving your hands and actually answer, Be the brave FE'er who stood up and actually gave the details of the Real Physics instead of just whining how everybody else has it wrong.
    1
  2053.  @julianbrionesiii2438  Gravitational attraction is proportional to mass: birds have very little mass, oceans have very big masses. Come on, man, you've had three days to answer some simple questions. Just how difficult is it for the insightful, informed, FE geniuses to answer some simple questions? What causes weight? Why would gravity be an irresistible force? Why can't water curve?
    1
  2054.  @julianbrionesiii2438  What causes weight? Why would gravity be an irresistible force? Why can't water curve?
    1
  2055.  @julianbrionesiii2438  What causes weight? Why would gravity be an irresistible force? Why can't water curve? Try answering the questions instead of repeating canards.
    1
  2056. Being prosecuted for breaking the law isn’t a consequence?
    1
  2057.  @silvanabaralha8665  Your attitude to law & government doesn’t answer my question. Businesses primarily exist to make a profit, not to safeguard customer safety. If it reduces costs then a product will likely as unsafe as they can get away with.
    1
  2058.  @silvanabaralha8665  Caveat emptor. There’s no inherent requirement to strive for safety in a product, merely to provide a product that offers a better deal than the competition. You might choose to promote safety for your product but it will be more expensive as a result; many people will eschew the increased safety in favour of price or some other feature.
    1
  2059.  @RobbiePNoCap  Measuring curvature and from that calculating the size. That’s difficult for you to comprehend since the only form of measurement FEers understand is eyeballing.
    1
  2060.  @RobbiePNoCap Stars are hardly motionless; stellar parallax indicates the Earth is moving on an orbit and stellar rotation indicates the Earth is rotating.
    1
  2061.  @TheCollages It’s more the notorious FEer inability to grasp more than one factor at a time.
    1
  2062.  @TheHammer710 More a wonderful display of FEer brains being unable to handle anything complex.
    1
  2063.  @EpicAlternative  You believe They can know something you don’t but can’t handle the notion that somebody knows something you don’t?
    1
  2064.  @RobbiePNoCap  What exactly do you think an “assumed calculation” to be? How do you define it? Is 2+2=4 an assumed calculation? You still haven’t said what you think would happen to a car driven on a globe. The crux of your argument was that there was a different result for driving a car on a globe from driving on on a FE. You would be so much more convincing if you stated what that key result would be.
    1
  2065.  @EpicAlternative  If circles & spheres are merely mathematical abstractions that are not found in reality then what shape are the wheels on your car?
    1
  2066.  @RobbiePNoCap  I answered your OP; you were describing FE “science” and didn’t realise it.
    1
  2067.  @youngtravels4660  There’s abundant evidence; I can’t get any sensible refutation from any of you, just repetitions of terms like “assumed calculations” that you can’t explain and dodging the questions I ask. It seems a simple enough question about your car wheels and none of you are answering.
    1
  2068.  @TheCollages  If you want it to be wrong then you need to disprove it not just refuse evidence.
    1
  2069.  @EpicAlternative When you are writing off circles & spheres as “assumed calculations” with no place in reality then it’s a reasonable question to ask what shape you consider wheels to be. Do note that, as wuth prior wuestions, Im not getting answers from any of you. Why do FEers find answering so difficult?
    1
  2070.  @youngtravels4660  None of you are providing any evidence at all, just denying everything while parroting terms like “assumed calculation” & “not empirical evidence”, terms that none of you can explain no matter how many times I ask. How difficult is it for insightful FE geniuses to provide simple explanations?
    1
  2071.  @The.Original.Hossman  I’ve been neither refuted nor corrected, just met with parroted phrases that none of you are capable of defining.
    1
  2072.  @The.Original.Hossman  I provided evidence that meets the definition of empirical; Im told it doesn’t meet the FE definition and none of you are willing to tell me what your definition is. Why don’t you try?
    1
  2073.  @The.Original.Hossman  What is assumptive or model-based about observing which constellations are visible? Try actually answering the question.
    1
  2074.  @jonom5622  Reread what I wrote and think.
    1
  2075. Trump dismissed news he didn’t want to hear as fake news; the term has been around since the 19th century. Nutty videos have been around as long as Youtube has. Describing willfully ignorant people as FE’ers has also been around since the 19th century.
    1
  2076. They only accept what their own senses tell them (except when they deny them of course).
    1
  2077. You trust the people telling you that it’s a conspiracy?
    1
  2078.  @incorrect2968  What did you do to measure the acceleration? What did you do to calculate the forces involved?
    1
  2079.  @incorrect2968  The two questions I asked still stand. You appear to be assuming freefall and assuming a substantial delay from buckling. You said you investigated; I’m asking for your method & results.
    1
  2080.  @incorrect2968  Your measurement technique was eyeballing and you did nothing to calculate the forces involved. You’re as bad as a FE’er.
    1
  2081.  @incorrect2968  Where did any media state that pulverising concrete didn’t require force?
    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. What’s your slam dunk evidence the moon landings weren’t genuine?
    1
  2084.  @skeggjoldgunnr3167  You’re cherrypicking while telling others to be honest?
    1
  2085.  @skeggjoldgunnr3167  Cherry picking is being dishonest; youre being selective about what yiu quote whole ignoring the vast bulk of evidence that contradict what you are claimimg. Is that explicit enough?
    1
  2086.  @skeggjoldgunnr3167  I suggest you read the opening pages of Alice in Wonderland.
    1
  2087. They don’t have a model at all; the only details they agree on are the Earth being flat and that they are agreed on the details.
    1
  2088.  @carlharrison1765  You asked for one. How many do you actually need? Check Earthrise, a sequence of shots taken from Apollo 9.
    1
  2089.  @carlharrison1765  Any & every kind of picture is an image. What is on yiur retina is an image. You asked for a specific type of image. A photograph is a captured image. What the heck do you expect?
    1
  2090.  @carlharrison1765  You want one close-up photo of a planet with a 7,800 mile diameter?
    1
  2091.  @carlharrison1765  EPIC colour photo’s consist of overlaid red, blue & green shots; you have three of what you requested.
    1
  2092.  @carlharrison1765  The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a globe from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows. 2500 years on we are still waiting on FE’er explanations. Do you want to try?
    1
  2093.  @carlharrison1765  The original three shots aren't genuine due to the subsequent overlaying or all digital photography is CGI?
    1
  2094.  @carlharrison1765  Let me guess - no stars visible and there's a box around Earth?
    1
  2095.  @carlharrison1765  Jpeg compression errors. Try coming up with something that hasn’t been explained to you a 1000 times before.
    1
  2096. You can work with what information you do have about a particular virus plus knowledge of virology as a whole and hone or alter the process as information grows or you can just let a pandemic run rampant, collect the information and draw conclusions on what probably should have been done, conclusions that you would have to ignore the next time it happened because it was different virus. The people who were "professionally damaged" were typically the cranks. There is always disagreement about fine details and how data can be interpreted; that is how science advances. There's a difference between hailing ivermectin as a wondercure and debating whether it is or isn't of significant use.
    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.  @grantcivyt  I cant give the name of the medical research database since the YT filters interpret the comment as advertising. However if you take the first three letters each of "public medicine" and search for that as one word then you will get there.
    1
  2099.  @grantcivyt  Curious - I can see it. Might be the filters have been tweaked since I last tried or it cross-referenced with something else I said in the relevant comments. I'll bear it in mind; it annoying when you can't directly say where to look.
    1
  2100.  @grantcivyt  Weblinks outside YT were blocked a while ago. I have simple diagrams online I can no longer refer people to. I noticed some ordinary posts disappearing (they didn’t even show up on my account) apparently if I used the terms PubMed or arxiv.
    1
  2101.  @therealzilch  This is well before the current bugginess.
    1
  2102.  @hershelpogue1745  We don’t have a “viewing range”; your eyes detect incoming light regardless of how far it has travelled. The moon’s orbit puts it on the sunward side of Earth for half that orbit. Theres no mystery why it could be visible during the day. Neither is there any mystery why two objects with an angular separation wouldn’t set together. Have you considered actually thinking rather than just Thinking?
    1
  2103. How do you tell if something is a lie?
    1
  2104.  @KangenAlec  Still waiting on your explanation for people walking around after having had lethal injections.
    1
  2105.  @maler.michel They might ask questions but they sure as hell aren’t interested in answers.
    1
  2106.  @maler.michel You realise you can watch the sun & stars for yourself by stepping outside and looking up?
    1
  2107. No evidence despite a great deal of effort looking for it or (depending on the context) the idea is still just conjecture. It doesn’t mean drawing conclusions from nothing.
    1
  2108.  @JimSmithInChiapas  It doesn’t seem long ago that people complaining that we isolated ourselves in ivory towers.
    1
  2109.  @maxfan1591  I can inky see 2 of 4 replies; did he produce any examples?
    1
  2110. Evidence such as what? Image compression artefacts? A "C" on a rock? No stars in the sky? A photo mid-transit proving they didn't go beyond mid-transit? The lander doesn't look like a Star Trek shuttle? No stars in the photos? Who filmed Aldrin coming down the ladder? Single stage launchers wouldn't work? Van Allen Belts frying everybody en route? Destroyed tapes?
    1
  2111. And yet we still wait on FE’ers to provide a coherent model or any rational explanations for observable reality.
    1
  2112. What’s the incidence of blood clots?
    1
  2113. His complexity of thinking (or lack thereof) applied to everything?
    1
  2114.  @kjnoah Try correcting someone who’s gone down a rabbithole and feel we should admit we are wrong. The effort needed to correct someone (generally) who has been told something on social media is Sisyphean; there’s frequently too little information to determine what they are referring to in the first place and then it’s on to the next tidbit.
    1
  2115. Samuel Rowbotham, mid-19th century.
    1
  2116. Another one who thinks there’s a universal down.
    1
  2117. On what grounds?
    1
  2118. People believing different = true aren’t being gullible?
    1
  2119. It’s been displaced by density being a force though none can explain how a ratio could act as one.
    1
  2120.  @JimSmithInChiapas As I pointed out earlier, the paper does not say that virus didn’t originate from a lab. Should they have made up their results to make it seem the virus could only have come from the Wuhan lab?
    1
  2121.  @JimSmithInChiapas You’re pointing a finger at several people, none of whom are Chinese.
    1
  2122. Upwards force precedes “density force”.
    1
  2123. Sex & gender are two different things; sex is the biological, gender the psychological/sociological.
    1
  2124. FE’ers live very much in the present and blur out the change their ideas have gone through.
    1
  2125. It tells you that Jupiter is not just a light in the sky and that the assumption that everything orbits Earth is incorrect.
    1
  2126. You might be believe in density being force and buoyancy being independent of gravity but none of you can even begin to explain how that is supposed to work.
    1
  2127.  @DaKingof  You started in the third person and switched to first. You wouldn’t be the first FE’er who posted in the third person.
    1
  2128.  @DaKingof  Attraction between masses is demonstrable, eg, Cavendish & Scheihallion experiments. FE’ers have yet to explain how density could act as a force or why in a consistent direction. The previous explanation (a disc moving at a constant velocity) was dropped when they finally twigged it wouldn’t work, largely after having it pointed out that constant acceleration was required. Why is it so difficult for the people who claim to have outthought centuries of physicists to say how it works?
    1
  2129. That’s caused by the weight of the atmosphere on a container designed to contain high pressure, not a fabulous sucking action from nothing.
    1
  2130. If you’re going to say the BB and evolution are just theories then look up what theory means in science.
    1
  2131. Why choose to remain ignorant after all their questions have been answered and the FE errors & contradictions explained to them?
    1
  2132.  @44240xtp  The examples I gave are things they can verify for themselves; they aren't reliant on anybody merely telling them it is so. What is there to disbelieve when you are the only person involved?
    1
  2133.  @44240xtp  I demonstrate their folly to stop them sucking other people in, not with the goal of persuading them. FE’ers are unusual in the extent to which they will deny what they see while claiming personal eyeballing is the only evidence they will accept and the conviction that they have the explanations none can provide.
    1
  2134.  @44240xtp  They be too busy groping for the intangible invisible wires to look out of the “CGI windows”. 😊
    1
  2135. Who are theFE’ers with PhD’s?
    1
  2136.  @Sealedservant  "Cause the globe has none" Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows - all verifiable by anybody. "what evidence do you want?" Anything you have that isn't the old repeatedly debunked canards.
    1
  2137.  @Sealedservant  So no explanations for the list of evidence, just the usual handwave. Why can’t any you actually produce these explanations? Do you want to try doing it? You’re not producing any evidence so why should I believe you have any? “maybe those proofs are debunked” We’re still waiting on the FE’er explanations for how they could work.
    1
  2138.  @Sealedservant  If I wasn't open then I wouldn't be asking the question. Bear in mind that open-mindedness is the willingness to listen to and consider ideas. Provide your explanations.
    1
  2139.  @Sealedservant  This is why we are always asking FE'ers to produce a video of half-sunk ship being fully zoomed back into view or, better still, zooming the set sun back into view. Do note that none of you have produced such a video yet. You're assuming an effect has only one cause. An object can be hidden from your vision by either the limit of your visual acuity or by something blocking your line of site. Put a cup over a coin and you can't see it because your line of sight is blocked, not because the cup has teleported it too far away for you to discern. Zooming something back into view before it has reaches the horizon does not disprove the horizon. "At the horizon point, the water acts as a mirror reflecting the ship giving the illusion it went over a curve and once you see what’s really happening, you can’t unsee it." If it reflected the ship then you would be able to see two ships, one inverted. Are you trying to say the water diverts the light away from you? If so then explain why this could & would happen and why it would only happen at the horizon. You also need to explain how it happens over land. "All this is based on perspective" When the cowboys ride off into the setting sun they become smaller but remain fully visible but the sun remains the same size and disappears from the bottom up. We are still waiting on the FE'er explanation for how you think perspective does this.
    1
  2140.  @Sealedservant  The distance to the horizon is determined by curvature, elevation & atmospheric refraction not by curvature alone and the parabolic (not circular) equation 8"/mile squared does not calculate distance to the horizon or what is hidden. "because the sun is bigger than the cowboys" Then explain why perspective doesn't effect larger objects and why it makes them disappear from the bottom up.
