Zero. The fact that you are asking this question is basically an admission that I am right, because otherwise you would be refuting me.
It is worth noting that while you are trying to troll me for having the same opinion about Neil and the rest of "The Science" regarding the mechanics of jumping on airplanes and the spin of the earth, you have the same opinion as them regarding the equivalence of these two positions. When they were pushing the jab, anyone who refused their "safe and effective vaccine" was essentially treated as someone who denied the round rotating globe.
So you and Neil actually agree that belief in the spinning ball and belief in the safe and effective vaccine are the same*. Those of us who are smart understand that these are two unrelated items that should be evaluated independently. It turns out that the claims about the jab's safety and effectiveness were totally absurd, and also, the claims about the failure of the spinning globe model are totally absurd.
*If you want to know why I always answer these things, it is because in my opinion the purpose of this whole psyop is to do exactly this. That is, bring the "conspiracy crowd" over to flat earth or other non traditional cosmologies. Then, you can use this as an "argument by association" on other things, like, say, the jab.
As always, you don't need to take comments down on my behalf. I actually found it a bit funny to be told I am a jabbed double booster because I should dare to point out that what Neil says in this video is correct.
People are free to not like NDT, I don't particularly care for him. But his description of the mechanics of jumping on an airplane here is correct and his analogizing it to being on the surface of a rotating globe is a valid argument. He is responding to standard arguments against the globe about how the motion of the earth should impact us. That still does not make the globe model correct, it just makes those criticisms from Eric Dubay and the others wrong.
Would you prefer I not remove violations in regards to you?
The person whose comment I removed has developed a sort of habit I'm hoping will stop but I don't want to impede your experience either.
No, I just always feel a bit awkward having someone have a comment taken down seemingly on my behalf. I know that isn't why you do it.
I am a bit sensitive because I got censored to hell over at TheDonald until was permabanned. I spent a long time having to carefully talk around all of their filters, because my account was monitored by bots that would take down any comment using key words.
The rules should be the same for everyone I guess. I am just saying that when someone calls me dumb, I don't really lose sleep over it. I was not happy that time that AI guy insinuated that I would get a visitor though, haha.
I'm not sure what helicopter autorotation has to do with his point. If you jump in a plane (or train or boat or bus), you will land where you jumped as long as the vehicle is not accelerating.
Oh, I see. Yeah, I agree that Neil is not particularly impressive and I especially think his fans are generally dumb. I would definitely expect him to get helicopter autorotation wrong because he is a cosmologist which basically means he never has to do anything real with physics, lmao.
But still, his point here about jumping on an airplane is correct. I don't care if people say "ohhhh, you believe The Science Mr. Safe and Effective" or whatever. True and false are true and false and I am not going to take a false position just because it is the opposite of NDT's. I've been on an airplane traveling over 500 miles per hour and I can just open a can of seltzer and sip it calmly.
And yes, what Neil is saying is precisely why "the earth does not just fly underneath us when we jump even though it is supposedly traveling 1000 mph." You can dispute the globe if you want, but this particular argument is wrong.
Yes, but it is actually stronger than that. In addition to having no impact to jumping up and down on an airplane, or walking back and forth across the aisle (which is the same thing relative to the forward motion), there is no impediment to walking forward and backward along the aisle, which is the same axis.
It is not like you are on a plane moving 500 mph and you want to walk 5 mph to the front of the plane and you think to yourself "OK, now I have to remember that I really am accelerating myself to 505 mph." You just start walking forward as if the plane were not moving at all. Obviously, earth with a constant rotation rate is the same thing.
Honestly, I don't really care if people want to think the globe is fake and a conspiracy or whatever. But when they make arguments that are just mechanically wrong, I'm like, no that is just wrong. And since I think the "Believe The Science" crowd like Neil Tyson are definitely not what we want to promote, then we don't want to be in a position where we are very wrong and they are very right about something very obvious.
This whole "shape of the earth" thing is just one of those things. It is the most obvious one. If there were a good argument against the globe, people would not be saying that a rotating earth would move under a hovering helicopter or whatever. If there were a good argument, we would have already heard it.
A mason utilizes compass and square to shape ring and corners to box within.
Boxer turn against each other, hence being confined within a circular conflict.
Intelligence tempts each center (life) of agency (inception towards death) to turn against each other aka off-center.
Someone implies a sum of ones together...that's the spin aka turning together what nature delineates apart from one another.
You may be right on both counts, but Neil's explanation of earth spin here (or rather, why we don't feel it) is sound.
Zero. The fact that you are asking this question is basically an admission that I am right, because otherwise you would be refuting me.
