Comments by "Flook D" (@flookd5516) on "JRE Clips" channel.

NoNapinInNaptown 360 https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ Curvature can be demonstrated with sticks & shadows. It doesn’t take any great expenditure but it does require willingness.
1
NoNapinInNaptown 360 Curvature can be demonstrated using three or more sticks; lasers across lakes neglect to mention refraction and beam spread. Pretty much the epitome of “what aren’t they telling us?”. Has it not occurred to you it isn’t just your bogeymen who want to fool you?
1
Nothing in science is 100% certain but if you think an established principle is wrong then the onus is you to demonstrate that, not hail remote possibilities as significant.
1
Scientific theories are built on proven facts. Theories can be wrong but you need to come up with proven facts that disagree with the theory before you can claim a theory are wrong.
1
Oblation is about 0.3% not 30%; less than a pixel difference in the picture if that is easier to visualise.
1
Rick Sechrist The “it has to be” referred specifically to one picture, Blue Marble 2, as that was a collation of low orbit photos. Some people have difficulty separating the specific from the general. Your computer screen works in pixels. Even when the original picture was shot in film the screen will render it in pixels.
1
@jimgodofbiscuits Aside from the fact the sun doesn't actually burn, it does have a finite lifetime; long-lived and perpetual are not the same thing.
1
@jimgodofbiscuits Ignore me; it looks like I misread what you wrote.
1
Brok Homz https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ You can test it yourself; how would you explain the results?
1
DON MCKINNEY Nasa means raise or lift in Hebrew. Simmons commented nearly 30 years ago. What is the longest distance you’ve had to cover in your civil engineering diagrams? There us only one Blue Marble 2. The height & location of the satellite taking the photo determines which continents are visible and their apparent size.
1
DON MCKINNEY You expect to see 360 degrees of an object in one frame?
1
You seem happy to swallow any BS fed you.
1
@donmckinney928 Calculate the angle between each section of pipe. You're assuming that all shots are of a full hemisphere; how much of the Earth is in the shot is dependent on the altitude of the camera. The altitude varies, the area covered varies. Sea-level is the point of gravitational equipotential, not a flat line. The river won't be at sea-level since the land it is travelling across will itself have elevation. You don't see curvature appropriate to a 25 mile circumference because we are talking about a 25,000 mile circumference. Dubay has been debunked countless times. He is believed by gullible people who can't think. Most of his points don't take much effort to debunk. As for the remainder, you're happy to swallow any BS fed you.
1
@donmckinney928 I was referring to how some people visualise the size of the Earth, rather than a typo. Like any other language; however the word for deceive would be nassa. The angle of the pipe is indicative of someone poorly visualising the size of the Earth. 25,000 miles gives an angle of 0.0144 degrees between 1 mile section and individual sections of pipe will be shorter and have even smaller difference in angle between each section. How fine an angle do you think can be drawn? Lay each individual section level and the necessary curvature takes care of itself. Because I have heard it all before. No, the globe has not been debunked. Plenty of ignorami claim to have done it and we have to run through basic maths and logic to point out their errors. NASA was formed in 1959 AD. The ancient Greeks determined the Earth was a globe around 500 BC. Still waiting on any FE'er explanation as to how they think the NASA could fool the ancient Greeks. Enough mapping had been done by the 18th century for globes to be a practicality. How do you think NASA were responsible for them? You can't figure out that birds can fly because they use their wings to counter gravity or that those wings have to lift only their mass, not an ocean's, and you are hailing yourself as intelligent?
1
@donmckinney928 I didn't ignore them; I pointed out that I heard them all before and you were apparently happy to swallow any BS fed you. You can demonstrate the Earth's curvature for yourself with as little as sticks & shadows. We knew it was a globe 2500 years before spaceflight was possible. https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ There is no reason for flights to go over Antarctica; the most direct routes between Australia, South America & South Africa are sticking with the similar latitudes, not to mention the problems that occur if the plane gets into trouble. You're being confused by flights over the Arctic, where the close positioning of Europe, Asia & North America to the Arctic Circle do make the transpolar route the shortest for some flights and there are an abundance of airports a plane can be diverted to if necessary. On Dubay's FE, the flights between Australia, South America & South Africa would be impossible, the distances exceeding the maximum range of passenger aircraft and yet there are several direct flights per day. There is a booming tourist trade to Antarctica including flights to the South Pole. You're telling me to look at your evidence but you haven't bothered checking out what the Antarctic Treaties really say about people going there? It's the length of the pipes that determines the angle between them.
1
Distance to the horizon is determined by curvature, elevation and atmospheric refraction. All have to be accounted for when predicting the distance of the horizon. All of them. You can’t miss factors and expect to make the correct prediction.
1
How many planets are identical balls? They round because of the force of gravity in an object of that size. By the ball being a lot larger than you are capable of imagining. Your body is sensitive to acceleration, not motion; that you can’t sense motion does not mean you aren’t in motion. When you move everything doesn’t move with you. If your senses didn’t lie to you then magicians would be out of a job.