    1
  2141.  @Sealedservant  It's a rule to thumb for estimating drop for a 6' person assuming a perfectly smooth sphere (no variation in elevation) and no atmosphere. it gives you a broad idea that you can readily visualise but is not accurate once there is elevation to take into account or the distance becomes enough for refraction to become a significant factor. It was used by land surveyors in the 19th century when setting up their theodolites. It's not intended for accurate calculations, just easy to visualise.
    1
  2142.  @Sealedservant  You need to be up above 100,000ft AND able to take a wide angle shot. “The horizon keeps in expanding “ There’s a horizon and you can see further. FE predicts no horizon and that you see the same distance regardless of altitude. If you believe the blather if eyes have a limited viewing range then that predicts the distance you can see decreases with increasing altitude.
    1
  2143.  @Sealedservant  You’re referring to two different directions in which to observe curvature. The horizon is equidistant from you and you are too close to the surface for “left to right” curvature to be apparent. To see that then you need to be up above 100,000ft with a wide angle view. Curvature away from you is over increasing distance and for a 25000 mile circumference is approximately 69 miles per degree. At 35,000ft you can potentially see about 250 miles or about 3 degrees, not a substantial amount. You may be thinking of people saying a curved horizon when on an airliner at 35,000ft but that is actually an effect of the windows being curved to better handle the pressure difference. You can distinguish the horizon drop of about 3 degrees by holding a half bottle of water so the water surface is level with your eyes. A ship disappearing over the horizon is an effect of curvature not a direct observation of the curvature. Even 1 degree of curvature would too little too discern but (depending in your elevation) can produce enough drop to hide the ship.
    1
  2144.  @Sealedservant  Then produce this proof. All you have done is make the usual claims about visual acuity with no regard for where the horizon is. I explained to you why that was wrong. I explained to you that you need evidence of something that has indisputably gone over the horizon being zoomed back, e.g., the set sun, not just rely on assumptions. Superman can fly but the rest of us have to make use of some form of aircraft. I explained to you why seeing a curved horizon through a passenger window of an airline at 35,000ft is a misconception. I explained how high you need to go to see a curved horizon and why. "I have like 2 or 3 other explanations" You haven't produced any explanation how perspective would make anything disappear from the bottom up, just made an unsupported statement that it happens to larger objects.
    1
  2145.  @AnOfficialYouTubeProfile  The shadowy They that are secretly running everything in the world have to be given a face by most people and each seems to plump for their own bogeymen.
    1
  2146.  @suportbghelp4938  No indication it is prevalent.
    1
  2147. @Keep Calm No more than the general populace.
    1
  2148.  @eddy2fast260  Try looking at the courses of Cook's voyages rather than repeating the FE blather.
    1
  2149. Sec is biological, gender is psychology & sociology.
    1
  2150. You think Dubay is trustworthy and believable?
    1
  2151. The Earth has a 25,000 mile circumference, not the 25 you’re envisaging.
    1
  2152.  @sammas7440  In which case, what arrogance? If the evidence is widely reproducible then there is no reason to dispute it. There's far more to science than formulas.
    1
  2153.  @sammas7440  You used radio but don’t believe it exists because you can’t sense radio waves? Scientific theory: a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well-substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a hunch or guess; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. What do yiu think we do in labs?
    1
  2154.  @sammas7440  You have yet to make a point. All you've done is remark that we have formulas and theories as if that is of great significance.
    1
  2155. ​ @sammas7440  I'm trying to get you to say what it is that you find arrogant about scientists.
    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. ​ @sammas7440  If someone does not have first hand experience of conversing with scientists, relying only on what reaches them through layers of filtering, simplification & generalisation, then they are not qualified to speak of first hand experience. "..."This is the evidence. We have decided. You will not question or you will be mocked."... " That is your criticism but none of us say that; we're just portrayed as saying that. The two are very different.
    1
  2158. “reign of Flat Earth Science” When was that?
    1
  2159. It’s what preceded to mystical density force. The FES is just out of date on that score. Yet again, the limit of your visual acuity and the horizon are two different things; an object can pass beyond the limit of your visual acuity long before it reaches the horizon. Zooming such an object back into view tells you sweet FA about the horizon it has yet to reach. Why have FE’ers never zoomed the set sun back into view if you consider it that easy-peasy? Basically, two reasons why you can’t see something is one more reason than the FE’er brain can handle.
    1
  2160.  @nigelwitgunn  They use the wrong maths to predict the horizon as much closer and they don’t use objects large enough to clearly disappear below the horizon, eg, sun, mountain. Yes, if they watched for longer the object would be unzoomable (?) but they are not reknowned for actually trying to disprove something or distinguish between between possible causes. They call perspective’s vanishing point a vanishing line (no explanation) that exists in your centre vision (no explanation why it doesn’t change when you tilt your head), consider distance to be the only variable in determining the apparent size of an object and won’t explain how an infinite distance can be a few miles away, apparently at a fixed but highly variable distance.
    1
  2161. It predates the "density force" and is a successor to a constant "upwards" velocity.
    1
  2162. 1. Some people have ready access to those journals; that you reach a paywall dies mot mean everybody is denied access. 2. Verified results will have multiple papers; it’s unlikely all will be behind paywalls.
    1
  2163.  @edensinpecado6191 Fair enough; their thinking is intuitive and limited, generally ceasing after one factor or possibility has occurred to them. They seem unwilling to think any further. Is that exact enough?
    1
  2164. Sex is biological, gender is sociology/psychology. Nobody is saying there are multiple sexes; there do exist societies with multiple genders. Clear communication is important.
    1
  2165.  @Sepdick1  Which exactly? That there a retwo sexes in biology? That there are societies with multiple genders? That sexes are biological? That genders are sociological? That clear communication isn't important?
    1
  2166.  @Sepdick1  How do you explain societies that have more than two genders?
    1
  2167.  @Sepdick1  Nobody has redefined them.
    1
  2168.  @Sepdick1  You still haven’t explained how there are societies with more than two genders.
    1
  2169.  @Sepdick1  Look up "third gender" on WIkipedia; they provide a list. If you want to Wikipedia has been taken over by the bogeymen then look up: https://listverse.com/2018/10/03/10-societies-that-recognize-more-than-two-genders/
    1
  2170.  @KangenAlec  Still waiting on your explanation for people walking around after having had lethal injections.
    1
  2171.  @JimSmithInChiapas He’s complaining about government obfuscation of what is being funded, not producing any evidence of a cover-up of Covid origins.
    1
  2172.  @sandytarihoran0467  There’s nearly a billion people living south of the equator. Take it that you actually mean Antarctica. There is thriving tourist trade including a plane to the south pole; plenty of people going in and out. You can go entirely on your own if you wish but it’s a slog; it’s the harsh environment that kills people, not government-armed penguins.
    1
  2173.  @sandytarihoran0467  Why is it that living in the Age of Information and have search engines at your fingertips is insufficient for you to look up “plane trips to south pole”?
    1
  2174.  @sandytarihoran0467 Waving a book written by an agrarian society that hadn’t figured out where rain comes from is not evidence.
    1
  2175. I assume that you have tried pointing out errors in his reasoning with his interpretation of proven science?
    1
  2176.  @THEPUZZLE-WhatsTrue  Should he ignore different opinions that are demonstrably wrong?
    1
  2177. Ptolemaic model c. 100AD was the accepted model of the universe. How much have you been fined for believing the Earth is flat? Scientific theory: comprehensive explanation of a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a guess or hunch, that is the vernacular meaning of theory. You don’t think there is any pressure to publish correct knowledge?
    1
  2178.  @Bubbl3Bubbl3gum  He was just a crisis actor 😊
    1
  2179.  @mistahkalean6777  A presumptuous claim abd what makes you think parents & government are the sole sources of information?
    1
  2180.  @jpaul1599  You're talking about a handful of tapes containing one video recording that went astray, not the entire Apollo records or even just Apollo 11's records.
    1
  2181. And yet none of you can produce anything useful after all that study. Why does the sun move differently to what FE predicts?
    1
  2182.  @The.Original.Hossman  No answer to my question; what I surprise. You’re the people who claim to have done the Real Research, be cognisant of the Real Model replete with Real Maths & Real Physics yet no answer forthcoming in 2500 years. Why not?
    1
  2183.  @LanaNavy1923  Does it not concern you that FEer’s inability to coherently answer questions does not reflect the level of understanding that you’re claiming?
    1
  2184.  @The.Original.Hossman  You can get on an escalator and move forwards, move upwards and stand still simultaneously; it’s not difficult for most people to comprehend.
    1
  2185.  @The.Original.Hossman  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with season & latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow; 2500 years we are still waiting for one of you to explain those. Meanwhile the surface has been mapped & measured (yes, measurement is not mysteriously limited to eyeballing); we are still waiting on one of you to produce thd famed Real Map you all keep alluding to. Since then the Earth has been photographed from every angle; the only answer ever forthcoming from FEers is that The They were using CGI decades before the computing power existed and you can tell through some simple analysis that you all know but none of you can describe. Scidntific theory: a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well-substantiated by extensive experimentation & observation. It is not a hunch or guess; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. Models are built on evidence and are accurately predictable. Since you can’t comprehend any evidence much less grasp the concept of prediction since none of you derp-thinkers can grasp there is anything beyond the present, the only refutation is complete denial, which is not regarded by anybody sane as being the pinnacle of intellect.
    1
  2186.  @The.Original.Hossman  The opening sentence provided the original evidence for a globe. Explain how you think it proves a FE.
    1
  2187.  @LanaNavy1923  I originally asked why the sun observably moves differently to what FEers claim; I have yet to receive an explanation. Why not? I assume you think empirical evidence is simply what you can eyeball and that pseudoscience includes the concept of measurement? How many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to eyeball on a 25,000 mile circumference? Data is evidence only if it distinguishes between two hypotheses. You’re presuming that your eye would readily distinguish between 0 and >0 degrees/mile but since your eye is relatively insensitive for this purpose that >0 deg/mile would have to be substantial; what do you think it is?
    1
  2188.  @The.Original.Hossman  Did you own any scale model toys when you were younger?
    1
  2189.  @The.Original.Hossman  Were the scale models the same shape as the parent object?
    1
  2190.  @therealzilch  What poll is that?
    1
  2191.  @yhenry77  50 miles across dirs not mean 50 miles wide? What does it mean? What makes you think lasers are restricted to the military? How do yiu think university observatories manage it?
    1
  2192.  @yhenry77  Answer my questions.
    1
  2193.  @yhenry77  Like you don't?
    1
  2194.  @VernWatson-bd8yk  She has her own channel; what makes you thonk that she is making videos for someone else?
    1
  2195. By failing to comprehend scale, eg, expecting half the Earth to be visible from plane cruising altitude.
    1
  2196.  @brettatton  They deny atmospheric refraction occurs; they are never specific as to what atmospheric lensing is it or how it would be caused.
    1
  2197.  @jocelynturmel3282  How many times have you zoomed the set sun back into view?
    1
  2198.  @jocelynturmel3282  Isn’t it easy-peasy to zoom distant objects back jnto view? What makes the FE sun different?
    1
  2199.  @jocelynturmel3282  We may be talking at cross purposes. The FE sun is a dinky thing that supposedly becomes too far away to be seen rather than setting over the horizon.
    1
  2200.  @worldaswar3784  “density is a secret force” has been around only 5-6 years; FE’ers have been around 140 years. “How can you say that someone used to believe in something” Because said someones said so.
    1
  2201.  @worldaswar3784  All of them or you have something specific in mind? If you’re going to argue that water levels itself then explain how water observed its environment, makes decisions and moves itself?
    1
  2202.  @worldaswar3784  Density as the ratio of mass to volume has been around as long as matter has. The notion that density is force is a few years old. None of you can ever explain how a ratio is supposed to act as a force. How does a ratio make something move and why in a consistent direction? If you consider yourself so enlightened then explain.
    1
  2203.  @worldaswar3784  Try answering the question I actually asked: how do you think density (a ratio) can act as a force? What do you think we do in labs?
    1
  2204.  @worldaswar3784  So what makes objects fall? Meniscus. I see it frequently in the lab.
    1
  2205.  @worldaswar3784  Explain how you think mass acts as a force.
    1
  2206.  @worldaswar3784  "f objects 1cm3 heavier than oxygen 1m3 the object falls" What makes it move? Neither mass not density are forces so where is the force coming from? Why would objects move in a consistent direction? "helium baloon debunks your gravity" No, it just demonstrates the inability of FE'ers to think beyond one factor. "The force of gravity makes an apple fall untill it hits water." The gravity makes it fall down; nothing stops it being pulled down. Whatever medium it passes through impedes its progress (no impedance in a vacuum), the medium itself being pulled down by gravity. If the buoyant force (dependent on gravity) from passing through the medium is greater than that provided by gravity then the net motion is upwards. Two factors continually involved.
    1
  2207. Been done several times.
    1
  2208.  @thomastroxel2267  Try dividing 360 by 25,000. Half mile sections would have a difference < 0.01 degrees. When someone fires off a gishgallop they’re rarely interested in answers. I pointed out the oversight in your first point.
    1
  2209.  @thomastroxel2267  Yes, I read it before my original reply. It's unlikely you are interested in answers. "look at the bottom of my post." It requires people living very busy double lives prior to the disaster, even to the point of growing up pretending to be two different people. I woudl note that you are content to believe in some massive conspiracy but can't handle the notion that conspiracy theorists can lie.
    1
  2210. If they are so brilliant then why can’t they say what these explanations are?
    1
  2211. Explain how a ratio can act as a force and why in a consistent direction. Supposedly obvious to the people who profess to have it figured but you can’t get explanation out of them.