It is worth noting that while you are trying to troll me for having the same opinion about Neil and the rest of "The Science" regarding the mechanics of jumping on airplanes and the spin of the earth, you have the same opinion as them regarding the equivalence of these two positions. When they were pushing the jab, anyone who refused their "safe and effective vaccine" was essentially treated as someone who denied the round rotating globe.
So you and Neil actually agree that belief in the spinning ball and belief in the safe and effective vaccine are the same*. Those of us who are smart understand that these are two unrelated items that should be evaluated independently. It turns out that the claims about the jab's safety and effectiveness were totally absurd, and also, the claims about the failure of the spinning globe model are totally absurd.
*If you want to know why I always answer these things, it is because in my opinion the purpose of this whole psyop is to do exactly this. That is, bring the "conspiracy crowd" over to flat earth or other non traditional cosmologies. Then, you can use this as an "argument by association" on other things, like, say, the jab.
Removed rule 1
As always, you don't need to take comments down on my behalf. I actually found it a bit funny to be told I am a jabbed double booster because I should dare to point out that what Neil says in this video is correct.
People are free to not like NDT, I don't particularly care for him. But his description of the mechanics of jumping on an airplane here is correct and his analogizing it to being on the surface of a rotating globe is a valid argument. He is responding to standard arguments against the globe about how the motion of the earth should impact us. That still does not make the globe model correct, it just makes those criticisms from Eric Dubay and the others wrong.
Would you prefer I not remove violations in regards to you?
The person whose comment I removed has developed a sort of habit I'm hoping will stop but I don't want to impede your experience either.
No, I just always feel a bit awkward having someone have a comment taken down seemingly on my behalf. I know that isn't why you do it.
I am a bit sensitive because I got censored to hell over at TheDonald until was permabanned. I spent a long time having to carefully talk around all of their filters, because my account was monitored by bots that would take down any comment using key words.
The rules should be the same for everyone I guess. I am just saying that when someone calls me dumb, I don't really lose sleep over it. I was not happy that time that AI guy insinuated that I would get a visitor though, haha.
Removed rule 1
Tell us again Neil ---- how a helicopter can't auto-gyrate and will drop like a brick.
I'm not sure what helicopter autorotation has to do with his point. If you jump in a plane (or train or boat or bus), you will land where you jumped as long as the vehicle is not accelerating.
Neil gave a wrong answer 2:35
https://archive.nerdist.com/man-emergency-lands-helicopter-to-teach-neil-tyson-a-physics-lesson/
Oh, I see. Yeah, I agree that Neil is not particularly impressive and I especially think his fans are generally dumb. I would definitely expect him to get helicopter autorotation wrong because he is a cosmologist which basically means he never has to do anything real with physics, lmao.
But still, his point here about jumping on an airplane is correct. I don't care if people say "ohhhh, you believe The Science Mr. Safe and Effective" or whatever. True and false are true and false and I am not going to take a false position just because it is the opposite of NDT's. I've been on an airplane traveling over 500 miles per hour and I can just open a can of seltzer and sip it calmly.
And yes, what Neil is saying is precisely why "the earth does not just fly underneath us when we jump even though it is supposedly traveling 1000 mph." You can dispute the globe if you want, but this particular argument is wrong.
Destin Sandlin impresses me way more than Neil.
Destin covers explanations so effortlessly. With Neil, it's like reading a script.
The easiest way to explain it is via basic physics. Movement in one axis is independent from movement in any other axis.
Yes, but it is actually stronger than that. In addition to having no impact to jumping up and down on an airplane, or walking back and forth across the aisle (which is the same thing relative to the forward motion), there is no impediment to walking forward and backward along the aisle, which is the same axis.
It is not like you are on a plane moving 500 mph and you want to walk 5 mph to the front of the plane and you think to yourself "OK, now I have to remember that I really am accelerating myself to 505 mph." You just start walking forward as if the plane were not moving at all. Obviously, earth with a constant rotation rate is the same thing.
Honestly, I don't really care if people want to think the globe is fake and a conspiracy or whatever. But when they make arguments that are just mechanically wrong, I'm like, no that is just wrong. And since I think the "Believe The Science" crowd like Neil Tyson are definitely not what we want to promote, then we don't want to be in a position where we are very wrong and they are very right about something very obvious.
This whole "shape of the earth" thing is just one of those things. It is the most obvious one. If there were a good argument against the globe, people would not be saying that a rotating earth would move under a hovering helicopter or whatever. If there were a good argument, we would have already heard it.
In the same axis follows Newton's first. You're providing a force relative to your frame.
I know, it is Newton's laws on all three axes, but you would be surprised how controversial this is around here, lol.
Neil is not as smart as he thinks he is.