General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Flook D
JRE Clips
comments

Comments by "Flook D" (@flookd5516) on "Joe Rogan - Neil deGrasse Tyson on Eric Dubay u0026 Flat Earth" video.

The pressure isn’t from the plane’s speed but the inertial force acting on the pilotas it changes direction. The body is sensitive to acceleration but not velocity; it does matter how fast you may be travelling, you will only sense acceleration.
3
If FE'ers were sceptical then they would question what FE conspiracist theorists tell them.
2
@Oropia1 You're referring to it as a rabbit hole while claiming it all makes sense? Openmindedness is the willingness to listen to new ideas, think about them and ask questions. FE'ers never give coherent replies to those questions.
2
William Saunders Being able to see through Dubay is a “caged mind”? Which of us is actually thinking about what Dubay said rather than taking his word for it? If you think he is right then what is his explanation for how density can act as a force?
2
William Saunders Then why do you get uptight when asked questions?
2
William Saunders Rowbotham relied on the refraction close to the water surface to mask the curvature; when repeated several feet above the water the curvature was apparent. Refusing to look through the theodolite did not disprove that.
2
William Saunders The horizon does not rise with your elevation. The size if Earth is such that the drop is not apparent to the eye.
2
Kyle Mccann The curvature observed with telescopes when all the key factors are taken into account (curvature, elevation & atmospheric refraction). Ignoring key factors does not make for accurate estimates. Claiming you can’t make it work while ignoring key factors is not a valid result.
2
@kylemc0254 I read through your posts and all you are doing is repeating the same baseless claims. Nobody has provided evidence of zooming boats into view from hundreds of miles away; a video zooming a set sun back into view would be simpler and should be easy to do on a FE but nobody has done it. There's detectable equipment on the moon and verifiable material brought back, all ignored by those who don't want them to exist. Nobody has provided a working model for a FE, just kept claiming one exists. Nobody has provided a working map despite claiming they have one, i.e., one with a consistent scale across the entire surface, something that should be easy with known distances and mapping a 2D surface to a 2D surface. Gravity has been proven to exist; not knowing of the Cavendish experiment does not mean it was never done or reproduced or invalidate the results. Nobody has ever explained how density could act as a force and why it would do so in a consistent direction. Flight paths make sense on a globe; they don't appear to make sense when projected onto a flat surface because of the distortion that occurs in the transition from 3D to 2D. Still waiting on an explanation on how there can be direct flights between the southern hemisphere continents when they would be out of flight range in a FE. Nobody has provided an explanation as to how a globe sun can act as a a spotlight or why a 2D sun would appear round from all angles or how it would illuminate the correct zones on a FE at any given time, particularly 24hrs daylight in Antarctica. No explanation as to how the sun can stay in the air, remain in motion or change its course much less any explanation as to how it produces light. Openmindedness is the willingness to listen to and consider new ideas. It does not mean espousing ideas that differ from accepted wisdom; the logical thinking is required. When somebody can't put forwards any evidence to back their claims and simply wants you dismiss all contradictory evidence you need to be sceptical. What is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
2
@kylemc0254 "there isnt 1 picture unedited" So FE'ers keep claiming though they never explain how they identify alterations other "it doesn't look flat" or "I don't know what to expect but it isn't that". The ISS ran a live video stream for years as did DishTV and that didn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". The US, Russia & Japan all have websites with real-time full hemisphere pictures of Earth and that doesn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". Tesla had live cameras onboard its car and that didn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". SpaceX has live cameras onboard its launches and (unsurprisingly) that doesn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". "i think science is a language designed by freemasons" Science isn't a language and there is no requirement to be a freemason to be a scientist. That you don't understand something does not mean it is not understandable to others. I said flight paths make sense on a globe (a 3D shape) but not when projected onto a 2D surface. You have to think beyond 2D projections. "there straight lines on a flat gleesons map" They aren't. Pick a few select ones in the upper northern latitudes and they seem to be which is what you have been shown. The further south you go then the greater the distortion of the actual dimensions and the dumbness of the claim becomes readily apparent. Try tracking the flight path between Melbourne, Australia and Santiago, Chile and consider how that would make sense on a Gleason map. Then look at it on a globe (in actual 3D, not a projection) and you will see a direct line. "there crazy stop points on a globe" Direct flights don't have stop points except for the final destination; that is why they are called direct flights. Indirect flights make use of the more heavily used routes to provide a series of economically conservative flights which is why some indirect flights are cheaper than the direct flights. Example, there's considerably more travel between North America & Europe and Europe & Far East than there is from North America to the Far East directly so it is more economical to run two separate flights for most passengers. A direct flight from Atlanta to Bombay is a mixture of American & Indian passengers; Atlanta to Amsterdam is mostly American & Dutch passengers with Amsterdam to Bombay a combination of Indian & Asian passengers. "do you think the apollo missions between 1969 and 1972 were all legit" Traceable signals to, on & from the moon, detectable equipment left there, verifiable material brought back and the landing sites recently confirmed by satellite pictures. "But, but, but they've just gotta be fake" and "I don't see how..." do not explain any of that, nor does the absence of lead in the Apollo capsules, fictitious claims the Van Allen belts are impassable and a posthumous interview with Stanley Kubrick. No, the data was not lost; the tapes the data was originally stored on went the same way as floppies.
