Thank you so much for watching! Remember to check out Yours App using this link: yoursapp.com/emma or use the code "EMMA" at check out to get 60% off your yearly plan! Thanks so much to Yours App for the sponsor, especially as this video is under a lil copyright monetization battle... 😅 Side note: _Please guys I only needed one person to correct me on the pronunciation of Eratosthenes I TRIED MY BEST ;~;_
Emma when you said you didn't understand what he meant when he said we couldn't be travelling through an impossible vacuum is because flat earthers say if space existed and was a vacuum our atmosphere would gets sucked off the planet 😅 and say gravity cannot hold the atmosphere but scientists say that the atmosphere has weight and it causes a gradient the higher we go and gets thinner. they don't even believe in gravity
"Cold Moonlight" It's well understood, and called "Radiative cooling". Basically "Moonlight" has nothing to do with it, it's just that to get Moonlight there needs to be no clouds, therefore limited insulation from the atmosphere. So it's cold in the moonlight, because thermodynamics is trying to equal the temperature of the object in the moonlight with space. PS The red dot on a cheap IR thermometer probably won't point at the same spot the sensor is pointing at. You didn't understand his points, because you aren't stupid enough!! Most of it is some flimflam misrepresenting how the Earth retains it's atmosphere, and dishonestly conflating it with ground level vacuums and buoyancy.
Emma, why not consider getting in touch with Mark Sargent? I'm quite he would be up for it and available. It would make great coverage and veiwing for you and your followers to question a real Flat Earther. Please again consider it, many thanks
My first question for Mark would be "Who is your psychiatrist?" The whole flat earth ideology is founded on ignorance. Erastothenes is pronounce air-a-stoth-e-nees. The first photographs of earth taken from space were produced by emulsion film cameras, decades before CGI technology. Environmentalism was very much an issue in the 50's. The issues back then was acid rain caused by industries that used coal. The greenhouse effect caused by petroleum and the harmful effects of nuclear energy. All these issues were were the topic of the 1962 documentary film Mondo Cane.
@@graemerose1616 Definitely attention seeking. He really doesn't care what he say's or what people think of him as log as he gets the attention and people know his name.
Didn't Ranty Flatearth claim that they went into it believing, but quickly worked out they were wrong, and couldn't admit it for ego/financial reasons. Wasn't Sargent the guy lusting after that Flatearth woman?
Watch this stuff for long enough and they jump from conspiracy to conspiracy, whatever is in the public trend most at the time, to maximize the dosh they can grift
Step 1: Get flat Earthers to raise enough money to send a trusted flat Earther on a bit of space tourism. Step 2: The tourist sees the curve of the Earth and documents it. Step 3: The tourist renounces Flat Earth and encourages others to view their evidence and abandon Flat Eartherism. Step 4: The Flat Earth movement will now believe that the tourist has been replaced by a lizard person who is grooming their kids.
There is absolutely nothing you can do to get these idiots to admit was is obviously true. It's their whole lives. They get off on thinking they're smarter than everyone else.
I'm so glad that you point out that opinions are NOT always equal, and should not be treated as such. Thinking like this only gives oxygen to groups like Flat Earthers.
If the Earth is flat, how come my life is going down hill? I was a Flat Earther for four years then I turned five. The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.
OK so let's answer Mark's 5 points here: 1. That's the "black Swan" picture they have. Been debunked, all down to refraction. Even the oil platforms themselves are distorted. 2. They don't believe in pressure gradients and think that the vacuum of space is a literal vacuum cleaner that sucks. Gravity holds the atmosphere to the planet and that's why the air is thinner the further you get from the surface. 3. Shadows cast by small objects when the light source is much larger are smaller than the object. Again been thoroughly debunked. 4. Cold moon light doesn't exist. That's idiotic. It's radiative cooling and they don't understand simple physics. Places in shadow of the moonlight have excess heat that is trapped by whatever casts the shadow. 5. Yes they are but they flew through the lowest intensity areas at high speed and basically chanced it. Radiation can be stopped by paper for example. Lead is only needed for gamma radiation protection. We don't send spacecraft through them now as our current tech is much more advanced and also more prone to be damaged by radiation compared to the very analogue tech of the 60's. Mark is an idiot.