    1
  2212. No reply when asked to say what Real FEers believe?
    1
  2213.  @danielneukomm4097  I use a generic description of the process since there are people from multiple countries here. From past experience there tends to be an assumption (erroneous though logical) that government funded means we are putting in bids on a government contract; the shortest route between funder & fundee is assumed. The problem is that more & more people assume any inaccuracy, in any area, must mean that somebody is lying. Predictions are not absolutes. Data is continually accumulating, not an eternally fixed amount. Conclusions & predictions can only be drawn from what is known at that time. People seem to want short simple answers to complex problems with many unknowns; maybe that springs from the very basic science they were taught in school. As I asked, what would you have us say?
    1
  2214. Some are genuine, some are trolls, a few are just making money from the first lot.
    1
  2215. Explain why you think elevation wouldn’t be a determining factor on a globe.
    1
  2216.  @indo42O  The ball already has eastwards momentum from Earth’s rotation. Everything on the Earth’s surface & atmosphere has eastwards momentum.
    1
  2217.  @indricotherium4802  More that the simplest "explanation" just gotta be the right one regardless of whether it actually works or matches observable reality.
    1
  2218.  @warmachineuk It’s no longer an EPIC claim 😊
    1
  2219. Always some time soon… You would be far more convincing if any if you provided it instead if bring endlessly “some time soon”.
    1
  2220.  @shaun6582  But you want me to believe or at listen to you?
    1
  2221.  @shaun6582  I’m supposed to believe you have this overarching explanation solely on you saying you have it?
    1
  2222.  @shaun6582  And until such time as one of you deigns to reveal, stop running around claiming you have it.
    1
  2223.  @edwardchege2623  That applies to the application of any force to mass. You say it isn’t gravity that makes mass fall but another force entirely. You claim to have figured what it is; I’m trying to get that out of you. The nearest you’ve gotten to divulging your insight is the notion that mass is a force. Try answering the question.
    1
  2224.  @gameoflife9147  They postulate it but they do not explain it; reread what I wrote. It’s why the sun is tracked with a camera equipped with a solar filter that eliminates glare. There’s no change in angular diameter. Yiu can determine angular velocity for yourself by putting a stick in the ground and noting the angular change in the shadow’s direction.
    1
  2225.  @gameoflife9147  That the angular size of an object is calculable does not make perspective a law of nature; it is a concept that refers to art.
    1
  2226. You don’t need to know how something works to know that it exists; FE’ers simply dispute gravity exists, insisting that nobody has ever demonstrated it exists. None can say what they think is amiss with the Cavendish experiment of course.
    1
  2227.  @1WWJD  “i never asked for the comparison” Rather the point.
    1
  2228.  @1WWJD  You get a dunce’s cap for failing to grasp the difference. How does the sun set without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon? How does it maintain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day?
    1
  2229. "We must remember that we do not observe nature as it actually exists, but nature exposed to our methods of perception. The theories determine what we can or cannot observe...Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one" "Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as something that is considered to be independent of its being observed. In this sense one speaks of physical reality." That was the nearest quotes that I could find. Essentially he speaks of two realities, one that we sense in a limited fashion and another physical reality that is the objective one that science attempts to identify. It's why we don't rely on our senses in collecting data.
    1
  2230. Watch again.
    1
  2231. "Show me measured curvature over water" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uU "a pressurized system without a physical barrier" Atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing altitude; when the pressure has declined to zero why is there any need for a barrier separating zero pressure from zero pressure? "a pic of a high altitude balloon where the horizon is below eye level" How big a degree drop would expect to observe from a globe Earth? Try putting a number to it? "and curved" How high do you need to be to see a curved horizon over the angle of view of a camera? "NASA =to decieve “in Hebrew" Nasa means raise or lift. "started right after ww2 using you guessed it hitlers very own top scientists" You might find it odd but wartime is when most weapons development occurs; there's a pressing need for new weapons. "never using any testable and repeatable science" Still waiting on the FE'er explanations for the motion of the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles and constellations changing with latitude. Why don't you try? Meanwhile FE "experiments" with ignored factors, incorrect maths and faulty presumptions do not qualify as "testable and repeatable science".
    1
  2232.  @justinsaunders3932  You haven’t offered any maths or physics yet.
    1
  2233.  @justinsaunders3932  "what does that have to do with the shape of the earth" What does what have to do with it? The maths you quoted? The physics you quoted? Your claim that water being sentient? Your claim a gas pressure gradient needs a container? I take it you can't answer my questions despite professing to have the answers. The questions aren't difficult for the people who think they have it all figured so why can't any of you say? NASA means National Aeronautics & Space Administration. Nasa means raise or lift. Nassa means deceive. Why do the Thinkers never think to check? Blue Marble was shot at less than that distance; the Earth unmistakably appears as a circle and, like all circles, with a curved horizon. How do you conclude that circle was flat and surrounding you at eye level?
    1
  2234.  @justinsaunders3932  No, we keep asking for a copy of the working FE map you all claim to possess or have at least seen. That not one of you can produce it undermines your case. Where on a pressure gradient do you think there is an abrupt drop that requires a physical barrier? The air pressure at the top of Everest is significantly lower than sea level; why has nobody encountered a barrier while climbing Everest? And I’m asking you how you think water levels itself. It requires that water observes it’s environment, makes decisions and moves itself. You’ve figured out how it does that so have the guts to actually say.
    1
  2235.  @justinsaunders3932  You raised the subject of a FE map, sweetie. I pointed out that none of you can produce the map you all claim to possess; you’re still declining to produce it. You’re managing to garble your own conspiracy theories. How do you think a picture taken from a plane would capture half the worlds continents? Using a barometer at ascending altitudes would be a start. You still haven’t explained where you think there is an abrupt drop in pressure that works require a container. It’s a simple question; answer it. “It literally seeks its own level” I’m asking you how an inanimate substance would do that. You keep insisting that water does it all by itself. That requires observation, thought and impetus. You’re claiming to know how it does it so get your finger out and answer the question.
    1
  2236.  @justinsaunders3932  I understand how water becomes level. I’m asking what your understanding is. So far I’m getting variations on “just does”. Now you’re saying density is a force so be brave and be the first FE’er to explain how a ratio acts as a force. Scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is s but a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. You raised the subject of a map. I hadn’t said anything until then. You all claim to possess a working FE map so produce it. Not difficult surely?
    1
  2237. You think the Earth is flat or you don’t like her analysis of their thought processes?
    1
  2238.  @EugeneVerster  I understand your point and it is true but it’s not as if most people have reason to consider further than that; there is nothing to indicate otherwise. However it does not mean that FE’ers are thinking about it or are more knowledgeable; for the most part they simply repeat what someone else told them without seeing the blatant holes while hailing themselves as the only thinkers. They don’t know how the ancient Greeks deduced it either, much less provide alternative explanations.
    1
  2239.  @captainmeow2771  "'in Turkey there are fenced off areas labeled areas of historical significance by people who are neither Jew nor Christian, where the split rock and alter of the golden calf still remain today" If it's inaccessible then how do you know what is there? "The remains of the arc still exist' Still waiting on the evidence. "a professor was fired for doing a paper on soft dino tissue discovered" He was (possibly) fired because he was running around telling people it proved dinosaurs were recent animals, not for discovering the remains of cells embedded in fossils dateable as millions of years old. There's currently >100 research papers on PubMed on the subject; it's an active line of research and nobody is trying to hide it. The cause for the preservation is believed to be iron content in the blood.
    1
  2240.  @captainmeow2771  "That's what I'm looking for, evidence that I can trust" I think you mean you are looking for evidence that would support what want to believe. The motion of the sun, the angle to Polaris, horizons and two celestial poles all indicate the Earth is a globe and all are personally checkable. A good telescope would enable you to measure stellar parallax which indicates the Earth is in motion. You will require a laser gyroscope to measure rotation which is expensive. If people seem unfriendly towards the topic is because we've heard the same claims repeatedly and have had to point out the same logical fallacies & inaccuracies repeatedly and provide the same evidence disproving a FE repeatedly. When most of those claims are dismissible with just a little thought on the part of the advocate it gets tedious. The Earth was determined to be a globe over 2000 years ago using the first methods I described. Today we have accurate maps that can only fit a globe surface and that enable intercontinental flights between remote airports while satellite TV with aerials pointing up into the sky are a common sight; FE'er can't even together even a crude map or provide a working hypothesis that fits observable reality.
    1
  2241.  @captainmeow2771  "let alone research the things you scoffed at" A presumptuous accusation given my reply to your dinosaur point. As I pointed, we've heard it all before, including the "enlightened" FE'ers getting sanctimonious and failing to actually answer questions put to them.
    1
  2242.  @captainmeow2771  Do you believe something can be true when it is readily disprovable?
    1
  2243.  @captainmeow2771  The topic is the earth, something that is testable. When motion can be detected then it is not motionless. You believe it to be motionless and are complaining that people aren’t open-minded to your beliefs. Do you believe something can be true when it is disprovable?
    1
  2244.  @captainmeow2771  While I initially replied to a few Bible-related points this thread is about FE. I don’t have to refute evidence that you don’t reproduce and I did refute the claim about someone fired for discovering soft tissue. There has been nothing untoward about my behaviour; querying unsupported and inaccurate claims is not trolling. Simply by scrolling down you can see I have been posting here for a few months; making unwarranted accusations is untoward behaviour.
    1
  2245.  @captainmeow2771  "a professor was fired for doing a paper on soft dino tissue" He lost his job (his contract was not renewed, not terminated) because he got people's backs up with the religious fervour, not for publishing a paper, which is why he sued for religious discrimination, ultimately settling out of court. That it is an active line of research with >100 papers published to date belies the notion that it is a forbidden subject. The relevant information is easily locatable.
    1
  2246.  @HaggisPower  You mean, like, out of the toilet?!
    1
  2247. Accelerating endlessly upwards predates density being a secret, atypical force.
    1
  2248. Examples of observable items that can’t be observed on a globe?
    1
  2249.  @jerryhall5709  You realise that powerful enough lasers are not the sole property of NASA or even of the US? Everybody who looks finds the increased reflection from the landing sites. "We won't get any pictures of the landing sites" You mean like the pictures the LRO took?
    1
  2250.  @jerryhall5709  How do you think they could detect comparatively high reflectivity without making a comparison?
    1
  2251.  @jerryhall5709  Footprints? The satellite detected the landing modules and their shadows and picked up the miles long rover tracks.
    1
  2252.  @jerryhall5709  But you trust the people who misrepresent what Aldrin actually said?
    1
  2253.  @jerryhall5709  Trimming “we haven’t been back” to “we haven’t been” doesn’t strike you as misrepresentation of what he said? One person was punched; given his behaviour it’s amazing Aldrin had that much patience. Humour has always been part of human society.
    1
  2254.  @jerryhall5709  Having been asked "Why didn't we go back?" Answer: because we didn't. It's tongue in cheek humour. "how that should be his question" As in, having gone multiple times why was it dropped entirely? Why the loss of will? The simple answer was economics & priorities: you can do more for less with unmanned missions and once the Cold War propaganda value diminished the politicians lost interest. Having out their foot on the first step of the ladder, they took it off again. Only now are plans underway for a lunar base; Artemis is on the return leg.
    1
  2255. Rowbotham was good at rhetoric and he learned to pick which experiments would produce results he could use to fit his rhetoric, eg, making use of refraction to increase viewing distance on the Bedford Canal Experiment.
    1
  2256. Open mindedness is the willingness to listen to & consider alternative ideas; insisting something just gotta be right because it is “different” and screw the evidence is close minded.
    1
  2257.  @thepaterfamilias5853  FE ideas are considered and rejected because of their faulty premises and logical errors. The ancient Greeks deduced the shape from the motion of sun & stars and horizons; FE’ers still cant explain them.
    1
  2258.  @mohdpolaris3403  Why would it default to your description?
    1
  2259.  @yingyang1008  https://youtu.be/_Me5_2Nw1m4
    1
  2260.  @yingyang1008  What qualifies in your mind as a video? What criteria?
    1
  2261.  @yingyang1008  If you have no criteria then how are you deciding what qualifies? I don’t think you realise how big space is. A video is not going to show any significant change over a short time which is why still photos taken up to an hour apart are preferred. The ISS camera orbits the Earth in about two hours and dues not appear fast moving.
    1
  2262.  @yingyang1008  You’ve twice been given a link to such a video and told you can view the ISS cameras; you think they don’t qualify so explain your criteria for arriving at that conclusion. The moon is tidally locked; there is no earth-rise on the moon.
    1
  2263.  @shroud1390  Many words already have more than one meaning (double entendres are reliant on them) and the scientific meaning of theory is taught in school. Should we replicating Newspeak?
    1
  2264.  @shroud1390  People expect short, sweet answers to complex questions and get suspicious when the answers aren’t.
    1
  2265. Generally they’ve failed to come up with sound FE explanations for observable reality; by attempting to disprove the globe they think FE would be right by default.
    1
  2266. None of the complainers had any trouble understanding what round meant in that context.
    1
  2267.  @therealzilch  Editing implies alteration of the text; the initial compilation made decisions about what narratives & letters qualified for inclusion but didn’t alter anything. Subsequent translations of the text haven’t changed the content either (KJV aside), just made use of synonyms and different grammatical structures. Interpretations of meaning have changed with time in the same way philosophy has grown since the ancient Greeks.
    1
  2268. Produce these models.
    1
  2269. Hydrogen carbonate.
    1
  2270. Such as what?
    1
  2271.  @Nehner  The onus is one of you to find and photograph it.
    1
  2272. A vacuum doesn’t suck but the lab vacuum system going down for a week (!) certainly does 🙁
    1
  2273.  @cabbagefart7432  Why don't you actually produce the irrefutable experiments you all think exist?
    1
  2274.  @cabbagefart7432  When I can see Blackpool Tower from my home town which country do you think I am from?
    1
  2275.  @cabbagefart7432  About 15 miles as the crow flies, not the 50 miles you’re claiming. So which beach is it you’re referring to? Why can’t I see the oil-rig from the beach, only from the Round Hill?
    1
  2276.  @cabbagefart7432  You explicitly made three claims, not one.
    1
  2277. What sensory input tells you Genesis is a literal account?
    1
  2278.  @KangenAlec  Trigonometry.