1
@donmckinney928 From every angle? How?
1
Another FE'er who won't answer simple questions. What a surprise. I addressed your questions: I pointed out they were BS that you liked the taste of. You assumed, as so many conspiracy theorists do, that you saying it means it must be the first time I'd heard of them. It doesn't occur to you that someone could have looked and found them baseless. How many times by how many people do Dubay's "roofs" have to be rebutted to satisfy you that they have been rebutted? "When you show an actual video of the WHOLE ENTIRE Earth spinning from the moon in real time I will look at it" What's special about it being shot from the moon? "As I have already PAID FOR" Assuming your were around then, how would a video of the Earth advance lunar exploration? "How did they heat and cool the entire operation on 29 volts ?" Passive cooling.
1
How was CGI managed before CGI existed?
1
How does the sun retain a constant angular velocity and angular diameter through the course of the day?
1
ima hunt Been trying to get that out of FE’ers for a few years.
1
@MrDannyd9 Are you referring to surface features or to the oblation? The former you could feel on a ball as differing from the average surface but the latter would not be since all the surface at the "poles" would be oblated.
1
@MrDannyd9 No problem.
1
Given that the moon observably blocks the stars why do you think such an explanation is necessary?
1
@elloboblanco9111 That the moon blocks stars is observation and has been that way since we started making observations. Still waiting on the evidence of stars being visible through the moon despite the repeated claims.
1
@elloboblanco9111 1: incapability of photographer to understand 3D. That's the tip of a mountain being illuminated with the moon's phase. It is not an eclipse. 2: They're artefacts from increasing the contrast. If the camera were set to see stars then stars would have been visible around the moon even before he altered the contrast. "you clearly haven’t made any observation" I'm in my 50's. Do you seriously think I've never bothered to look up on beautifully dark clear nights?
1
@elloboblanco9111 You don't know much about cameras do you? Digital cameras use a cluster of detectors sensitive to different wavelengths e.g. red, green & blue light or broad range detectors for black & white shots. Each detector is activated by photons hitting it. In faint light there is not a regular stream of photons hitting each detector and you get an imbalance in the colours or the apparent brightness of each pixel. Increase the contrast (essentially boasting the weaker signals during the processing) and those variations become apparent to the eye, i.e., artefacts. In the absence of light pollution the stars are readily apparent to the unaided eye. You don't need a camera with a high contrast setting to see them. If stars were visible through the moon they would be obvious to unaided eye; you wouldn't need a camera to see them. The moon blocks stars.
1
@elloboblanco9111 "Still haven’t looked at the moon though" Grow up. "it doesn’t change the fact that stars and planets are clearly visible through the moon with the naked eye." If you think so then produce that evidence. Explain why nobody but the "enlightened" can see stars through the moon. "Ok, use stellarium" Which is a graphical representation. If got one of you telling me that photos are animation and you claiming animation are photos. The sun sets in St Petersburg in June. Tonight 9:55pm local time. How does the sunn retain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day?
1
@elloboblanco9111 St Petersburg lies within the Arctic Circle. The tilt on the Earth's rotational axis means that areas within the Arctic Circle & Antarctic Circle have 24hr days in approximately Jun & December respectively. How does the sun retain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day? Answer the question. "I can’t make you look at the moon can I?" I have looked at the moon many, many times. It blocks the stars. "the 2 videos I sent you were the first that came up" And I explained the errors in each. Do we need to go through each and every photo? "then look at the real sky" And the moon blocks them. https://lunaf.com/lunar-calendar/2020/01/25/
1
el lobo blanco el lobo blanco Prove it in actuality or prove it to someone who would dismiss all evidence out of hand? What makes you say the sun changes angular diameter when nobody’s looking? You’re now saying it’s the moon that causes 24hr daylight in St Petersburg? Checking times, St Petersburg does not have 24hrs sunlight; it has 19hrs daylight with 5hrs twilight. Reverse in winter. Ushuaia (Argentina) is recognized as the southernmost city and has similar hours to St Petersburg; how many people need to live there to satisfy people have witnessed those hours? A sphere appears as a circle regardless of what angle you look at it from. Why do you think the moon’s reflectivity changes over the course of a month? What are you saying the mechanism is? If you are asking how the new moon can be visible then that is by sunlight reflected from Earth. If you think that can’t happen then explain why. When your photos rely on the same misconceptions and ignorance over and over and over and over and over then you need to come up with one that doesn’t rely on such to make a legitimate claim.
