We will not be "near the end" until leftists start saying that "using 'Nazi' as a synonym for 'bad' is a facet of the system of jewish supremacism" and that Hitler was fundamentally correct about the jews. I don't care if the leftists every like white people, but unless they can bring themselves to understand that their weird belief system that is completely centered around the hatred of us is just a weapon devised by the jews, then leftists will always be a danger.
Oy vey! I am shocked, just shocked, to see Mr. Spielberg promoting an alien hoax that says people should leave their religions. Someone should ask Mr. Spielberg why the incredible discovery in the latter years of the 20th century that his people's fake holocaust is a totally fake and gay hoax did not lead to him to rethinking his allegiance to his own demonic religion. I'm just a stupid goy animal, I'm not smart enough to understand these patterns on my own.
I think all the people calling out the alien hoax as an obvious hoax has them second guessing themselves. It would be absolutely hilarious if they try for the fake alien invasion and most of the public just says "fake and gayyyy."
This video states that Sumerians "knew the earth was round" and it is alleging a conspiracy to hide that the Sumerians may have known that we were within the ceiling of the Van Allen Belt and that the "watchers" were at the L1 point defined by the earth's orbit around the sun.
That sounds like a whole lotta globerist heliocentrism. The comments on the video are absolute gold, as a lot of flat earthers are excited about how the Sumerians knew about "the true shape of the earth." I think the technical details of the video were seemingly lost on them.
This is what I mean when I say I find this whole thing so bizarre. Assuming you are not trolling, I would love to know what is so confusing about "the earth is roughly a sphere, to a smaller extent the middle bulges out less than 1/100 than the top and bottom, and to an even smaller extent the top is a bit less than 1/100000 times farther than the bottom."
I honestly find this to be so simple an idea that I cannot even fathom why someone would describe it as "mental gymnastics to try to explain the idiocy of tge heliocentric model" or "a lie and then it compounds into a convoluted explanation," or "NDG getting tripped up calling the shape a pear now."
If you could, could you tell me specifically what aspect of this you are referring to? I am assuming you cannot but I am just curious if you even have an answer.
All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view
All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!
I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can use it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.
If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.
Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the claimed curvature of the earth that we are trying to confirm or refute. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over confounding variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.
Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything about the claimed earth curvature without careful control over other variables.
This is one of those examples I told you about exhibiting why almost no one takes FEers seriously. However, as is my habit, I will provide you an accurate and polite answer.
NDT is not one of "my guys," he is a celebrity who makes entertainment for the (very stupid) masses. I assume that "goalposts have to be moved" implies that all the scientists are hiding that the globe model is totally failing. In this case what they are hiding is "all the extra land in the southern hemisphere" which is of course consistent with FE. This is typical Duvey / Weiss style nonsense that uses the sloppy language of an entertainer like NDT to make an argument that sounds like it makes sense if you don't know anything about the topic.
TLDR: The "pear" you are referring to is a north pole / south pole difference on the order of 0.000007, not some "secret failure of the globe that the world elite are hiding." Flat earthers finding problems in things like NDT popular interviews is not an argument. If you want to be taken seriously, find a major flaw in modern geodesy.
A long time ago, astronomical observations (i.e. the sun, the stars, etc.) suggested that the earth is round and rotating. The simplest model, then, is a sphere, and rudimentary measurements converge on a rough figure of a sphere of 4000 mile radius. Once a system of mechanics and gravitation was worked out, it was clear that a spinning body under self gravitation must be an oblate speroid. Improved measurements did in fact confirm that the equatorial radius is about 13.4 miles larger than the polar, giving a flattening of about 1/298.2 (~0.00335). The so called "pear shape" in this NDT video is a finding initially from the first satellite orbits in the 1950s. As you can read for yourself, modern measurements put this at a 148 foot difference between the distance to the north pole and the south pole from the center. Compared to the "theoretical polar radius" this is a "pear shape" on the order of ~0.000007. It has also been found that the equator is not circular to a similar order of magnitude. Nowadays, everything is done using the reference ellipsoid and the geoid.
I am always polite to FE people. There are a variety of reasons for this, the nicest being that I actually agree that absolutely everything should be open to questioning, which means if someone is suspicious about the shape of the earth they have the right to ask questions. Those people deserve polite and accurate answers. On top of that, I think there are a lot of FE trolls that feed off of people melting down over this stuff, so rather than feed the trolls I provide very factual answers without any controversy.
