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

  1.  @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
  2.  @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
  3. You mean you just buy into any conspiracy going because it makes you feel intelligent?
    3
  4.  @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
  5.  @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
  6. Just explain it. I’m not buying your book.
    3
  7. Seeing isn’t sensory input?
    3
  8.  @RobbiePNoCap Explain how perspective would not affect the sun’s angular diameter and make it disappear from the bottom up.
    3
  9. Convex Earth was a spoof that only gullible folks find believable.
    3
  10.  @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
  11.  @JimSmithInChiapas It’s more exhibit A that scientists can disagree on the interpretation of evidence.
    3
  12. An effect can have more than one contributory cause.
    3
  13. What misuse of science during Covid?
    3
  14. Established science is not an unquestioned idea.
    3
  15.  @JohnChilders-x9t  How many miles across do you think is necessary for your test?
    3
  16.  @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
  17.  @boterlettersukkel  He’s joking.
    3
  18.  @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
  19. Try producing the scientific evidence that disproved the globe. So many claim they have it....
    3
  20.  @tranquoc-binh5287  I asked you for it and you haven't answered.
    3
  21. She hasn’t given any credibility to FE; the video discusses the basis and shortfalls of their thought processes.
    3
  22. It’s arrogant to rely on evidence?
    3
  23.  @graybeard2113  How the heck can you spend 5 years looking into a subject and still get everything wrong?
    3
  24. What makes you think nobody has tried Galileo’s experiment?
    3
  25.  @sandytarihoran0467 What do you think prevents people from going south of the equator?
    3
  26. 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
  27.  @DarkmanEsq  Gravity in relativity is an apparent force; it is not non-existent as FE'ers claim.
    3
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. ​ @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
  31. 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
  32. What propaganda?
    3
  33.  @edwardchege2623  Why would the existence of helium balloons preclude the existence of satellites?
    3
  34.  @edwardchege2623  Why does Blue Marble 2012 being a composite mean every photo ever taken must be a composite?
    3
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38. Plenty of curvature along the Suez Canal; no change in elevation.
    3
  39.  @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
  40.  @therealzilch  All those grains are just layabouts 😊
    3
  41. Governments are responsible for road signs & markings; are they truthful?
    3
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. What do you think alters the photons’ paths or makes them run out of energy?
    3
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48. Two celestial poles, motion of the sun, horizons… It’s not that hard to disprove FE when FE predictions conflict with observable reality.
    3
  49.  @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
  50. Why not specify what you do believe? The topic of the video is your thought processes, not what details you claim.
    3