1
el lobo blanco I told you what was wrong and explained why; that is analysing evidence, not dismissing it. It’s not something the FE Thinkers have any talent for. You’ve dismissed the routine observation of Ushuaia’s population. You spoke of 24hr daylight in SP, I asked you questions about the sun and you told me that we were discussing the moon. Make your mind up which you are talking about and stick with it. I asked about angular diameter and you said it wasn’t a fact. If you think it isn’t established then you have reason to believe it changes. I’m asking you what you think those reasons are. You see a bright spot on a pool ball because it is smooth enough to actually mirror the light rather than simply disperse it. The sun is distant from the moon and the reflected light is dispersed by the lack of smoothness on the moons surface. If a sphere did not reflect light then you would be unable to see it. If the bright spot was the only light being reflected then the bright spot would be all you could see of the sphere. Have you ever played pool? Even the black ball is fully visible. Explain how you think the moon self-illuminated, follows phases and how it could be transparent. Pearls before swine. It is pointless putting evidence in front of something who will simply dismiss it out of hand without explanation simply because it contradicts a FE. If you believe there is evidence you find acceptable then lay out the criteria by which you would accept it. Don’t bother stating tangible, observable & repeatable; that applies to moon observations dating back into prehistory and you’re dismissing it all.
1
@elloboblanco9111 You expect me to accept St Petersburg's existence and daylight times but dismiss as hearsay Ushuaia's existence and daylight times. As I said, you need to lay out criteria for what you are willing to accept. "Where is the bright spot on the moon?" I explained why there wasn't a "bright spot" on the moon. Try reading and thinking before commenting. Scale is something that is very difficult for FE'ers to comprehend. The quote is that if Earth were shrunk to the size of a pool ball then the mountains would be within pool ball tolerances; nobody is saying the Earth and pool balls are the same size or that Mt Everest is 40um high. You still haven't produced any evidence of the moon being transparent. You have produced two videos (not thousands) that didn't show that (and I explained why not), referred to Stellarium animation, repeatedly claimed that you personally can see through it and repeatedly told me that my observations are wrong or hearsay. I did provide you to a link to a picture with a solid, opaque moon which you won't accept for no stated reason. As with St Petersburg's existence, you need to lay out criteria for what you find acceptable as evidence and stick to it. The moon's phases need to be explained. If you want to start claiming there is no evidence of phases then I remind that you referred to "new moon" earlier. If you want to claim the moon is self-illuminating then you need to propose a plausible mechanism, which will have to be entirely transparent to be consistent with your claim of the moon being transparent, and a plausible explanation for how phases would occur. If you wish to maintain the claim is a disc then you also need to explain why, over time, we can observe what is consistent with 190 degrees of a sphere.
1
@elloboblanco9111 As I said, scale is difficult for FE'ers to comprehend, as are numbers. The relative smoothness of the moon compared to a pool ball is the variation in elevation in proportion to the radius of each object. Absolute smoothness is the actual height of the variations. You are confusing the two. That the Earth & moon have comparable relative smoothness to a pool ball does not mean they have the same absolute smoothness. "There are many more videos and photos of the moon with stars visible through it" Then produce some of them; you're claiming they exist so the onus is on you to back up that claim, not on me go looking for them. Bear in mind that if they purport to show stars through the moon then the stars around the moon should also be clearly visible. If they don't and you think there are stars visible through the moon then you need to explain that discrepancy. "Isn’t it better to try and argue a reason how it may be possible" Which is why I am asking you to come up with a plausible mechanism by which you think it could be possible. You're saying the moon is a fully transparent but your also saying it is self-illuminating; that requires a means of generating light and you need to explain what kind of mechanism would be fully transparent. For the moon to have phases also requires the mechanism to be able to do that; that is why your explanation for the transparent self-illumination must include an explanation for phases. Any mechanism you propose has to be able to explain every aspect of the moon's appearance, not just the one you are interested in. That is not "ridiculous" or "arbitrary"; it is the necessity for explanations to be self-consistent. "Mental gymnastics I guess" Mental agility; the ability to determine and handle multiple factors simultaneously.
1
el lobo blanco You’ve sent me a paper listing observations of lunar occultation as evidence that lunar occultation doesn’t occur. Either you are very dumb if a troll. Either way this conversation is ended.
1
For the benefit of anyone else reading: the paper's author makes five observations of stars being blocked by the moon, giving the times when they disappeared & reappeared and nowhere states (explicitly or implicitly) that he could see anything through the moon.
1
He's not scared; he doesn't want to give Dubay the legitimacy he craves. If you think Dubay has super-duper insight on how the world works then explain why you think there is no connection between birds possessing wings and birds flying.
1
@itrollasahobby2723 More than one force can act simultaneously; I'm sure you have helped somebody to carry something. The flapping wings generate enough lift to counter gravity. Why do you think wings & flight are unconnected?
1
@itrollasahobby2723 Gravity would determine how fast they fell, not how fast they could move generally. That would be determined by their mass and how encumbered they were by the suits.
1
@itrollasahobby2723 You're confusing weight with mass. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass and they would have the same mass regardless of the gravity; the force required to move an object is dependent on mass, not weight. You failed to note what I said about the suits being encumbering. Why do you think wings & flight are unconnected?
1
@itrollasahobby2723 You're still confusing weight and mass. What makes you think clothes can't be cumbersome? Gravity's existence was demonstrated in the Cavendish experiment, reproduced countless times with similar results. https://www.jstor.org/stable/106988
1
@itrollasahobby2723 I gave you the paper demonstrating it had been proven. You're still confusing weight and mass. You're assuming mass is the only property that could make something cumbersome.
1