That said, I personally just find the whole thing insane. I'm an engineer and a big math and physics nerd, so almost every argument sounds to me like a bad joke about physics from someone who wants to be Randall Monroe but is significantly less funny. Like, IMO Eric Dubay could be one of the best "corney jokes about bad physics" web comics ever.
A handful of FE arguments are actually semi correct and deserve a real answer. The most prolific of these is that despite what all the "believe science" shills say, you actually cannot reliably see the curve from the ground. This is just a fact of the small amount of curvature that the earth has and the interference that the earth surface atmosphere has on light propagation. So jackasses like Neal Degrasse Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, etc. are all showing themselves to be clowns. Unfortunately, we just have to tell the FE people that visual measurements restricted to the ground are too noisy to reliably demonstrate earth curvature.
I thought Toys 'R Us was hunted to extinction by poachers.
LOL. I don't know if this is a joke, but I can assure you that mine was definitely a joke. I have got to be the biggest "globetard" here. I have this pathological masochistic tendency of patiently explaining the real physics behind the supposed FE proofs. I rarely get anywhere.
As far as toroidal planets go, I have never really studied them but as far as I understand some very smart people have and it is theoretically possible for a rocky toroidal planetary mass to exist under a balance of self gravitation and rotation. That said, the possibility that earth is toroidal is pretty much 0, just like the possibility that earth is flat or a "pond" on an "ice ball" of significantly larger radius than the conventional earth radius is also 0.
Now, to continue the joke a bit, and "answer" some of your questions, the "many earths as 'ponds' on a giant ice ball" theory actually provides a path for a possible explanation for the 24 hour sun observed in The Final Experiment. In effect, the 24 hour sun at "north pole" is our sun while it is in its northern / inner rotation period. The 24 hour sun in the south pole is the combined effect of our sun while it is in its southern / outer rotation and the suns from nearby "ponds" also at this part of their cycle.
Wow, I may have provided the answer to The Final Experiment.
This one should be called The Great Compromise.
Density doesn't take any mental gymnastics
How do the sun and moon stay in the air under the THEORY of density and buoyancy? Are they lighter than the air? Where does all the energy of the sun come from if it is lighter than air and smaller than the earth (FE maintains the sun is smaller than the earth)?
No one mentioned a train but a plane...
Same question in a plane. Does it take longer to walk one way in the aisle of the plane rather than the other? How about flying an RC helicopter on a plane? How about "hovering" an RC helicopter on a plane? Would such a "hovering" RC helicopter slam into the back of the plane at 500 miles per hour, maybe killing a flight attendant? If not, why is the "spinning ball" different than the plane (or train or ferry or bus).
It makes zero sense that both travel times are the same
There is no quantity of times you can say this that makes it be true. Eric Dubay and Dave Weiss can make those videos if they want. It's a free world out there. But no one smart is tricked by them.
that is supposedly spinning. 66,000 mph to boot lol
Much like the OP here, this is not correct. The equator spins around 1000 mph and it is a function of latitude (this isn't "magic changing spin," just look at a spinning ball, the speed is different across it). The 66,000 mph is the average orbital speed around the sun.
To say the plane is locked to the earth's spin is absolute nonsense in my mind.
This is the first accurate thing you have said. You are rejecting the theory, which is an opinion that you are expressing. You are welcome to reject the theory. But nevertheless, this is what conventional physics says, so this is its explanation for why the travel times are equal.
The earth isn't... eyes can see and more.
All opinions you are more than entitled to.
Tons of evidence and experiments support this.
No.
Again...
An opinion you are entitled to. Those liars do also say that the sky is blue, though. I guess you should start saying it is green. Have a great Memorial Day.
Anything heavier than air will sink and lighter than air will rise such as a helium balloon or smoke.
Why? What causes that? The flat earth model implicitly assumes a preferred, "natural" direction of falling / down. Things fall in this direction, "down," because that is just the way that it is. Different densities then lead to the "sorting out" that we see, as the denser object is more likely to go down, and this phenomenon they call "buoyancy."