2
@kylemc0254 "when i look at pictures of the globe its clear there an animation" You need to describe the criteria, not "you can tell". Try defining the criteria whereby you can identify animation. "curavture does not make the difference in dimensions" Z axis. "it is very possible to live on a flat earth" So some you keep claiming and claiming and claiming but for which you never produce evidence. All you do is keep repeating the same tired and debunked claims. You have it repeatedly explained to you and you just reject all evidence for "reasons" and consider yourself geniuses for doing so. "what is more insane is we live on a spinning ball" One rotation per day, measurable with a laser gyroscope. FE'ers have done it and even with clear and repeated measurements demonstrating rotation deny there is motion. None of you can ever explain why it wouldn't work, just fall back on incredulity. Try actually explaining. "its holding oceans" Gravity is directly proportional to mass. Earth has more mass than a basketball; they are not comparable masses nor have comparable gravity. None of you ever explain what you think would pull the oceans off. Try actually explaining. "we can travel all around the ball this is crazy" How many people have to travel around it how many times before you would accept it can be done? Simple question: try answering it.
2
@onthelvl8291 By being personally banned from Dubay's channel.
2
1a. There's nothing in a vacuum to do the sucking. 1b. The expansion of air into the vacuum surrounding Earth is countered by gravity, the balance resulting in a gradual decline in air pressure with increasing altitude. 2. Because the light has been dissipated by the water & dust content in the atmosphere long before then. The dissipation is how you are able to see them from side on. 3. Would you accept that as proof? 4. Because the oblation is 0.3% not the 30% you're visualising and the "pear-shape" is an even smaller deviation. 5. How do you conclude the fly was on the outside? How do you think a fly couldn't hitch a ride inside a Soyuz capsule? 6a. Did he ask to try it? 6b. The difference in air pressure between space and a vacuum chamber is essentially zero. You're confusing orders of magnitude with absolute value. 7. Windows, not holes.
2
@brettg82au "You won't be able to see the cylinders base." Only if your eye is slightly below the board. You need something to physically come between your eye & the object for the view to be blocked.
2
@brettg82au I understand the angles fine; it works when your eye is slightly below the board.
2
Mikael Andersson Because you get local variations in the overall motion. The atmosphere as a whole rotates with the Earth, a long-term result of the friction with the Earth’s surface. You get variations principally due to the varying thermal properties of land & water. If you want something easy to visualize then think about local eddies in a flowing river.
2
Marco Sul You think? The FE’ers who’ve leapt down the rabbit hole aren’t bothered that observable reality clashes with their claims; they aren’t going to be convinced by a debate when they think Dubay simply saying “It’s flat.” Is conclusive evidence.
2
@marcosul3992 "“If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.”" Dubay's Proof 32. You can't figure out what the gaping hole in his claim is? You think it is a credible argument? "The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects" Dubay's Proof 115. Explain how you think density can act as a force and why objects fall in a consistent speed & direction regardless of the strength & direction of the "density force" being applied to them?
2
I asked questions and was banned, not answered.
2
Feel it compared to what?
2
Try coming up with realistic evidence of a FE.
1
You don’t see any connection between wings and flight?
1
Cofe Donqe Evidence?
1
@Oropia1 I have. I'm asking you to provide evidence to back your claim, not repetition of Dubay's bilge; if you can't see the problems with the latter then I doubt you can provide anything.
1
@Oropia1 I've done the research. I', asking you to provide the evidence that FE'ers claim exist somewhere but can never be found.
1
Cofe Donqe As I said, you’re claiming the evidence exists somewhere but you can’t say where even though you profess to have examined it. If you want me to believe it exists then you need to demonstrate it exists.
1
Ima Frettin https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ Easy to demonstrate that it does.
1
1960’s but the web appeared in 1992 or 1993.
1
William Saunders Would you step in front of a moving car?