    1
  2279.  @1FeistyKitty  "Just gotta be wires here" with no explanation how astronauts can shoot a 45min video passing through a series of modules and their connectors without problem. "This screen is blue!" with no explanation how a prominent white grid would not interfere. Video compression errors. Floating water with no explanation how it is achieved for longer than the 30sec vomit comet ride. etc etc Try using more than one brain cell.
    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. You realise that we have to declare methods & data as well as conclusions and that there is abundant competition in science? Why would it take only a little while?
    1
  2282.  @stevenpace892  There’s a great difference between having influence and “making things happen”. Those who have influence of any sort are in competition, not tight lockstep. I asked you why you thought it would take only a little while, not why it would take time at all. A BSc hardly scratches the surface so why only a short while?
    1
  2283.  @stevenpace892  Where did summary come from? We’re talking about our published work. How long is a “little while”? Who do you think writes the summaries?
    1
  2284.  @stevenpace892  Scientific expertise starts with the initial BSc, the subsequent PhD and the subsequent years involved in research, all full-time immersion in the subject. You feel it can be achieved in a little while; how? What’s the short cut?
    1
  2285. Pressure doesn’t have a direction.
    1
  2286.  @Globeisahoax  Says the “FE expert” who can’t answer any questions.
    1
  2287.  @TheYolo20  What is illogical about relativity?
    1
  2288.  @TheYolo20  You seem to be getting at the difference between natural philosophy and science but both rely on sound reasoning.
    1
  2289.  @thorgeirnable  Whether it is handled directly by the town council employees or by someone contracted by the town council, the town council is still responsible for the rubbish being picked up. If the town council wished to fool you about pick-up days and or even just fool you that the rubbish has been picked up then that would be in the contract; the contractor supplies the services, which would include fooling you. Unusual events aside, the rubbish is and has been picked up on the expected schedule. Unless you wish to argue that prior to a contractor being employed meant that nobody noticed the rubbish wasn't being picked up, you're suggesting that the town council or contractor is both informing you of the wrong pick-up day AND picking up on the wrong day just to fool you that that is the day the rubbish should be picked up.
    1
  2290.  @thorgeirnable  I would note that most politicians in state & federal levels started their careers at county level. There is no Oath of Incompetence at any level.
    1
  2291. No answer to my question?
    1
  2292. "If we would take the trouble to read the original studies quoted in the newspaper" You would find how simplified the newspapers' versions are. The trouble is that most people see only the newspapers' versions and conclude they are opposing.
    1
  2293. You’re conflating a number of different issues. The example you refer to was from the NEJM and probably occurring through all high prestige journals. There was a significant proportion of papers submitted & published where companies were essentially masquerading their work as having been conducted by outside, unrelated researchers. There was no way to pick a paper and say with any certainty that it eas independent. More generally the problems are due to pressure to publish frequently limiting the duplication of results for confirmation first, the rise of “paper mill” journals taking advantage of demand, small sample sizes & inadequate statistics, pressure from some to be inventive of something doesn’t work and, of course, human error. There’s no single cause to account for the problem.
    1
  2294.  @TheCollages  You said the evidencd must be independent, empirical, falsifiability and without fallacy. I gave you evidence that is independent, empirical, falsifiable and without fallacy. Your problem is you thinking that empirical means eyeballed. That you’ve used rulers throughout your life abd have no concept of what the markings on them are for is testament to the dedicated dumbness of FEers.
    1
  2295.  @TheCollages  If you don’t consider measurements to be empirical evidence what DO you consider empirical?
    1
  2296.  @STARYZEN237  Motion of the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses have circular shadows. 2500 years and we are STILL waiting fir FEers to explain how they are possible on a FE.
    1
  2297.  @EpicAlternative ​​⁠You need to explain what you think “assumed calculation” means. Is 2+2=4 an assumed calculation? If mot then why not? A scientific theory, a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well-substantiated by extensive evidence & observation. It is not a hunch or guess; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. Stellar parallax and gyroscopic recession; still waiting for FEer answers other than denial.
    1
  2298.  @STARYZEN237  You can watch the sun cross the sky and track the rate of progress by putting a stick in the ground and marking the shadow direction at regular intervals. You can see the constellations changing with season simply by looking. This brings back to an earlier (unanswered) qyestion: what is the FE definition of empirical?
    1
  2299.  @EpicAlternative  How is measuring the angular separation between stars an “calculative assumption”? What is the FEer definition of “calculative assumption“?
    1
  2300.  @LanaNavy1923 What evidence would you accept?
    1
  2301. Please look up round in a dictionary.
    1
  2302. It doesn’t take much effort to debunk. What do you define as a real conspiracy? The ones that get presented to me are misinformation that reinforces their beliefs rather than accurate representations of reality.
    1
  2303. Put a stick in the ground and measure the change in direction of the shadow over several hours; the change will be a regular 15 degrees, not the variable rate predicted by FE. Using a solar filter on a camera, take pictures of the sun through the course of the day and that it remains the same apparent size. Once it has set try zooming it back into view.
    1
  2304. Blue Marble (1972) shot in a single frame of analogue film.
    1
  2305. You’re defending people who claim “planets are just lights” while refusing to look through telescopes.
    1
  2306. Doing nothing allows it to spread, particularly in today’s post-fact society. It’s interesting to us because we’re curious about willful stupidy and denial.
    1
  2307.  @paurushbhatnagar8100  What sets this limit? Why can we see light from stars that are light years away but not frame something only miles away. Sky & land/sea meet at an infinite distance.
    1
  2308.  @paurushbhatnagar8100  The nearest star is about 25 trillion miles away. The horizon can be only 25 miles away. Explain how you conclude that 25 > 25 trillion.
    1
  2309.  @terencedavid3146  What do you think we have labs for?
    1
  2310.  @terencedavid3146  Why can none of the people who “know” answer that question? What do you “know” we have labs for?
    1
  2311.  @terencedavid3146  Your critical, analytical thought for identifying CGI is "you just know 'cos it just gotta be"; you don't see any shortfall in that technique like, say, presupposing the answer? Like the rest, you are clueless as to what we do in labs. Just how difficult is it for "critical, analytical thinkers" to find out?
    1
  2312.  @terencedavid3146  "Replicate your hypothesis for true scientific credibility" You're demanding we do something that is done routinely as if it would be unusual for scientists. I'm curious what FE'ers think happens in labs. "Get ready for your experimental covid vaccine" How many tests need to be run prior to release to satisfy you that tests have been run? "it's not my critical analytical skills...it's my early warning bullshit detecting system" So like all the rest, you "just know" but can't explain anything or point out any particular details to justify your conclusion. How novel.
    1
  2313.  @terencedavid3146  So the know-all knows no answers and settles for a rant....
    1
  2314. They see the sun rise & set and move at a constant angular velocity. They can see the stars rotate. They can watch lunar eclipses. Why can’t they produce explanations to fit what they observe?
    1
  2315.  @avatarmiope  You wouldn’t be the first to say so; would you like to be thd first to say what this explanation actually is or are you going to fall back in “ask somebody else” like rest do?
    1
  2316.  @borikero1 I pointed out the natural phenomenon thatt led the ancient Greeks to deduce that the earth is a sphere. You haven’t provide the FE’er explanations yet. Why not try?
    1
  2317. That the sun rises & sets is “astronomical oseudoscience”?
    1
  2318.  @rajarsi6438  What's on top of a globe?
    1
  2319.  @rajarsi6438  What qualifies as underneath?
    1
  2320.  @rajarsi6438  Relative to what?
    1
  2321.  @rajarsi6438  Simple enough question to someone who thinks his mind has absolute clarity. Which point on the globe is the top, which point is the bottom and why?
    1
  2322.  @rajarsi6438  How much does it move around and why? Is the a general area in which the top exists or could it be anywhere? The Earth’s shape does not change perceptibly.
    1
  2323. What valid points? Travel south of the equator and see everything revolve around the south pole. What stops anything falling off?
    1
  2324.  @DanielSabrel  "I will have to travel to space" The folks south of the equator on Earth's surface, not in space, and see celestial objects revolving around the south pole. If you look up at the stars in the southern hemisphere they are clearly revolving around the south pole; any planets visible are clearly moving in the same direction as them.
    1
  2325.  @DanielSabrel  They'll rotate at the same rate as they do in the north; one rotation every 24hrs. If you can observe that rate in the north then you can observe it in the south. I think we're having a misdirected conversation; my original comment was directed at the OP.
    1
  2326.  @DanielSabrel  I shouldn't worry - it's taken this long for me to realise you aren't the OP. 🙁
    1
  2327. His premise was that the globe was substantially smaller than measured and that would put India within sailing distance. That the Earth was a globe was long accepted.
    1
  2328.  @therealzilch  Opposite observation: I’ve never understand why people want a bun with hole in it 🤔
    1
  2329. You realise that scientists have kids?
    1
  2330.  @radzewicz  Evidence?
    1
  2331.  @radzewicz  You're assuming knowledge is static. This is the early 2020's with 30 years advance on then. That was a projection made with the limited knowledge of the time and it was assumed then that the change would be a near uniform rise across the globe regardless of local climate. Today we have better understanding of the nuances in climate; it's not difficult to find examples where little change has occurred locally but that is not evidence that there has been no change everywhere.
    1
  2332.  @radzewicz  Unfortunately YT won't let me see the comment I replied to. As I recall it criticised a prediction made 30 years ago that has not come to pass. It's recurrent assertion that a historic prediction based on limited evidence being wrong means current predictions must also be wrong; that is based on an unrecognised assumption that knowledge doesn't increase. If you are aware that knowledge does increase then why would you be criticising a historic prediction as if represented current knowledge? You are claiming expertise on the subject? If not, then what is the basis of your criticism if you haven't engaged in the relevant scientific research or put forward any evidence or a rational argument?
    1
  2333.  @radzewicz  No, I am saying the prediction was based on limited knowledge. You are again assuming knowledge is static and has not increased since then.
    1
  2334. How far do you think cannonballs are fired?
    1
  2335. The Law of Just Does 😊
    1
  2336. "the big farming industry is telling you never eat again never drink water again" ?
    1
  2337.  @dandamurayettey9227  You're making the claim so you have to provide the evidence to back it. You said you had it so produce it.
    1
  2338.  @dandamurayettey9227  Your only evidence is something that "just gotta be there"? Why can no FE'er produce any evidence of an edge, dome, ice-wall, infinite plane, only it just gotta be there?
    1
  2339.  @peacedreamerable  What good points? Would you listen if someone explained to you why they aren’t? I told you how you can verify the shape if Earth for yourself.
    1
  2340.  @peacedreamerable  They appear out of the way on a flat projection; projecting a curved surface onto a flat creates distortion. On the globe the routes are direct lines between A & B.
    1
  2341.  @peacedreamerable  I strongly suggest that you set aside Thinking and try thinking. Figure out for yourself how you can check what I listed for yourself and consider for yourself how the sun & stars would appear from the surfacd of different shape Earths.
    1
  2342.  @peacedreamerable  He would have been an employee of the university if he had so his credentials would have been asked for and he would not have been allowed to "stand in" for anybody, whatever their recommendation. Lecturers are also actively involved in research; university activity is not limited to teaching. He would also have to been able to answer questions put to him and even undergrads ask questions that require detailed understanding of the subject. You consider thinking to be something that you are just told about and therefore can dismiss? No wonder you're so hooked on Thinking.
    1
  2343.  @peacedreamerable  Your rationale is not that you need to think to arrive at valid conclusions but simply that wishing to believe the facts are different makes you right and well-informed? Somehow I have great difficulty believing you would recognise "anomalies, misinformation, disinformation and downright lies"
    1
  2344. Do you want to produce this evidence? Accelerating upwards was the previous explanation provided by FE’ers.
    1
  2345.  @Nehner  You’ve forgotten or just think FE’ers have been saying the same things since the 19th century?
    1
  2346.  @jordanzlotolow8254 You think the umbra & penumbra that is demonstrable with any shadow don’t exist? What do you think the effect is exactly?
    1
  2347.  @aleksitjvladica.  A vague “know-how” is not an answer.
    1
  2348.  @stuartd9741 Any yet water came out of the hydrants…
    1
  2349. While there are some very vocal vegans or religious people your assertion is not generally true of veganism or religion. The desire to be “in the know” does seem to be a driving factor in flat earth and, yes, the gurus make money from it.
    1
  2350.  @DoctorMindbender  "I'm making no claim regarding the shape of the Earth" Reread point 2. You said she presented a strawman, an assertion that means you know or believe you know the FE model despite FE'ers being unable or unwilling to produce it. If you think you know the correct FE model and want us to criticise the correct FE model then do everybody a favour and produce it. IN the meantime all we can do is critique what each FE'ers actually claims. You can determine the Earth's shape with sticks & shadows and some travel. You can also observe the motion of the sun, the existence of calculable horizons (8"/mile^2 is NOT the correct equation) and two celestial poles.
    1
  2351.  @anthonylakich1727  I asked you a question; you haven’t answered. The first vaccine was tested on two cohorts of 30,000 people; why do you consider that to be no testing? Produce evidence of prople dying or being left sterile.
    1
  2352. It started with Rowbotham, mid-19th century. Nothing mysterious. FEers don’t seem to grasp the concept of measurement. They are so hooked on personal observation that they can’t think beyond eyeballing.
    1
  2353.  @gonzo5795  How does gravity work on a FE when it would pull the FE into a sphere? Why would a sphere lack gravity?
    1
  2354. Some are genuine, some are trolls, some are moneymakers; they don’t all fit in a single category.
    1
  2355.  @DjTatty  If the light does not travel away from its source then it remains at point A. If goes anywhere else then it is travelling. If surroundings are illuminated then light is travelling away from the source. A ceiling light illuminates the surroundings by the travelling light reflecting of the walls & objects within the room. Some is deflected by interaction with air molecules (or dust) en route. The laser beam does not stop since the light consumes no energy while travelling. The beam is weakened through gradual deflection of the photons by interaction with the air molecules plus the dissipation that comes from the beam widening reducing the intensity per unit area.
