Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So all anyone needs to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@testaccount3891 - You said "you should be able to duplicate the gravitational properties of Earth on a small scale in a lab...how do you isolate gravity?"
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is - It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@realeyesnolies6424 - Yes, the Earth is oblate as Neil said, but why do you assume YOU must be able to see that in a photo?
If you built a perfect scale model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high, or 300 cm, just under 10 FEET, then it would look like a perfect sphere.
However, although your model is 300 cm high, it would be 301 cm wide at the equator!
That's an oblate spheroid, the shape of the Earth to scale, hence there's NO WAY you can make out that tiny difference in the shape with the naked eye, instead it will look like a perfect sphere to your eyes and will look like a perfect circle in photos!
That's the point you're missing my friend.
So Neil is not lying, he is correct.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "it is not a real picture. It's a computer generated rendering of what the data shows. Colored and textured by CGI artists working at NASA. THIS IS A FACT."
That is not a fact my friend, that's a distortion of the facts used by others to claim those photos are fake :-|
ALL digital photography can be labelled fake and composite and hence "not a real picture" because of the way digital photography works.
For example, the photosensor within the camera in your photo doesn't detect color! Most people don't realize that.
So to create color with just one photosensor there are two main approaches, each with advantages and disadvantages;
1. We can take 3 separate photos of the same scene but through 3 filters, typically red, green and blue, and then combine all 3 images into one photo (the same method used to achieve the first color film photographs a century ago).
2. Place a filter with a mosaic pattern of red, green and blue across the photosensor so that some pixels are filtered red, some green and some blue, and then use a complex mathematical algorithm to reconstruct the color across the entire photograph (look up Bayer Filter as an example).
For photos and videos taken via phones and digital cameras method 2 is used, because only one image per frame is captured and the color worked out mathematically. To our eyes everything looks fine, but the color is not 100% correct across all pixels.
For science however, color is important data and therefore method 2 is unacceptable because the data is being altered. So method 1 is used instead, where 3 separate photos are taken in quick succession (of a planet for example) through different filters and then those separate filtered images are combined to produce the final image, where for a color image the color information is correct across all the pixels.
So by the same logic, every photograph that we've ever taken with any phone or digital camera is not a real picture, it is computer generated :-)
And yet we know all our photographs taken with our devices are real despite how the color is reconstructed, just as photographs taken in space are real despite how the color is reconstructed.
I hope that information helped.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3