1
@williamsaunders4321 "extremely possible" Explain how it is possible. "you observe a light coming over the top of you and disappearing over the horizon at you distance to view," Explain why it moves at a constant angular velocity and retains a constant angular diameter through the course of the day. Explain how rises & sets.
1
William Saunders Which lead to a pronounced variation in angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day. You need to explain how both remain constant. Try doing it.
1
William Saunders Which leads to a pronounced variation in angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day. You need to explain how both remain constant. Try doing it.
1
William Saunders Another “man with the answers” who can’t answer. None of you can. Be brave; step up and give the answer that you all profess to know. It’s easy so actually try it.
1
William Saunders Looked, no answers forthcoming but plenty of FE’ers who profess to have the knowledge so I’m asking directly. Have the guts to answer.
1
@williamsaunders4321 You made the OP and have been replying to our comments for five days; you're in a debate. Answer the question.
1
William Saunders More claims. A FE is “biggest” at Antarctica, so explain what you mean by biggest at the equator. What’s your evidence that the moon emits its own light? What generates the light and how do phases and eclipses occur?
1
William Saunders Why do the “question what you’re told” brigade get so uptight when asked questions?
1
@williamsaunders4321 Questioning what you hear makes you a troll?
1
@williamsaunders4321 What can you say to someone's face that can't be written here? I asked you for an explanation as to how you think a closely placed sun on a FE would not manage to retain a constant angular diameter & angular velocity. What is so difficult to explain that you can't write it here?
1
William Saunders I’m hardly ignoring what you’re saying if I’m questioning what you’re saying. Objects’ angular diameter decrease with increasing distance to the observer; explain why you think this doesn’t apply to the sun & moon. Angular velocity of objects moving a constant velocity also decrease with increasing distance from the observer; explain why you think that doesn’t apply to the sun & moon. Neither require a practical demonstration, just the hypothesis.
1
William Saunders How are you claiming NASA leant on the ancient Greeks?
1
William Saunders Given a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature would you expect per mile? We’re taking about the difference in separating distance between the tops and the pylons and the bottom of the pylons, not how flat the water at the bottom appears.
1
William Saunders Multiple Greeks over several centuries culminating in Ptolemy and his model of the geocentric system based on a spherical Earth. That was the accepted until Copernicus proposed a heliocentric alternative. That the Earth rotates & orbits was part of that model and were demonstrated by the Foucault pendulum and stellar parallax. You need to explain how NASA could lean on all the people confirming this through the centuries. Assuming the Earth to be flat does not mean anybody knows the Earth was flat. That Blue Marble II was a compilation of LEO shots does not magically mean every picture must be so. That an artist’s impression of another planet exists does not magically every picture must be so.
1
William Saunders How much curvature you would expect to find over that distance when discussing curvature over that distance is a straw man how exactly?
1
@kylemc0254 " there too many fake versions i wanna see the real one," Who decides what is genuine and what is fake? What criteria do they use? This is what I mean about FE'ers declaring video & photos to be fake for "reasons" they can never give. Unless we are going to set clear criteria first then it is pointless for me to provide you with anything. I'm glad you have some concept of dimensions. This is the difference between elevation and curvature: https://imgur.com/a/DbuDdVN We're discussing curvature, not elevation. You are saying the surface has no curvature, i.e., that it is 2 dimensional other than variations in elevation. The globe is 3 dimensional, the surface varying in x, y & z dimensions. Try plotting the flight paths on a globe like https://earth.google.com/web/
1
How do you think something could revolve in a straight line?
1
NoNapinInNaptown 360 Scientific theory: a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory.
1
@onthelvl8291 You're confusing the vernacular meaning with the scientific (and original) meaning, a common problem with FE'ers. Cavendisg proved the existence of gravity so catch up.
1
NoNapinInNaptown 360 A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning. In science, something is accepted as a theory because it has accurate and dependable prediction. Clear? You can measure the Earth’s curvature with sticks & shadows; it’s a regular school project in the US. We have accurate world maps enabling long distance trade. The Earth’s shape us mapped to the square meter; see WGS84. We are still waiting on any FE’er to carry out the much simpler task of mapping a FE to a flat surface. You try it. Earth, atmosphere & balloon are moving eastwards at the sand speed; there is no need for anything or everything else to stand still simply because the Earth is moving. Local air currents within the atmosphere displaced the balloon from its launch point. Produce the video for 3hrs at 120,000ft without a curve.
1
NoNapinInNaptown 360 You didn’t make a comparison of Earth and models of FE; you just watched incredulous FE videos. Try actually asking knowledgable people.
1
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