    1
  2356.  @DjTatty  An object acts according to the forces acting upon it. When there are both gravitational and magnetic forces acting upon it then the object responds to both, not the exclusion of one. It is not breaking the law of gravity. Creating a clock did not create time any more than rulers created distance. The metric system dates from 1795 AD.
    1
  2357.  @DjTatty  Youre saying time & distance don’t exist while using them in your examples. Do they or don’t they?
    1
  2358.  @RobbiePNoCap The whole surface is mapped and confirms only to a sphere. We are still waiting on FEers to produce their Real Map.
    1
  2359.  @RobbiePNoCap  Why would any vehicle need to take curvature into account on a globe and why exactly?
    1
  2360.  @RobbiePNoCap Answer the question I asked.
    1
  2361.  @The.Original.Hossman  His answer was to ignore the globe stipulation by declaring the Earth to be flat. That doesn’t answer the question in terms of a globe.
    1
  2362.  @RobbiePNoCap  That you can’t answer a simple question inducates your lack of understanding.
    1
  2363.  @The.Original.Hossman Pseudoscience? He’s fhe one arguing that cars would become airborne on a globe. He’s not answering the question because he knows he’ll look an absolute fool.
    1
  2364.  @RobbiePNoCap Explain be how you think cars would become airborne.
    1
  2365.  @RobbiePNoCap  “Cars din’t fly” Which is why he balked at answering the question; your line of reasoning would have required you to assert that.
    1
  2366.  @The.Original.Hossman  That was where his line of argument was leading; it’s why he balked at answering my question.
    1
  2367. What is mysterious about a new moon exactly? The light source is behind it.
    1
  2368. What do you think we do in labs?
    1
  2369. Specifically referring to the very slight deviation from a perfect sphere.
    1
  2370.  @jdubdoubleu  Three people just told you what Tyson actually said; why do you think what Tyson said would differ from what Tyson said?
    1
  2371. How do you think vaccines really work?
    1
  2372. ​ @tristanteague  Objects move down because down is the direction objects move in is not an explanation for up & down. Molecular bonds have a range of less than a nanometre; they aren't going to explain attraction over millimetres, let alone millions of kilometers.
    1
  2373. ​ @tristanteague  "NASA's manual of aeronautics" Do any of you Thinkers ever think to check if that assertion is true? "if the runway is moving away from the pilot at upwards of 1,000 miles an hour. Conservation of momentum. A plane retains the eastwards momentum when it leaves the ground the same way a thrown ball continues to move when it leaves your hand. Not a difficult concept but seemingly totally beyond the Thinkers.
    1
  2374.  @tristanteague  The plane's engines modify the conserved momentum. Airspeed is determine as relative to the Earth not an absolute frame of reference; both the plane & Earth rotate eastwards, the plane's engines merely provide a difference relative to the EArth's surface. Put another way: if you think take-off magically nullifies existing momentum then you need to have a plausible mechanism how.
    1
  2375.  @tristanteague  Gravity was confirmed to exist by the Cavendish experiment, reproduced countless times with similar results. What exactly counts as scientific method to you if not scientific method?
    1
  2376.  @tristanteague  "You can look it up it's not hard, isn't that my original comment; do you're own research" We already have; you need to do it rather than take someone's word for it. "Is that what you wanted me to understand?" Do you understand that when you throw a ball it continues moving when it leaves your hand? The plane continues to move eastwards with the Earth; its airspeed is the difference in speed between Earth & plane, i.e., speed relative to Earth. Airspeed is not an absolute measure of velocity compared to an absolute frame of reference.
    1
  2377.  @AnOfficialYouTubeProfile  🤭 Oops
    1
  2378. What do you think we do in labs?
    1
  2379. Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses.
    1
  2380. Motion of the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude and two celestial poles - explain how they work on a FE.
    1
  2381.  @cabbagefart7432  Meaning nothing to you does not mean it has no meaning.
    1
  2382. Still waiting in any of you to present any if this science.
    1
  2383.  @dominiccharvet546  What have you done to test space and the distance to stars?
    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.  @thomasspeed3390  It's doable but you're trying to express it to someone who is unfamiliar with the equations and how equations can be typed; the handwritten format is much clearer for that purpose. Is that clearer? Personal conversations are not anecdotal when you are the one having the conversations. As I said, I draw the conclusions on an individual basis from the arguments each one presents; I don't presume them to be stupid but stupidity (total or selective) is what I encounter each time. I suggest you try talking with some FE'ers.
    1
  2386.  @LordSlag Depends on which form of English someone speaks.
    1
  2387.  @LordSlag  Yes it does. You are aware that the pronunciation of many words, including scientific terms, varies between different forms if English?
    1
  2388.  @LordSlag  In British English the emphasis is on the second syllable, in US English it’s on the first. You can look it up for yourself.
    1
  2389.  @LordSlag  I’m a British scientist working in the US; I’m used to varying pronunciations of technical terms, including trachea.
    1
  2390. It's why the notion has been dumped in recent years; it dawned on them that the velocity would be forever increasing. Now they are claiming density makes things move (though they haven't grasped that F=ma so they also loftily deny it is a force) or that matter exhibits spontaneous motion or that it is magnetism or electrostatic attraction (regardless of the absence or presence of either). They can't agree on anything; they just agree that they are agreed.
    1
  2391. There’s opinion and there’s fact. The shape of the Earth is measurable & measured; it’s a fact. Someone expounding that observable reality is wrong in favour of half-baked claims is being willfully stupid, not expressing an opinion.
    1
  2392. Cliff Clavin was the in-house entertainment for Cheers; now he’s a social media guru.
    1
  2393. That finally dawned on them. Nowadays it is density being force (no explanation how), spontaneous motion, magnetism, electrostatic attraction or “droppity”.
    1
  2394.  @ramonortiz7462  "I've stated nothing...I've deeee-bunked baal earth" A lovely demonstration of the FE'er philosophy of ignorance being wisdom.
    1
  2395.  @jordanemede  All you have produced is the usual canard of ignoring elevation & refraction and using the wrong maths to insist the horizon is much nearer than in actuality. So many FE’ers agree that the higher you the further you can see but also swear it has no effect. Meanwhile none of you can use a few sticks to take basic measurements but still prattle on about having the evidence none of you can produce. You do know the geocentric model was based in a spherical Earth?
    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.  @bmanmcfly  a. The exact mechanism of gravity is ongoing research; it is not going to alter the fact that the phenomenon exists. b. Closed ecosystem. It is open in the sense that light & meteors enter it, gas & space probes can escape it; there is no mysterious container surrounding the Earth. It is closed in the sense of discrete atmosphere; we need life support to leave it. c. The centre of the perceived universe will be wherever the observer is. A little green man standing on Arcturus Three will see Arcturus Three as the centre of his universe. d. The debate is the exactitude of the measurements; that the earth is spheroid is determined.
    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.  @bmanmcfly  Velocities greater than lightspeed are due to the expansion of spacetime between us & object.
    1
  2400. The majority of the experts saying it couldn’t happen do not have expertise in the structure of the Twin Towers. Read The Relativity of Truth by Isaac Asimov. He describes the process of scientific advancement.
    1
  2401. Only Polaris being at a wide range if elevations simultaneously.
    1
  2402.  @Myketew Do none of you bother to check what that court case was about or what the judge’s ruling actually was?
    1
  2403.  @michaeldodge735  1. Level =/= flat. Curvature of the water surface is quite measurable. 2. Only when you miscalculate the distance to the horizon. 3. Only if you cherry pick which flights you look at; still waiting on a FE'er explanation for direct flights between southern continents that are beyond the maximum range and speed of airliners. 4. Those would be the laser tests that ignore refraction, beam dispersion & angle error and eyeball distances?
    1
  2404.  @michaeldodge735  1. Is that the evidence that you all claim to possess but never produce or evidence as in snakeoil salesman? 2. Excerpt we have no problems pointing out the errors in what you say while telling you how you can prove curvature for yourself. 3. Given that you all come up with the same claims, yes, we've seen it.
    1
  2405.  @michaeldodge735  A claim that would have substance if only ANY of you could say what this information is but you all just keep repeating the same ignorance over and over and over and over and over and over. If you have conclusive information then have the guts to say what it is.
    1
  2406.  @michaeldodge735  And we explained how those points are incorrect. If you have The Real Evidence you all keep claiming to possess them produce it.
    1
  2407.  @michaeldodge735  Can’t produce the Real Evidence - what a surprise....
    1
  2408.  @michaeldodge735  I asked for the Real Evidence, not the usual crap. Four minutes in and he can't figure out why colours have changed in photography over the years (clue: dyes, wavelength sensitivities), thinks his ears would be able to detect one revolution per day and a constant velocity, has the UN flag as evidence and still can't come up with a working map. Explain how the sun maintains a constant angular diameter & angular velocity and rises & sets when the FE models all claim the angular diameter & angular evcloty varies throughout the day and the sun doesn't come within 20 degres of the horizon.
    1
  2409.  @costakeith9048  You think Godel was misleading people for his own ends? That you think his work great simply because you are the mindless fodder that accepts his statements without thought?
    1
  2410. She didn’t mock them and the video was about the reasoning process.
    1
  2411.  @airvlad777  What to think would be offensive; how to think is teaching somebody to use tools.
    1
  2412. Has it occurred to you that the quality and expertise of teachers varies?
    1
  2413. Commercial planes don’t fly high enough to see a curved horizon. The plane windows are curved to distribute the stress from the pressure difference and that affects what yiu see. The FE evidence is “it looks flat” since they have no concept of scale.
    1
  2414.  @flayman22  You need to be up above 100,000ft and have the cockpit’s wide angle view.
    1
  2415. You can’t have a valid experiment that relies on ignoring key factors.
    1
  2416.  @buckaroobonzai2909  Explain how you think ignoring a key factor makes it inconsequential.
    1
  2417.  @danncorbit3623  It takes more than one observation or experiment for a hypothesis to qualify as a theory. One experiment simply says that it probably works under those conditions; qualifying as a theory requires extensive testing and (errors aside) and the need to make consistent predictions in all circumstances tested such that predictions for as yet untested circumstances can be dependable. We do have the bad habit of using vernacular meaning of theory which does confuse things. What you quoted was a law; it’s a formula that describes a phenomenon but it does not offer any explanation for why it happens that way. Going back to your OP: people get irritated when “it’s just a theory” is used to simply ignore a scientific theory; such claimants don’t understand the difference between the scientific and vernacular meanjngs.
    1
  2418.  @EL_mann  You all claim to have the answers so why can’t any of you provide them?
    1
  2419.  @EL_mann  You’ve posted the same comment countless times; who are you to accuse other people of being robots?
    1
  2420.  @EL_mann  As in actual scientific experiments where methodology and accurate measurement are paramount or do you mean the excited FE'er "If we use the wrong maths and ignore key factors we'll get the real answers!!!!"?
    1
  2421.  @niklassarri108  How does the motion of the sun support a FE? Why can’t FE’ers ever explain it to me?
    1
  2422. Read The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov. It’s available online.
    1
  2423. Universities are not limited to science and gender is one area of sociology & psychology.
    1
  2424.  @emmepombar3328  You don't think the sexual differences that permeate the body's physiology would affect the brain?
    1
  2425. To reproduce the research you need to understand the content of the paper; they don’t understand and conclude it’s just gobbledegook and thus can be ignored.
    1
  2426. Binary thinking; they can’t handle more than two possibilities.
    1
  2427. GPS they put down to a network of land radio towers and deny it works at sea. No explanation for weather satellites and insist communications is all wireless & cable (conflating most and all). There is/isn’t an ice wall, is/isn’t a dome and there are/aren’t land beyond each - it depends on who yiu ask though most insist they are all in agreement.
    1
  2428. Why does anything have weight? Where does the firce come from to make objects fall and why in a consistent direction? Why would increasing velocity while falling not be acceleration?
    1
  2429.  @enriquerosado8184  Down is towards the centre of the sphere; a sinole concept but way beyond your brain.
    1
  2430.  @mooners40  "mercury is visible at night" Its orbit takes it up to 10 degrees away from the sun; it can be visible just before sunrise or just after sunset. That its orbit lies between the sun & Earth does not mean that Mercury is always been sun & Earth. Simple enough concept. A selenhelion eclipse is due to refraction on the opposing horizons making both sun & moon appear a little higher in the sky than they actually are. Viewed from further eastwards or westwards they are each at the correct angle.
    1
  2431.  @mooners40  What determines the length & direction of a stick’s shadow if not the position of the sun in the sky?
    1
  2432.  @jameswhite1910  Youre conflating curiosity with high IQ and assuming The Government (which one?) has total control over information, including observable reality. Most people aren’t interested in how we know the shape of the Earth because it so well established, not because they lack IQ. FE’ers make the same basic errors in reasoning no matter how many times those errors are pointed out to them. Many insist (as you are doing) that there is somebody who has it all figured out but they never say who it is or where the explanations can be found, just keep talking about their gurus’ videos & books that rely on their ignorance & incredulity. It doesn’t take much effort to find out how the Earth was deduced to be a globe from observation & deduction over two millennia ago. It doesn’t much effort to duplicate those observations. You can track the angular velocity of the sun with stick & shadow (hence Scott’s question). However the most common FE’er attempt is declaring an object becoming too far away to see somehow disproves that the line of sight can blocked. If you think FE’ers are brilliant people then give some examples of this brilliance.
    1
  2433.  @stevenpoynter9982  FE insist it doesn't approach the horizon to be able rise & set. Make your mind up.
    1
  2434.  @stevenpoynter9982  Refusing to accept proof doesn’t invalidate it; you need to rebut it. If your guru has given you the answers to my questions then you should have no problem explaining. Try doing so instead of heading straight into “ask someone else”.
    1
  2435.  @stevenpoynter9982  “Flat” with curvature measurable by any Tom, Dick or Harry with as little as sticks & shadows. Explain a blue surface could function as a “blue screen” when it has a prominent white grid on it. Explain why a training pool precludes the existence of the ISS. Explain how weather balloons preclude the existence of satellites. You profess to be in the enlightened minority with the knowledge, the insight, the understanding, so answer the questions being asked.
