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

  1.  @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
  2.  @F0ckyourculture  Do you not understand the word hypothesis?
    3
  3.  @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
  4. By watching the sun & stars and thinking.
    3
  5.  @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
  6.  @shroud1390  You can’t change the definitions of words if you want clear communication.
    3
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9.  @boterlettersukkel  A few cups of bloodwine and you’ll be too stoned to care 😊
    3
  10.  @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
  11. Which drug do you envisage as altering RNA?
    3
  12. ⁠ @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
  13.  @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
  14. 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
  15.  @paurushbhatnagar8100  What limits the panoramic view?
    3
  16. 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
  17.  @tombass3288  Check out Orion.
    3
  18.  @chrisskully1228 Explain how density (a ratio) could act as a force and why in a consistent direction.
    3
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22. "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
  23.  @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
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26. All magnets are bipolar.
    3
  27. 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
  28.  @shyrebel8813  What’s axiomatic about maths?
    3
  29.  @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
  30. Cat flaps.
    3
  31.  @ding9633  Providing answers & explanations is not trolling.
    3
  32. If you want people to know the Real Model why don’t any of you reveal what it is?
    3
  33. The disc accelerating upwards is what preceded the unexplained density force.
    3
  34. Say exactly what you think is wrong and why.
    3
  35. 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
  36. Has Dubay gitten around to explaining how density (a ratio with no vector) could act as a force? I was banned for asking.
    3
  37. 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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41. Convex Earth was a spoof that only gullible folks find believable.
    3
  42.  @stevenpoynter9982  NASA tells us that the sun rises & sets? What was it doing before NASA was created?
    3
  43. 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
  44. And so?
    3
  45.  @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
  46.  @jamesi2018  Why do you think that the Russians would have kept quiet?
    3
  47. Reminds me of a conversation between Sheldon and Howard.
    3
  48. About 0.3%. Fine balances need to be recalibrated if they’re moved.
    3
  49. 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
  50. What FE model?
    3