No magical gravity that works on some things but not others
Yes, because you have instead a "magical" principle of "density and buoyancy," whereas conventional physics has "gravity." The only argument is that FE says their model is universal and gravity is not. This is pretty much the opposite as the truth. As I have repeatedly said, in conventional Newtonian (and relativistic) physics, gravity is universal. It does not "work on some things but not others" it is literally the most universal of the four forces. In conventional physics, "buoyancy" is a phenomenon that appears in certain circumstances due to gravity, density, and fluid mechanics. Also, the "end result" of buoyancy is not in fact universal, and there are demonstrations in which it is violated, sometimes in an unstable fashion and sometimes in a stable fashion.
and remember its still considered the THEORY of gravity.
The plane traveling against the spin... Does this not make logical sense?
It obviously makes sense to the FE crowd because they cite this over and over again. To me, this is so obvious that it led me to assume that FEers were all trolling, but I have decided that this is not true. I guess all I can say is this. If you are on a train car and pacing up and down the aisle of the car, does it take you longer to go from the back of the car to the front than from the front to the back? By the FE argument, it must take longer to walk forward in the car "against its motion" and it must be faster to walk to the back "traveling with the motion."
Of course, I have to assume you know that the answer is "no" because you have been on a train or subway or ferry and walked on it in both directions. So you are well aware that you are walking relative to the floor of the vessel and it takes you equal time to go in both directions. And before you say "yes, but we are talking about flying," I would ask the same question about flying an RC helicopter or drone up and down the train / ferry. As long as you are inside, the air is moving with you, no matter how fast you are going, and so the RC copter flies the same time in both directions (if you were outside and there was relative wind, again, this is not true).
This is why I keep telling you that it is actually conventional physics that is more universal and consistent. FE has to pretend that for some reason, traveling on "the spinning ball" is different than walking up and down a subway car. It isn't.
It sounds like you are asking if a helicopter can remain in a single place in the earth's orbit and have the earth return to it a year later. I'm not sure if this question is serious, but clearly the answer is no. The helicopter flies in the earth's atmosphere. If it remained in a single place in the earth orbit for a year, it would be in empty space until the earth returned. Doing this would involve, from the perspective of someone on earth, the helicopter flying up into space and then remaining in a single spot there despite the force of the sun's gravity. Helicopters only fly up to a mile or two, and they certainly cannot hover in a vacuum (although not too much is needed to counteract the sun).
Generally, the flat earth arguments are along the lines of the helicopter being expected to remain at one place relative to the earth center with the earth rotating underneath it. The long thread above is me trying to convince one of them that this is not in fact an argument that the globe is invalid, no matter what Eric Dubey and Dave Weiss say. A hovering helicopter hovers above the ground, and since the ground is moving as a part of earth rotation, so is the hovering helicopter (at the same speed), as is the air (up to the difference caused by wind).
From a broader perspective, even remaining in one place in the earth orbit is still "moving" since the whole solar system orbits the galactic center. So saying "I want to stay still relative to the earth orbit and see it return next year" is still arbitrary, as you are following the solar orbit around the galaxy. And the galactic center of mass moves relative to others as well.
Incidentally, this "motion upon motion" is always cited by flat earthers as completely preposterous and not explainable by conventional science. This is all false, the principles are all very simple.
OK, that's fine. I tried to give a relatively complete answer and maybe that was a mistake. The TLDR is that the rotation affects everything the same way, the helicopter, the jet, the balloon, the mosquito, everything. The effect is generally very small and completely dominated by other disturbances, most notably the wind. This is to say a balloon does not "float straight up" but is subject to the earth rotation as well, you just aren't able to see it.
The flat earth material always appeals to "buoyancy" and "density" but it never rigorously defines how these things behave so I'm not sure what to say. In conventional physics, they both have precise definitions, along with of course gravity. In fact, buoyancy is defined in terms of gravity and density (in a fluid medium).
Maybe my explanation was confusing, but there is no issue with the plane flight times being the same. The plane is flying some speed (e.g. 500 mph) in the air. The air is (very roughly) moving with the earth. Therefore the flight times east and west are the same (this is no longer true when there is significant winds).
I was thinking about this today, and even if one were to build such a perfect machine and run it on a windless day, when the copter started to drift westwards it would then be in a relative wind and so come to a stop eventually unless a horizontal thrust was applied.
As to your copter in Florida, these "hovering arguments" are always relying on a naive picture. Aircraft are built for the air, so their performance is relative to what the air is doing. In the globe model, the earth has a 4000 mile radius and rotates once every 24 hours. This does imply, as anti globes always dismiss as ridiculous, that at the equator the earth is moving a bit more than 1000 mph. In Florida, it would be more like 850 mph or so because it is at about 30 degrees of latitude. When the helicopter is on the ground, it is moving the same speed. Also, all the air is moving on average that speed, and what we call "wind" is really any difference between the air speed and the ground speed.