    1
  2436.  @stevenpoynter9982  You’re referring to the spoof documentary “Convex Earth”. The title ought to be a give away. You realise every Tom, Dick or Harry includes yourself? You would deny your own results? Just answer the questions. You all claim to be able to do it so what’s the problem?
    1
  2437.  @3DGamer2B  You think knowledge is evil and one should embrace ignorance & stupidity in the name of God?
    1
  2438.  @3DGamer2B  Let me guess - the evidence is only valid if you personally have tested it?
    1
  2439.  @3DGamer2B  Not when said "wisdom" is based on willful ignorance and lack of thought. You mean a selenelion eclipse where the sun & moon are on opposite horizons with respect to the observer and atmospheric refraction makes both appear slightly higher in the sky than they actually are. No mystery, just the willingness & ability to comprehend multiple factors.
    1
  2440.  @3DGamer2B  How do you think the presence of the moon explains the near 24hr sunlight in Ushaia and none in Alaska?
    1
  2441.  @3DGamer2B  Unfortunately FE'er are very reluctant to look & think beyond a few very small details. Still waiting on any proof the collected moon rocks are fake; "just gotta be" is not evidence. Rocks were distributed throughout labs worldwide and verified to have lunar origin. The Earth was deduced to be a globe c. 500BC. NASA was founded in 1958AD. You need to explain how you think NASA was influencing the ancient Greeks.
    1
  2442.  @3DGamer2B  Unfortunately FE'er are very reluctant to look & think beyond a few very small details. Still waiting on any proof the collected moon rocks are fake; "just gotta be" is not evidence. Rocks were distributed throughout labs worldwide and verified to have lunar origin. The Earth was deduced to be a globe c. 500BC. NASA was founded in 1958AD. You need to explain how you think NASA was influencing the ancient Greeks.
    1
  2443.  @3DGamer2B  The idea of zeteticism is that you decide on what you want to demonstrate, use “experiments” that will apparently support your desired conclusion and avoid like the plague everything that readily disproves it. The Earth was deduced to be a globe 2500 years ago and fully mapped (including shape) by the 19th century. NASA, formed in 1958, is irrelevant to that.
    1
  2444.  @3DGamer2B  The Lucifer telescope is owned by the university of Arizona, not the Vatican. How difficult do you find it to check that?
    1
  2445.  @BresciGaetano  She explains why their reasoning is faulty; she doesn't mock them.
    1
  2446. They frequently presume that if something is present then should be able to see it; they don’t consider what would be visible.
    1
  2447. The plane has eastwards momentum while on the ground; that momentum is conserved when it takes off, not magically lost. The plane’s engines modify the momentum; they do not replace it. Plane, atmosphere & Earth all rotate eastwards. Climate gives rise to air currents at higher altitudes. California to Boston takes advantage of them.
    1
  2448.  @eklektikTubb  "Yes, that is what they tell us." I was pointing out that you aren't limited to "what they are telling us"; you have the option of looking up the original research with methods, data & conclusions laid out for you. However since you wish to believe there is "satanic motivation" for research I doubt very much you are interested in accuracy.
    1
  2449.  @eklektikTubb  History isn't science. You can read in detail how the sun's temperature is measured and, no, it is not limited to one person's work or part of a mass conspiracy on the part of the evil scientists...
    1
  2450.  @eklektikTubb  Go to the history section of a library and you’ll find it devoted to human civilisation. If you wish to communicate clearly then you need to be specific. You would prefer to assume a conspiracy? Ask whether the methodology is sound and how consistent the data between parties. What do you envisage as changing the light between here & the sun?
    1
  2451.  @eklektikTubb  “I don’t go for arguments lime etc” What the heck are you babbling about? Arxiv. If you want to know then you do the legwork.
    1
  2452.  @eklektikTubb  I understand; you’re babbling. Arxiv is continually accumulating research papers in real-time all with peoples names on, all laying out the methodology, data & reasoning. If you feel that doesn’t infirm if who, what, where, when & how then you are plagued by distrust, not possessing wondrous insight.
    1
  2453.  @eklektikTubb  You haven’t figured out what my profession probably is? While you confuse scepticism with distrust, in science your reputation is dependent on you being honest; when you lay out the details of your work in a manner to ensure reproducibility you’d better be darn sure it is reproducible. We do not require a stamp from a Great Witness.
    1
  2454.  @eklektikTubb  Great Witness: someone who insists no evidence is valid unless they personally have verified it by witnessing the collection. That is pretty much what you are saying. Papers on Arxiv display, defend & demonstrate; all scientific research papers do. That isn’t enough to meet your demands of display, defend & demonstrate. It is routine to be sceptical in science; you’re saying that doesn’t qualify as scepticism, that we are just following the herd. You are claiming that you lack of knowledge & understanding about a subject, eg, astronomy, is insightful perception of the subject rather than just ignorance. Whether you realise it or not, you are advancing an ignorance is knowledge argument dressed up as scepticism. My advice is that you actually learn about a subject before lecturing people upon it. In colloquial terms, don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
    1
  2455.  @eklektikTubb  Great - the “scientists don’t check anything” blather. What do you think occurs in science education beyond school? I’m not prepared to go looking for seminal papers in another branch of science. In my own science I need to know how & why a technique works BEFORE I use it so I know it’s reliability & limitations and that it us suitable for what I am doing. That you are not au fait with research does not mean that I am not. We do not have a shared mind as so many people seem to assume.
    1
  2456.  @eklektikTubb  “Scientists don’t check anything” is a common assumption, refers to scientists supposedly not checking formulae are correct and methods appropriate and instead just “following the herd” in doing what they’ve been told to do. Unless you wish to invoke a conspiracy in which whole branches of science have secretly thrown over basic principles then it is what you are arguing. I suggest you watch Professor Dave’s “Destroying Flat Earth without using science Part 4” which discusses the practicality of such a system.
    1
  2457.  @eklektikTubb  I’m criticising you for drawing conclusions based on what you don’t know about. Measurements are made using multiple techniques by multiple parties and everything being reproduced by other parties. It’s the same in every branch of science. When multiple parties are successfully reproducing each others work it is not a matter of faith to conclude that the research is accurate. The only argument you’ve advanced for science being unreliable and based on faith is that you personally haven’t checked it.
    1
  2458. As with all FE'ers, she ignored the elevation of her position while looking.
    1
  2459. FE’ers are no “mostly scientific”; they assume a conclusion, eschew all evidence to the contrary, make ill-founded claims as to how what they observe supports rather than contradicts their conclusion and spend a good amount of time telling people how intelligent & insightful they are being. Tyson is referring to those who have leapt down the rabbithole, not those who are looking down it; you shouldn’t give validity to fantasists.
    1
  2460.  @tombass3288  UAE225 / EK225
    1
  2461. The ancient Greeks presumed it when they determined the Earth was a sphere; the Earth was at the centre of the universe in the Ptolemaic model. Both predate the Church.
    1
  2462.  @andrewhotston983  They were looking ahead; government are supposed to be proactive, not reactive. If much of the country (an archipelago) is underwater by 2100 then there's not a lot they can do about it retrospectively. Doubling the capacity of the airport now increases their economy and gives them more money to handle counter-measures. Assuming something won't happen if you ignore it is dumb.
    1
  2463. It dates from 500BC, preceding the Middle Ages by a millennium. 2500 years on we are still waiting for FEers to explain observable reality instead of simply denying it.
    1
  2464.  @phillipking6153 By using three or more triangles. Like all FE’ers you making the fundamental error of presuming a flat surface when supposedly trying to distinguish between flat & curved.
    1
  2465.  @phillipking6153  Same maths as for two triangles.
    1
  2466.  @phillipking6153  As I said, you’re presuming a flat Earth, failing to consider what happens on a sphere and you haven’t considered what happens when there are three obssrvations points.
    1
  2467. That’s cynics, not sceptics.
    1
  2468.  @rob_patrick1  Sceptics will accept the answers & evidence, cynics will dismiss them out of hand do they can cling to their conspiracy theory.
    1
  2469.  @alexanderhugestrand  The average confused citizen doesn’t understand the sheer volume of data or how narrow the focus of individual research papers.
    1
  2470.  @alexanderhugestrand  Sorry, not well and my head is swimming. Most people don't realise the sheer volume of data obtained from scientific research or how specific individual papers are and some assume that a handful of papers is everything known about that subject or that a particular paper disproves everything. It's not a matter of data being made available to the public (much of it is) but the public appreciating how much exists, how in depth the understanding needs to be to gain valid answers, how narrow the scope of each paper is and (particularly FE'ers) how detailed experimental design needs to be. Your "average confused citizen" is seeing a few papers being waved around and being told that some point is under serious dispute when in the large picture it isn't. I'm not qualified to comment on Dowdye but I doubt he has disproved GR when the cruz of the argument is a claim that everybody has been getting the data wrong.
    1
  2471.  @alexanderhugestrand  YT did delete my second message :-( They see it as advertising despite Google being the parent company. I was suggesting using the scholar option on their search. I hope that is cryptic enough to get through the filter. The other alternative is….
    1
  2472. You don’t know what the regulations are or how they are enforced therefore you just know they don’t exist and aren’t enforced?
    1
  2473. Do you have any personal evidence that it is poisonous?
    1
  2474. Conclusions in science are based on the accumulated evidence available at that time. Time passes, research continues, more data accumulates, conclusions are revised if the additional data warrants it. The vaccine was found to stop transmission in the trials. Once in use, more people had the vaccine and it became evident that some could still be infectious though for a much shorter time. With global warming it became evident with time that though the mean trend was warmer there could be significant variation in what occurred in individual regions. Would you prefer we dogmatically stuck to something?
    1
  2475.  @Bobsutubes  If my reply doesn’t show up this time then let me know.
    1
  2476. Upward acceleration replaced upwards motion and was itself replaced by density being a force. None work.
    1
  2477. The original idea was the Earth moving "upwards" at a constant velocity which became "upwards" acceleration which was in turn displaced by "density force". FE'ers do seem to live very much in the moment so they don't seem to understand that there was a change.
    1
  2478.  @Ben.DWater  Motion if the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changjng with latitude, two celestial poles - what are your explanations?
    1
  2479.  @jasonborne5359  Wouldn’t surprise me though the joke is that constant velocity wouldn’t explain gravity’s effect.
    1
  2480. Ignorance is not stupid; we are all (hopefully) continually learning. Willful ignorance is stupid.
    1
  2481. They think maths is part of the conspiracy and have difficulty with the concept of measurement.
    1
  2482.  @David_John  "I can not demonstrate 2 people stood on a ball, one at the top and one at the bottom.. therefore I can not say I have evidence of the earth being a ball." Your errors are assuming that is the only way to test the shape of the Earth and that a small mass can have same gravity as a large mass. You can however measure curvature of the Earth and deduce the shape. "all you've done is joined the debate saying "troll, troll, troll"" He asked you to demonstrate how you think light in the north means the Earth is flat. You haven't answered.
    1
  2483.  @David_John  If the sun had not gone below a horizon then you would be able to see the sun directly. You saw a glow in the sky after the sun had set; you were no longer viewing it directly. You need to explain how a glow in the sky meant you were viewing the sun directly. Is that clearer? "Have you ever observed 2 people stood on a ball" I told you what your erroneous assumptions were in posing that questions. Did you not read what I wrote or understand it? "How big does the ball have to be..." Large enough to have sufficient gravity to keep people attached and far away enough away from larger objects so that their gravity doesn't pull the people off. Depends on where you are standing in France; elevation & refraction are key factors that have to be taken into account. Were you using the 8"/mile^2 equation that ignores both? The shortest distance across the Channel is about 20 miles which, if viewed standing at the water's edge would give you a drop of about 150ft, a number that quickly diminishes with even modest elevation.
    1
  2484.  @David_John  Repeat: [150ft] quickly diminishes with even modest elevation. FE predicts that the sun wouldn't come within 20 degrees of the horizon and would have an angular diameter & velocity that changed with the course of the day. You've watched a sun retain a constant angular and set behind the horizon are claiming a glow means the sun is above the horizon. You need to explain how your interpretation of the glow means the sun is still above the horizon you watched it set behind. Fill your cup to the very brim and the water will have convex curve; look at the raindrop sitting on the window; there's no doubt that water can curve. On a 25,000 mile circumference there is 1 degree of curvature per 69 miles; you're asking why we don't see the curvature in line with a 25 mile circumference. Where is the bottom of such a globe? Down will be towards the centre, just as it is on Earth. You're envisaging a globe as a basketball being held above the Earth, with a billion times the gravitational of the basketball, and thinking that the Earth pulling a toy soldier off the basketball means nothing could stick to the Earth. In answer to your question you would need an object at least the size of an asteroid which would still have weak enough gravity for someone to jump away from it.
    1
  2485.  @KangenAlec  Tilt of the rotational axis away from the perpendicular relative to the sun.
    1
  2486.  @David_John  What defines the top & bottom of the ball that you want people to stand on?
    1
  2487.  @David_John  To "put it on the ground" requires the Earth to be there. The Earth will have a billion times the gravitational pull of your ball. You're placing people on your ball, watching them head straight for the Earth and claiming you aren't observing attraction.
    1
  2488.  @safffff1000 How do you force them to engage in discussion?
    1
  2489.  @HereIamG  The entire conversation with Byrd concerned his expedition to Antarctica that explored a very limited area; he was explicitly referring to the remaining unexplored area. Circulating misquotes are not going to change that. There aren’t any no-fly zones. There are regular flight routes that pass over the Arctic Ocean. Antarctica doesn’t lie between any international airports; there is no need to fly over it. It’s environment is such that there is a significant risk if the plane going down and there would essentially be no help coming if it did. You wouldn’t try flying over the magnetic poles since the magnetic field is toroidal (which is reference to a hole comes from, not a physical hole) and the navigational instruments can get confused. As far as I’m aware there are no banned caves. Pot holing is a risky activity; the equipment is not for the hell if it and people still die. There’s no evidence of aliens; assuming something can only have been caused or built by little green men is not evidence. The U in UFO stands for unidentified; the objects are unidentified.