2. Additional points: it's the remaining particels in space that make it necessary for spacestations to every now and then accelerate. They slow down because what we call the vaccuum of space is not really perfectly particle free. It's just that the further you get away from massive objects the less particels there are. (which you can proof yourself by hiking up a really high mountain) At some point we artificially put up a value at which we say this is the point at which it is effectively a vaccuum for all intends and purposes...
I actually don't think he's a complete idiot. He's no genius, clearly, but among flat earthers he's uniquely articulate - I think he is at least smart enough to know that what he's saying is absurd. He knows the earth's not flat. I think he's a huckster, a misanthrope and a very sad, lonely, detached person who somehow derives a twisted satisfaction from leading the group of idiots that constitutes flat earthers.
I was a math tech at a tracking radar station with computers that calculated the positions of missiles and aircraft in XYZ coordinates. We got lots of complaints from aircraft that the values reported for altitude were incorrect. All I could say was "That's not altitude. The Z values are vertical at the radar. If the Earth were flat then Z would be the same as altitude." Later we updated the software to calculate position in spherical coordinates with the origin at the center of the earth and then subtracting out the radius of the earth to get altitude.
That bit when he starts listing bullet points is a perfect example of how charlatans work. He hit them with a firehose of nonsense, speaking too fast to give them a chance to pick at any one thing for any time. I suspect that he used the limited time to his advantage, because he is aware that these programs won't have time to actually dig into anything said by their guests.
If I ever see a discussion with one of these bombastic ignorance jackasses where they don't employ the Gish gallop, I will assume that the enemies of reason are slipping in their game.
First bullet point: 8in per mile squared posits a belief in a parabolic curve. We don't, not for the Earth's curve, you cannot make a globe from a parabolic curve. Maybe you got confused with the maths of the sky dome? Why even look at points 2 - 5 if this the standard?
So quick rule: If you demand the other side proofs something to the degree that it would hold up in a court of law but you can just throw out accusations without the slightest bit of evidence (e.g. "This is just CGI") then you are full of shit.
Court of law, discovery period requiring sources of evidence. Charge reckless endangerment, trying to tell people gravity isn't real can cause easily demonstrable harm.
Exactly, court of law requires proof beyond *reasonable* doubt. In an actual court of law, the defense can't simply wave any photographic evidence away as CGI, they'd need to present strong evidence that it could be.
What I love so much about this interview is that Mark has clearly, unwittingly stepped out of his comfort zone and is clearly regretting his choices. Somebody told him UK daytime TV and he probably met Phil and Holly and thought they seem nice... But he was not ready for what came. To be honest those two are good pals so he fucked up. The moment he tried to put down Phill he basically waved a red flag at the bull as far as Holly was concerned!
Hi Emma, fellow Brit here - I believe the correct pronunciation of Eratosthenes is along the lines of "Error Toss The Knees". Hope this helps, loving the video! EDIT: Sorry, I'm apparently a day late to this party and this has been covered already :)
Also, I love how "the public wasn't ready" to find out we live on a flat earth in 1960, but we were totally comfy with the idea before Aritosthenes. 🙄🙄🙄🤣🤣🤣 Stop it, you. Lmao
For his second point about the atmosphere flying into space, he’s asking since space is a vacuum why doesn’t the atmosphere fly into space to equalize the pressure. The answer is the atmosphere is a gradient, pressure slowly decreases as you increase in elevation. So for any atmospheric particle, the pressure below is only slightly greater than the pressure above, which does result in a force pushing the particle upward. But… this force is balanced by the gravitational force pulling the particle down so it doesn’t move. It’s like he thinks there’s a hard line that separates the atmosphere from space, there isn’t.
Exactly Brandon. These fools love to cite the second law of thermodynamics Zero of them have ever studied thermodynamics and you can tell when they say sillychit like moonlight is cold.
It's because he believes in a dome. So to him, there *is* a hard line - that's where the dome is. Just like there's a hard line at the "Antarctic wall".