So the globe model would be that when the helicopter takes off into "hover," it is moving eastward at the local ambient ~850 mph and it lifts into air also moving on average that speed except for whatever breeze there might be. If the helicopter actually were to hover so that it would be stationary according to a non rotating earth, this would involve flying west through the air at over 800 miles per hour, which is clearly impossible.
Why would the spin... as you state?
In the thought experiment I said before, the rising object at tropical and lower mid latitudes would be pushed west for the same reason that someone who tries to walk from the interior to the perimeter of a running merry-go-round is "pushed backwards." In order to rotate once per 24 hours when you are a mile up in the sky, you need to be moving a little faster. If you do not push yourself faster, it will appear on the ground like you were "pushed backwards" which on earth is west.
A helium balloon isn't affected by its spin...it just floots up
As I said, at the equator, where the up/down-east/west Coriolis is maximum, it would be about a quarter mph for rising a mile. First of all, at a mile up you would not be able to resolve this drift in the balloon, especially when it is masked by random winds. On top of that, even if we could stop all wind and measure the balloon precisely with a telescope, the effect would die out quickly, because once the balloon is "pushed west" (to the person on the ground it appears this way), then the balloon is in a relative wind. We said there is no wind in this experiment, so if the balloon is moving west it experiences drag and so "slows down" (this "slowing down" as it appears to the person on the ground is really a "speeding up" eastward).
planes traveling east to west and vice versa should have way different times
Again, this is the naive view. The plane is a machine that flies in the air. The globe model is a rotating earth with an atmosphere that is on average rotating with it, and "wind" is a difference between air speed and ground speed. You may find it counterintuitive, you may choose to reject it, that's fine. But standard Newtonian mechanics says that if the ground is moving from Los Angeles to Atlanta at about 850 mph, then the air above it more or less is too. A plane on the runway waiting to take off is moving that same speed. When it does take off, it does so into this "moving air" and that is what it flies in. So if there is no wind, the flight time is about the same in both directions. If there is significant wind, then one way is a bit faster than the other (the one with a "tail wind.")
What I am saying is conventional physics would say "goes straight up in the air 90° straight up" and "Hovers for hours, no adjustments no controls just stay hovering without any lateral movement" are contradictory to each other. Maybe this is obvious to me because I am an engineer. In the real world, the only way something would remain in the same place like that is because it is being controlled, either by a human or a computer. The major disturbances preventing this are the wind and mechanical imbalance in the helicopter, and buried under these is the effect of the earth's rotation.
But what if we make a perfect helicopter that can push straight up in perfect balance with no sideways thrust and run it on a day with absolutely no wind?
In this theoretical situation, then the prediction would be that that such a helicopter would drift slowly due to the earth's rotation. If such a perfect helicopter and windless atmosphere existed, and the copter were flown to a mile of altitude near the equator, then while up there we would expect it to drift westward a bit more than a quarter mile per hour due to to the earth's rotation.
This experiment is pretty much impossible to do though. Any hovering helicopter is being controlled by a pilot or a computerized flight control system.
OK. I guess I just have a hard time understanding how people have a hard time understanding this. I used to think that flat earth was all fake and there weren't actually people who believed it. I have come around to the idea that some people really do believe it in good faith, and those people are generally allies on most issues.
I don't really have a problem with it. I just find it bizarre I guess. As far as hovering goes, what someone does when they hover a helicopter is they hold it steady over a spot on the earth. That is what the word "hover" means in English. The way the pilot knows he is hovering is by watching the earth and adjusting the craft to stay over the same spot. So, by definition, the craft is staying over the same spot. The pilot is just adjusting the controls to ensure that this happens based on what he sees the craft doing relative to the ground.
This is why I said "if you fly 500 miles per hour north for an hour, you land 500 miles north of where you started." It is literally the same thing as hovering being remaining over one spot. You are just stating what the pilot is doing using English words.
Hands down still the best account here lmao. I'm not sure if you are being completely serious or this is an elaborate troll, but either way I approve.
That is what I was assuming you meant. I figured that this was some Eric Duvey "200 proofs" sort of argument. That is why I posted that something that is "hovering" will remain over the same spot on the ground simply by the definition of the word "hover," and since it remains over the same spot on the ground, when it descends it lands on the same spot it raised off of initially. There is nothing mysterious about this happening.