    1
  2490.  @HereIamG  Byrd's interview is on Youtube; watch the unedited versions that are solely the interview. They are complete, not snipped. The ISS cameras don't operate 24hrs a day nor does the ISS travel over the poles; there isn't a consistent pattern of them being switched off over particular locations. The speed at which the ISS travels and the lack of resolution in the cameras wouldn't make them much use anyway. UFO's remain exactly that - unidentified. That videos have been released recently does not identify them in any way. "organisms that can fase in and out of our reality by changing to higher frequency" What is that supposed to mean? Do you have any evidence? "There are banned caves that are restricted by governments" Where? "the sphinx are still not fully revealed" It has been for over a century. "seen a video of someone recording himself' Did he provide any evidence? "Please connect the dots for yourself now' If you run a line across a polka-dot sheet it will join some dots up; it would not be true to say there are a line of dots across the sheet. Humans are good at seeing patterns that don't exist and instincts mean we can readily jump to conclusions; neither prove anything. You need to be able to ask if the proposed idea is plausible and well-founded and what reason there is (not might be) for discounting the mundane explanations.
    1
  2491. Cynics not sceptics; the latter are prepared to listen to evidence.
    1
  2492.  @emoticorny  A sceptic would want to know what the basis of the conclusion was and want to check the validity of the evidence. FE'er are far more inclined to cynicism (no comment on what their beliefs are concerning Cynicism) and simply assume anything & everything are lies and seemingly consider "different" to be the only criterion as to a claim's veracity.
    1
  2493.  @pvcrouter  Try SpaceX. I did point out that their cameras are for recording equipment performance not entertainment. If you want a continuous video from one camera then you will probably have to ask them.
    1
  2494. You think your phone/computer is immoral & evil?
    1
  2495. Upwards acceleration is what preceded “density force” and was itself preceded by upwards velocity. Explain how something that isn’t a force could br a force and why act in a consistent direction. You all supposedly know so it should be easy.
    1
  2496. See the DIRTH’s debate with Prof Dave.
    1
  2497. Round is applicable to both 2D & 3D; it doesn't distinguish between them.
    1
  2498.  @DaKingof Why not just produce the Real Model?
    1
  2499.  @DaKingof  There’s nothing stopping them.
    1
  2500. Would people buy canned soup if they had doubts about its edibility?
    1
  2501. You still haven’t said how density can act as a force and why in a consistent direction. Electrostatic & magnetic forces are polar and vary between materials; if gravity is explained by them (and the density force that none of you explain) then why no repulsion and why no difference according to material?
    1
  2502.  @ronpapi9539  That was plain English, just beyond FE geniuses.
    1
  2503.  @ronpapi9539  As I’ve asked you umpteen times with no answer from you, how would being denser ir lighter than air generate the force needed to move something?
    1
  2504.  @ronpapi9539  No force, no movement. How do you propose it generates the force? If you think there is no force then how do you motion is achieved?
    1
  2505.  @scottessex952  "the stronger the luminosity the further the photons will.tave" What do you think stops the photons?
    1
  2506.  @scottessex952  How?
    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.  @jerrylong6238  "As she said herself there is more than one theory about flat earth" In which case there is no "real flat earth model" for her to be using, which makes your criticism moot. The modern FES was quite serious but the website/forum was overrun by those who found it amusing; it's now seen as a bogeyman on which to blame the weaknesses in the FE claims. It was a successor to the International Flat Earth Research Society, which was quite serious, which followed on from the Universal Zetetic Society, the original and quite serious FE society. The notion of the Earth accelerating upwards originated from there. They can't agree any on details other than the Earth being flat. Only some think that the Earth is "a small area of the universe that goes on forever." Only some think there a dome and the ones that do think so can't agree whether the sun & moon or inside or outside. There is no single model for anybody to use as an example; whatever is quoted from FE'ers will be hailed as incorrect by many FE'ers and part of the disinformation circulated by The Conspiracy.
    1
  2509.  @jerrylong6238  Her point is the failure of FEers reasoning, not a critique of any particular FE model. You’re falling into the FEer trap of demanding critique the Real Model rather than refute the points put to them.
    1
  2510.  @StephenJelinek  Do you think there is a limit to how bright an object can be?
    1
  2511.  @StephenJelinek  You just claimed the sun couldn’t have sufficient illumination; which is it?
    1
  2512.  @StephenJelinek  “God only knows” Have you heard of trigonometry and radar? What makes you think other people would be hampered by your ignorance?
    1
  2513.  @StephenJelinek  “we can be see beyond the curve” I realise the concept will be beyond your comprehension but all factors have ti be accounted for when calculating how far you can see, nit just one. FE predicts a viewing distance of several hundred miles with no dipping below the horizon. Explain how that reconciles with observable reality.
    1
  2514.  @StephenJelinek  Trigonometry & radar refers to measuring the distance to the sun; do you think they don’t work?
    1
  2515.  @StephenJelinek  You need to provide evidence. You should also try answering my question on why there is a horizon and why so close if the Earth is flat.
    1
  2516.  @StephenJelinek  How many miles high were the trees you climbed? What did you do to measure the horizon drop? How much were you expecting it to drop and why?
    1
  2517.  @StephenJelinek  That the knowledge has not been beamed into your head does not mean it is hidden. A photo of a mountain tip projecting above the horizon, taken from another mountain tip at dawn when atmospheric refraction would be greatest. It’s what you would expect to see on a globe when curvature, elevation & refraction are accounted for. FE’ers claim you should be able to see the whole mountain from sea level several hundred miles away.
    1
  2518.  @StephenJelinek  You’re back to maintaining ignorance is knowledge; that you don’t know how something works does not mean you know it doesn’t work. The distance to the sun is not immeasurable because you dint know how.
    1
  2519.  @StephenJelinek  Why would everybody have to do the experiment for the original experiments to have validity? Does everybody in the world have to visit the Taj Mahal for it to be recognised to exist? Wait until Venus is in half phase; that places it at right angles to the sun relative to Earth. Bounce a radio signal off Venus; the time delay enables calculation of the distance to Venus. Use that distance and the angle separation of Venus & sun to calculate the distance to the sun.
    1
  2520. Still waiting on those proofs…
    1
  2521.  @darts-multiverse You’re advocating belief over proof?
    1
  2522.  @darts-multiverse  I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t think; quite the opposite. I’m asking you for your rationale for why belief should be considered over fact. You do insist that you are thinking so you must have such rationale; what is it?
    1
  2523.  @flitsies  How can you use flood water as a barrier against flooding?
    1
  2524.  @flitsies  When the flood water is already there then it’s a bit late to be implementing a flood barrier.
    1
  2525.  @flitsies  I assume you mean utilising water from the source that is likely to cause flooding. Once the flooding has occurred them it’s too late to stop it, regardless of what you use.
    1
  2526.  @flitsies  I understand fine. However you are repeatedly phrasing it as using flood water; if the object is to preempt flooding then you would’t wait until the water was coming in your door to start filling bags. The company’s design is to minimise rolling and (I assume) enable stacking.
    1
  2527.  @flitsies  Which would require building & maintaining reservoirs of one type or another in case of flooding plus the subsequent routing & cleaning of the water, all of which would incur costs, and still not guarantee an even water supply.
    1
  2528. What’s his argument for how density(a ratio) can act as a force and why in a consistent direction?
    1
  2529.  @maxfan1591  I think it is a pejorative term about climate activists who glue themselves to walls etc.
    1
  2530. Earth was determined to be a globe around 500 BC, a spherical Earth being the center point of the Ptolemaic system c 100AD. Globe shaped maps were largely pointless until most has been mapped otherwise they would have had “here there be dragons” over much if the surface.
    1
  2531.  @rare_kumiko  Which is why I said approach rather than reach.
    1
  2532. Not scurvy but promoting claim that vitamins cured just about everything. He was prosecuted mostly by health authorities for false claims and illegal trials rather than sued for libel by drug companies.
    1
  2533.  @giorgiopattarini1110  You’re accusing us of wholesale fraud and your evidence is TV adverts?!
    1
  2534.  @SaebHalbouni DishTV ran a continuous live video of Earth for a few years.
    1
  2535. They also need to grasp the concept of measurement. Usually it comes down to either the sun is in the sky or it isn’t.
    1
  2536.  @1FeistyKitty  What are you saying actually happened in the vacuum chamber? Somebody passed out merely because there was low pressure outside their pressurised suit?
    1
  2537.  @1FeistyKitty  They don’t disprove a globe; the problem is that FEers stop thinking at simple gyroscopes.
    1
  2538.  @1FeistyKitty  I’m quite aware of the video. Answer my question.
    1
  2539.  @marktur44 Reread my comment. You’re overlooking scale, ie, the different steepness of a pressure gradient over small and large distances.
    1
  2540.  @AnOfficialYouTubeProfile  Kittyhawk was the place and the name sometimes gets appended to the plane, hence my usage. You are correct though.
    1
  2541. Nothing to do with the increase in technology making it feasible fir any Tom, Dick & Harry being able to post videos at minimal cost?
    1
  2542.  @dontanton7775  FE’ers have been around since the mid-19th century. Check Samuel Rowbotham. A FE is readily disprovable from observing the sun & stars. You don’t even have to measure or calculate anything. Somebody clinging to the idea is pretty much the epitome of idiotic denial, hence the comparisons.
    1
  2543. Only if they dip down otherwise they’ll simply become airborne.
    1
  2544. We keep answering their “big questions”, repeatedly. Keep asking them to produce their evidence for a FE, repeatedly; all they produce are ignorance & incredulity.
    1
  2545.  @TheOricine  None of the lunar eclipse videos I’ve looked have a “top down” orientation. The stars are not visible through the eclipsed region. Atmospheric pressure declines with increasing altitude; nowhere is there pressure adjacent to a vacuum. Gas will expand unless there is a force acting upon it, ie, gravity. No lab has a 100km ceiling or the ability to create gravity to test a pressure gradient over a shorter distance. How does assuming Cavendish wax truthful cause the centre of oscillation to change in reproductions of his experiment? How does an experiment finding and measuring attraction between masses not demonstrate attraction between masses?
    1
  2546.  @TheOricine  The moon remains opaque; you need to provide evidence if you think it becomes transparent. The lunar eclipse that I observed started from the "lower left". That there are abundant videos of lunar eclipses starting from anything but "top down" would suggest that eclipses do not typically start from the "top down". Why do you think gases would not be affected by gravity? Why do you think a vacuum can attract anything? In terms of selenelium eclipses 0.5 degrees =/= 30-40 degrees. The minimal elevation of each body is the effect of atmospheric refraction. You've made a number of inaccurate claims; pointing out the inaccuracies is answer enough. There is no such thing as negative pressure. 10^-x =/= -10^x.
    1
  2547.  @TheOricine  Then produce one.
    1
  2548.  @TheOricine  No, it demonstrates that weblinks are blocked on this channel, something that is determined by the channel owner. "there's hundreds more" Then why can't I find any? "That absolute vacuum, if next to an uncontained pressure system will suck all the air/liquid out and equalise the two" Unless there is something acting against it, i.e., gravity. Denying that gravity exists or claiming it doesn't act on gases for "reasons" does not magically nullify its effect.
    1
  2549.  @TheOricine  My respiratory tract is not 100km long and does not work in the opposite direction to gravity. You still haven’t explained what causes the change in the centre of oscillation in the Cavendish experiment. None of you ever can.
    1
  2550.  @TheOricine  I provided you with the explanation for stars apparently bring visible through the lunar phase.
    1
  2551.  @TheOricine  Pointing our that there are two celestial poles is “mental gymnastics”? Providing you with explanations and missing details is “mental gymnastics”? He’s giving you the objective evaluation that you’re accusing him of being incapable of. Objective evaluation is not “Cor blimey, everything we’re taught just gotta be wrong!”
    1
  2552. There is a difference between scepticism and denialism. Zetetics is a fancy argument for starting with a desired conclusion and running only a confirmatory experiment. It avoids actually testing anything.
    1
  2553.  @lapimano2  Rowbotham, the original FE proponent, wrote Zetetic Astronomy in which he nominally practised zetetic philosophy but actually only asked questions or conducted experiments that could lead to his desired conclusion. Hence the confusion. In terms of the potability of tinned soup then there is no way to know whether an individual tin is safe (except by opening & drinking it) but you can make a reasonable prediction based on what you do know. Scepticism queries the state of the individual tin, denialism simply insists that there is no reason to believe it could be potable.
    1
  2554. Which was based purely on observed periodicity, not a model of how eclipses occurred.
    1
  2555. One of you needs to produce this fabled model.
    1
  2556. @Ostia Hermes A claim that lacks evidence and coherent argument.
    1
  2557.  @ronpapi9539  Given a 25,000 mile circumference how many degrees curvature would you expect to be observable?
    1
  2558.  @ronpapi9539  It never ceases to amaze me how FE’ers fail to understand arithmetic. How do you manage to handle money?
    1
  2559.  @ronpapi9539  I just told you that elevation and curvature are two different things; did that not register? Elevation is hills & valleys while curvature is change in degrees orientation around the sphere.
    1
  2560.  @ronpapi9539 I answered your question. Kansas has little in the way of hills & valleys; it has near constant elevation (distance from the centre of the globe). It has the curvature expected of the globe. Do you understand the difference between radius and circumference? (8”/mile)^2 was a rule of thumb used by 19th century land surveyors to estimate geometric drop and is good for only a few miles. It is not an “official” equation, just a rule if thumb. I asked you how many degrees curvature per mile a globe with a 25,000 mile circumference would have and (like all FE’ers) you couldn’t understand what I was asking much less answer the question. Now you’re asking why you don’t see clouds exhibiting the curvature of a 25 mile circumference globe. As with all FE’ers you have sod all grasp if numbers & arithmetic.
