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

  1. 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
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. ​ @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
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. ​ @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
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3