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

  1.  @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
  2.  @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
  3.  @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
  4.  @AjaxNorton  I specifically said “south celestial pole”, not a particular star.
    3
  5.  @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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. I use them as tools in the lab. Explain how if they don’t exist.
    3
  9. ​ @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
  10.  @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
  11.  @clintonhart2652  If you can’t communicate with anybody why claim you can answer any question?
    3
  12. The video was about FE’er thought processes.
    3
  13.  @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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16.  @EpicAlternative  What is the FEer definition of measurement? Do you even have the concept?
    3
  17. Worse still, they probably make good use of radio waves in cell phones & WiFi.
    3
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20.  @julianbrionesiii2438  Where does weight come from if there is no gravity? What makes you think mass is a force?
    3
  21. 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
  22. It was a common belief among FE’ers a while back.
    3
  23. 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
  24.  @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
  25. Think it out in 3D rather than 2D and try measuring the viewing angles.
    3
  26. The “serious flat earthers” have yet to produce any argument that holds water.
    3
  27.  @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
  28. If you feel that pointing out your continual deleting & reposting is offensive then don’t keep deleting & reposting.
    3
  29. 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
  30. We attempt to disprove hypotheses. FE was disproved millennia ago.
    3
  31.  @tatonemio6388  Not seeing the shrink’s face is how reclining couches came into use 😊
    3
  32.  @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
  33. If they don’t work then why do you think surgeons wear them in theatre?
    3
  34.  @patrickhickman8723  You produce your figures showing it had insufficient fuel? Why would it need to reach orbital speeds within the atmosphere?
    3
  35. 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
  36.  @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
  37.  @Macaroni108  Your reply to Tatone Mio doesn’t show up on my feed either.
    3
  38. ​ @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
  39.  @ivankaramasov  The one's ring to rule them all... :-)
    3
  40. Whay exactly do you think the problem is?
    3
  41. Why don’t we see the edges as they rotate?
    3
  42. "It is a distorted quest, but in certain respects a noble one." As in Don Quixote?
    3
  43.  @tatonemio6388  Thanks, I didn’t know.
    3
  44.  @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
  45. 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
  46.  @ferferzipper4936  DishTV did it from geostationary orbit. What do you expect to see from a live video? A 1000 revolutions per minute?
    3
  47. The Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, not the 25 miles you’re envisaging.
    3
  48. The Artemis missions have started. It wasn't economically viable; nothing more sinister than that.
    3
  49. Polaris is 450 light years away, not 450 miles. Explain two celestial poles.
    3
  50. What proportion of people need to get Covid to satisfy you that Covid exists?
    3