    1
  2561. ​ @ronpapi9539  Why would something being on a website preclude its earlier existence? It's a rule of thumb and is easy to visualise; it isn't an accurate measure of geometric drop (have you not noticed that it is a parabola?) and does not calculate how much of an object would be hidden since that is also dependent on elevation and atmospheric refraction. You're conflating curvature, geometric drop, geometric hidden height and refracted hidden height. They are four different things. You need to think beyond one factor, something which seems really difficult for FE'ers. Curvature is the change of angle per distance, e.g., degrees per mile. (360*500)/25,000 = 7.2 degrees/mile You are asking for geometric hidden height; for that I need to have the elevation of your location. You're comparing it to what you can observe (refracted hidden height) for which I need the elevation of your location and we can assume average atmospheric refraction. You're trying to use an equation that will give an approximation for geometric drop, that assumes your eyes are bobbing in the surf and that there is no atmosphere. Even a FE'er should be able to figure neither of those assumptions are true but only if you are capable of thinking beyond one factor. I know that I have had this conversation with you before so I doubt you are capable. The bulk of Kansas lacks significant variation in elevation. That there are hills & valleys in part does not mean they are ubiquitous.
    1
  2562.  @ronpapi9539  "Its perfectly flat" You means it lacks variation in elevation, ie., hills & valleys, and as I've already explained to you a few times, elevation and curvature are not the same thing. I told you what the difference was and you're still conflating the two. Like all FE'ers you're incapable of understanding scale and are essentially wanting to know why you can see the curve of a cue ball in your hand but not see a similar curve when the ball has a 25,000 mile circumference. "31.5 miles of Curvature in a 500 mile span" You mean geometric drop. What is hidden is dependent on your elevation and the atmospheric refraction. Why do you find the distinction so difficult to grasp? Too many factors? "Give me the formula..." 360 degrees divided by circumference. It's the same formula for all spheres regardless of size. You still haven't explained why you think a parabolic equation would describe a circle or why you think only one equation with only one variable is going to give you multiple answers.
    1
  2563.  @ronpapi9539  Dividing one number by another number is too complex for you? As I pointed out earlier (and the time before) (8”/mile)^2 is rule of thumb, accurate for only a few miles and originates from 19th century land surveyors. What’s difficult to grasp: the world existed before 1958? A parabola and a circle are different shapes? A rule of thumb isn’t an accurate calculation? More than one variable? I answered simply, just bit simply enough for you to be able to grasp. Since it us the answer for life, the universe and everything I suggest yiu use 42 as an answer for everything; it doesn’t vary and you don’t even have to worry about units.
    1
  2564.  @ronpapi9539  "Don't tell me what you think I mean" You've conflated elevation and curvature throughout the entire thread; why should I think you have suddenly changed? "The Earth is Flat with No Curvature" You mean it isn't small enough to have curvature that you can directly observe. How the heck do you manage to drive 500 miles across Kansas while visualising a 25 mile circumference? It hasn't occurred to you to try dividing 360 degrees by 25,000 miles to determine what you were actually looking for; you just visualising a ball in your hand. "No proof otherwise has ever been presented" Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles, constellations varying with latitude and lunar eclipses always having a circular shadow; all observable by anybody & everybody, all consistent with a globe, none compatible with a FE and we are still waiting on FE'ers to explain how you think it would work. "No proof otherwise has ever been presented by a non CGI video" You accept that pre-CGI photographs demonstrating a globe then? Be novel and explain your technique for identifying CGI.
    1
  2565.  @ronpapi9539  You’re referring to the size of the umbra not the penumbra. And yet there is an observable south celestial pole. None of you have ever explained how a monopolar magnetic field could exist or work; now you need to explain how a star can exist as a magnet. The stars measurably change position; you’re just making the usual FE dumb assumption that change can only be huge. Despite all of your comment you haven’t explained any of the phenomena I listed. You’re still conflating curvature with elevation. How is it possible for you to conflate two different directions?
    1
  2566.  @ronpapi9539  If it lacked curvature then there would be no horizon and you would be able to see the higher country across 500 miles. Why hasn't that occurred to you?
    1
  2567.  @ronpapi9539  Rain aside, 500 miles is well within what would be possible on a FE. The hills on the far side that would be blocking your view are the higher country I was referring to. Hills go up remember?
    1
  2568.  @ronpapi9539  I need to keep saying you’re conflating curvature and elevation?
    1
  2569.  @ronpapi9539  You can't be said to care when you repeatedly get basic details wrong.
    1
  2570.  @ronpapi9539  Again, it’s a rule of thumb that was used by land surveyors, good for a few miles at most and quoted because it is easy to visualise (which is why FE’ers love it). Do you seriously think a parabolic equation won’t plot a parabola if nobody mentions the word parabola?
    1
  2571.  @ronpapi9539  Correct observation but the significance does seem to bypass your cognitive abilities. Again, 360 degrees/circumference. Curvature is the change in orientation with distance. Are you asking for geometric drop, geometric hidden drop or refracted hidden drop? I’ve already specified the difference between them but you keep conflating all four. As I said, with your mentality you would be better off using 42 as the answer for everything.
    1
  2572.  @ronpapi9539  There's a whole world outside the US.
    1
  2573.  @ronpapi9539  Find a link indicating NASA posted it. Where did the verified lunar rocks come from?
    1
  2574.  @ronpapi9539  Third time, 360 degrees/circumference. Insanity is repeatedly asking the same question and expecting a different answer. No such map on the NASA website. Can you tell the difference between a raw steak and a grilled one? Geologists can tell the difference between a “raw” rick from the moon and a “grilled” one from Earth.
    1
  2575.  @ronpapi9539  In what way do you consider UV light and friction to be geography or speculative?
    1
  2576.  @ronpapi9539  Fourth time, 360 degrees/circumference. You're still hankering after the rule of thumb for the geometric drop on the assumption one equation covers four different calculations. Explain what you think a calculation for the curvature of Earth has to do with UV and friction. Do you think your magic equation will cover them too?
    1
  2577.  @ronpapi9539  I haven’t found such a diagram on NASA nor have you been able to provide one. You still mean a diagram for geometric drop, still confuse it with hidden refracted drop and still think a rule of thumb is accurate.
    1
  2578.  @ronpapi9539  UV & friction referred to the geology of the moon rocks; your mind’s wandering.
    1
  2579.  @ronpapi9539  You brought up the Apollo missions, not me. In 5 years you haven't found out that 8"/mile^2 is a parabola; it doesn't inspire any confidence in your abilities.
    1
  2580.  @ronpapi9539  There's no indication they have posted it.
    1
  2581.  @ronpapi9539  Turn some pages in old land surveyor textbooks.
    1
  2582.  @ronpapi9539  What makes you think land surveying is impossible in a globe? You still haven’t demonstrated NASA ever referred to your equation. The equation doesn’t allow for variation in elevation and you do acknowledge the existence of hills & valleys since you insist of confusing them with curvature. Why are lighthouses towers or built at high elevation? Why do they have such limited range?
    1
  2583. ​ @ronpapi9539  If there is no curvature then why wouldn't they be able to see a light placed lower down? Why go the trouble of building towers when all you would need is the light above wave height?
    1
  2584.  @ronpapi9539  Because the craters are larger than your mind can handle.
    1
  2585.  @ronpapi9539  No atmosphere to cause light dispersion.
    1
  2586. ​ @ronpapi9539  "Company line answer.False" What a surprise - a FE'er who bleats on about perspective can't figure out the relationship between size & distance. "Are you saying that there is. No Earth atmosphere?" Air pressure decreases with increasing altitude and ultimately reaches 0 atm pressure. When there is 0 atm pressure it means there is no atmosphere there to produce pressure. Still waiting on FE'ers to reconcile that to the insistence of even distribution within a "dome" container. "Tell is why the rule of thumb measurement is only valid for short distances" Again? It's a parabolic equation that doesn't take into account variation in elevation and atmospheric refraction. Do you think the answer will change if you keep asking? "Then how did they calculate the trip to the Moon?" Using maths. "Where is your formula to calculate the curvature of a standard billiards ball.We are waiting." Again, 360 degrees/circumference. Do you think the answer will change if you keep asking? " I have eyes and a brain" Have you considered using your brain?
    1
  2587.  @ronpapi9539  Lets here the high information FE’ers explanation for the multiple effects of FE perspective.
    1
  2588.  @ronpapi9539  “Just does” is not an explanation. We’re still waiting on FE’ers to produce your claimed evidence. You’ve had it explained to you multiple times why 8”/mile squared does not calculate curvature or hidden drop but you’re still banging on about it; you’re a troll.
    1
  2589.  @ronpapi9539  You still haven't demonstrated NASA ever referred to it and I've pointed out several times it originated with 19th century land surveyors, long predating NASA. Why do you keep using it if you don't believe it? Because you want avoid using the correct maths that matches the globe reality? "we know that the Earth is a Flat REALM." But none of you ever provide any evidence so why should anybody believe you? Fifth time, 360 degrees divided by circumference. What makes you think it's going to change if you keep asking?
    1
  2590.  @ronpapi9539  I've pointed out several times that curvature and geometric drop are not the same thing and neither give you refracted hidden drop. You need to decide which you are asking for.
    1
  2591.  @Smokeybuhda  Biologically, psychologically, sociologically or legally?
    1
  2592.  @Smokeybuhda  Sex is determined purely by genetics; gender is determined by multiple factors of which genetics is only one. Those are determinr by multiple biological factors plus the sociological & psychological, not purely biological. Which restrooms people use is a matter for sociological and legal definition. Again, which one are you referring to?
    1
  2593.  @Smokeybuhda  You expect people to be persuaded by arguments you can’t produce?
    1
  2594.  @Smokeybuhda Inactivation of one gene means that XY children are born as girls and transition to boys with puberty. Are they male or female in your book?
    1
  2595. Much of our decision making is due to instinct and prior experience rather than actively considering each decision. It’s not that nobody has a choice about an action but that our thinking is not truly independent.
    1
  2596. There’s one society that has three genders.
    1
  2597.  @jb0433628  VAERS typically show underreporting for adverse effects but its purpose is not accurate counting but noting anything unusual or the general trends occurring. Vaccine related deaths are collected separately through the death certificates being filed.
    1
  2598.  @jb0433628  Since you aren’t going to get any vaccine-related deaths prior to the vaccine’s existence snd in the absence of miracles deaths will be accumulative what shape do you expect? Why is it that millions of deaths from Covid is inconsequential but a tiny fraction of that from vaccines is carnage?
    1
  2599. Constant acceleration “upwards”is what they used to espouse, chronically sandwiched between constant velocity “upwards” and (mostly commonly) “density force”.
    1
  2600.  @Nehner  What is your evidence that I’m being paid and what are you saying I have wrong?
    1
  2601.  @Smokeybuhda Russia & Japan are run by NASA? You do realise that a camera shot will not capture the area of any object that is facing away from it?
    1
  2602.  @mooners40  I said it would be difficult for you to comprehend more than one force can act simultaneously. Keep your arm extended for an hour and the source of the counterforce should gradually become apparent to you.
    1
  2603.  @mooners40  Seems the bit about gravity not being an irresistible force went over your head to.
    1
  2604.  @mooners40  Why would your arm get tired if you aren’t expending any effort to keep it up?
    1
  2605.  @mooners40  Why would you get a build up of lactic acid if you aren’t using the muscles to keep your arm up?
    1
  2606.  @mooners40  Gravity is directly proportional to mass; why would stronger force with larger masses and weaker force with smaller masses be contradictory to that?
    1
  2607.  @mooners40  F = G.(m1.m2)/d^2 That’s the equation. In what way do you force being proportional to mass is contradictory to that? No explanation for why you would get a build up of lactic acid if you weren’t using the muscles?
    1
  2608.  @mooners40  The existence of gravity has been repeatedly demonstrated by the Cavendish experiment. Gravity was used to accurately predict the existence and orbit of Neptune. Nobody is upside down on a spherical planet; that attraction is towards the centre of the planet is an easy concept for most people to get their heads. FE’ers do seem to have difficulty with the simplest of diagrams such as a circle and several radial arrows. 1000mph is a linear velocity and nothing rotates in a straight line. The Earth rotates once per day, demonstrable with laser gyroscopes, and orbits the sun once per year, detectable by stellar parallax. In the absence of an atmosphere in space there is no transmission of sound and thus anything & everything travels at Mach 0, ie, there is no sound transmission to set a speed to Mach 1. Curvature is detectable with as little as sticks & shadows and, no, you are not magically limited to two sticks. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a hunch or guess; that is the vernacular meaning of theory.
    1
  2609.  @mooners40  Four balls, repeated countless since with similar results and we are still waiting on FE’ers to explain what you think causes the attraction. Eratosthenes experiment has been repeated multiple times in multiple locations with similar results. Still waiting for the FE explanation of how it could work. That you can’t get your head around something does not mean if isn’t proof.
    1
  2610.  @mooners40  You need to explain why the Cavendish experiment wrong, not just blow it off. Be brave; be the first FE’er to actually produce the answer. Produce evidence of such a charge. Provide an explanation for how such charges could arise. Explain the attraction between sun, earth & moon when there only two possible charges. Explain what you mean by “vibrating energy”. Explain why the Eratosthenes can’t be gone with multiple sticks. Explain why you think triangulation isn’t possible.
    1
  2611.  @mooners40  I’m doing the research you want me to; I’m asking the people who repeatedly profess to have the answers. The trouble is you all say “ask someone else”. Why would that be when you are all claim to be so eager to enlighten everybody? NASA was formed in 1958 AD, the US in 1776 AD while the Ptolemaic model dates from 100 AD and the spherical Earth at its centre was deduced c. 500 BC. Still waiting on the FE’er explanation for how NASA was manipulating everything 2000 years before it was formed. Undoubtedly your explanation will be “ask someone else”.
    1
  2612.  @mooners40  Obviously big numbers confuse you.
    1
  2613.  @mooners40  I do - unlike you I have no problems comprehending the concept of scale. If you wish to use your brain then answer the questions I asked.
    1
  2614.  @mooners40  Triangulation says otherwise; anybody can do it, many do do it. Still waiting on the FE evidence for the sun being close; eyeballing is not an accurate form of measurement.
    1
  2615.  @mooners40  Crepuscular rays would put a local sun at multiple different heights. Considered as parallel rays they work consistently with a distant sun. That would be the hot spot that appears in one photo, totally fails to evaporate the clouds and would represent a sun that is both lower & higher than the aircraft and should rapidly change in size & speed throughout the day?
    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