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

  1.  @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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. It’s a testament to human gullibility.
    4
  6. Because the video is about FE’er thought processes (or lack thereof).
    4
  7.  @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
  8. A year rather than a week and the video was a critique of FE’er methodology rather any of the models.
    4
  9. All of them. One degree curvature per 69 miles, not per 69 feet.
    4
  10. The modern idea was due to Samuel Rowbotham who went on a religious anti-scientific bender in the 19th century.
    4
  11. 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
  12. 2 is due to Earth’s tilted axis rather than an elliptical orbit.
    4
  13. 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
  14.  @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
  15. How do They manipulate the stars? Why can none of the people who’ve figured actually say how it is done?
    4
  16.  @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
  17. Your screen is flat.
    4
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21. What measurements did you take?
    4
  22. 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
  23. What did they do to compensate for the refraction?
    4
  24. 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
  25.  @servusdei3923  Which bit do you think is incorrect and why?
    4
  26. You still haven’t explained how colliding air molecules are going to apply force to a firework rocket.
    4
  27. Why do you think it impossible for somebody to write their own script?
    4
  28.  @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
  29. 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
  30. What is your definition of troll?
    4
  31.  @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
  32. Upside down relative to what?
    4
  33. You claim to be an engineer with bugger all grasp of physics and you’re accusing other people of being charlatans?
    4
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36. 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
  37. What do you think isn’t working and why?
    4
  38. "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
  39.  @KangenAlec  If it's not complicated then why can't you explain anything?
    4
  40. 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
  41.  @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
  42.  @aLuplife2023  I’ll take that as a no.
    4
  43. You think songs by a singing nutter are the pinnacle of human knowledge?
    4
  44. 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
  45.  @___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
  46. You realise that rethinking inherently requires thinking?
    4
  47.  @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
  48. "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
  49. You’re a glutton for punishment. Your claim doesn’t even match what is in the video.
    4
  50. 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