I gotta say, I really try to remain open to the flat earth and other "globe rejecting" people. I'm not "triggered" by flat earth, as the meme goes. I try to hear them out and watch their documentaries or whatever to see if anyone has a good argument for their position. I always see things like this, and as respectfully as possible, this is why so many people do not take flat earth people seriously.
There is a difference between thinking the globe model is wrong and saying you have found a situation where the globe model makes an incorrect prediction. If you think "the spinning ball" is false then that is fine, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. But saying you found someplace where it makes an incorrect prediction is not an opinion, it is a factual claim. In all honesty, do you really believe that helicopter hovering is mechanically inconsistent with and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?
Are you posting your own book that you are selling for a few hundred dollars?
The book says it is TOP SECRET but there is all the public data you could ever want about this topic.
As a rough "audit of this audit," a single mile thick shell of the earth out here at the surface* is 201 million cubic miles. A cubic mile is 147 billion cubic feet. So the shell of earth is about 29.5 "thousand million billion" ("billion billion" or "quintillion" if I counted correctly) cubic feet. A cubic foot is about 28.3 liters, so that means our shell of the earth is about 834 "billion billion" (i.e. "quintillion") liters. If your bathtub is is 300 liters, then this is almost 3 billion-billion bathtubs.
I am not sure of the percentage that is oil, but if only 1 millionth of the earth's crust is oil, then our 50 million bathtubs per day from one millionth of that volume is about 3 million / (50/day) ~= 60,000 days ~= 160 years. Of course, we pump oil from more than one mile of the earth's crust. Prior to modern methods, there were predictions (i.e. in the 1970s) that we would run out of oil by the year 2000. Nowadays they estimate a century or two of oil?
These numbers are wags for an order of magnitude check. If you want real numbers, you can research oil reserves on EIA or any other source if you don't believe the US government.
* Not sure if this will discredit me because you reject the globe model.
Very interesting video and wow, what a shame Disney sucks so much these days. I was not aware of all this and now am a bit interested in the properties of the pentagram and of the other regular "-grams." It would be cool to find some collection of Pythagorean mathematics. The most common item (honestly the only one I see) discussed today is* the irrationality of non integer square roots. Supposedly, according to the legend, the Pythagoreans considered this to be a very dangerous piece of math and kept it a secret.
*No, it is not the Pythagorean theorem because despite the name, no one talks about whatever Pythagoras' proof of it was.
Yeah, of course. Lemaître was basically the first proposer of a theory along the lines of what is now called "The Big Bang," although he apparently (according to Wikipedia) used the phrase "primordial atom." Something like the Hubble Law (which is officially called the Hubble-Lemaître Law) and its implications on the distant past / universe origins has nothing to do with the orbital motion of the earth around the sun. The solar system model predates The Big Bang, Lemaître, Einstein, and Relativity by centuries.
And yes, he was a Jesuit priest. If you reject The Big Bang because the original theory is from a Jesuit then I guess that is your right. I personally do not have strong feelings about it, as it seems difficult to me to look at the present view of outer space and project that backwards to when the universe was supposedly smaller than an atom. I don't mind that people do that, I guess, it is just not something I care too much about.
I personally always thought it amusing that modern "anti bible thumper trust the science" people, who have replaced The Book of Genesis with The Big Bang, seemed totally unaware that it was a Catholic priest who came up with this theory. When one considers that it seems to harmonize science with religion, it is a bit interesting.
He is not George Floyd for white people. He either acted in self defense or he did not. If he attacked the person / shot him unprovoked, then that is a crime. If the person attacked him, as virtually everyone honest is saying that the video shows, then he acted in self defense.
Whether Chud's material is good / intelligent / helpful or not, and even whether he is a part of a wider deep state conspiracy to "divide and conquer" is totally irrelevant. If he was attacked merely for his words and shot the man in self defense, then everyone of conscience should support him.
Incidentally, while I don't know much about Chud's personal traits and whether he is "George Floyd for white people," it is definitely looking like we have another "George Floyd" (as in, for black people), in the supposed "victim" that Chud shot. If you want to see the criminal history, particularly the violent criminal history, of the attacker, I'm sure you can find it on the tubes at this point.
I'm just warning people to be weary of surreptitious heliocentric globe earth propaganda.