Plus his whole point about how you can't say gravity is what's holding the atmosphere in place because air would rush in to fill a vacuum above them... despite the fact that it's the _weight_ of the miles of atmosphere above, pushing down, because of gravity, that _create_ the pressure that would push air upward to fill in that vacuum. Rather than disprove gravity holding everything in place, his example only proves it.
I'm so glad Sargent was asked about the South Pole, because back in the late '70's the renowned explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, went on an expedition to circumnavigate the Earth.. pole to pole. It's known as "The Transglobe Expedition". Starting from Greenwich, the expedition took them down through Europe, across West Africa, then south to Cape Town. From there, straight to the South pole, reaching the actual South pole in December of 1980, then carrying on to Auckland, then to Sydney Australia, then to Los Angeles, making his way up to the North pole, and finally back to Greenwich again. That route that took them *directly* across the South Pole, a path that simply cannot exist with flat earth theories. Strange how that well-documented journey is never mentioned by flat earth believers.
Emma, I understand how difficult ancient Greek names can be to pronounce but it was Eratosthenes ( era-toss-then-eez) in 280 BC that measured the shadows and used geometry to estimate the circumference of the Earth. Wonderful video. You hit on the major fallacies very well.
@@pattheplanter , I considered that pronunciation breakdown as well., though I'd stick with "era" for the first syllable. Both are viable. Whatever helps.
@@pattheplanter Ἐρατοσθένης would be more accurate. :Þ Eh - ra - t - o - ss - th¹ - eh - n - ih - ss ¹ As in "thin" and "smith," not dh as in "this" and "that."
Once, I was talking to a ten year old about flat earth and, purely to be daft, I pretended I believed in it and gave all the arguments I knew sincerely. He debunked every one, easily. What are we to conclude from this?
2 года назад
That the vast majority of flattards are actually trolls.
@@whiteknight8399 If Flat Earthers were sincere, they’d pool their money and go to space with Tesla, Branson or Bezos and resolve this very quickly. If they were sincere...
We have that attitude in the U.S. as well. That everyone's views are supposed to be treated as equally valid and opinions deserve equal respect. And that's just nonsense.
My grandfather told me to be suspicious when anyone says to “open your mind”. And don’t take that advice as usually when people “open their minds” their brains fall out. See video for evidence.
The phrase goes back a long way. Some suggestion that it was Professor Max Radin in 1937 in the Yale Law Journal. I like it when Tim Minchin uses it before his song "Take my Wife".
The whole Antartica thing with flat earthers is so easy to debunk. People have sailed around Antartica. There’s a solo yacht race, The Vendee Globe, that goes around Antartica every four years. Qantas Airlines offers a 12 to 14 hour tourist flight over Antartica. You can book flights to the South Pole and stay for a week. It would be great if a bunch of flat earthers tried to sail along the Antarctic coast. If they were headed west, according to their map, they would have to bear right to stay along the coast. It would be fun to see their reactions when the discover they have to bear to the left to stay along the coast.
Circumnavigating Antarctica requires about 11,000 miles. Sailing around the ice wall of a flat earth would require about 70,000 miles. Sailors would notice the difference. Long before I heard of the modern flat-earthers, I read two different true stories about sailing ships that were trying to go westward below South America, and decided it was easier to turn around and go eastward all around Antarctica. On a flat earth, that would be a long trip, and the winds would be entirely different.
the thing is, they'd say its all made up I mean, there are people who think Australia is fake and a cover up story for british crimes (ie killing prisoners, saying they're deported). Which originally was a parody on stupid conspiracy theories... they basically think that theres a special resort in south america where tourists are brought to to believe theyre in australia.
I really enjoyed this! I worked with a very pleasant, intelligent and highly skilled fellow for over a year. I had the utmost respect for him... Then I heard his rant about the flat Earth... My understanding of him was completely altered by learning an observable fact. I probed further, asking a series of simple questions that were answered with the most ludicrous answers. He went for the "Water doesn't curve" argument... I happened to have a dropper with me and I picked a leaf... Dropped a bit of water onto the leaf and it, obviously, made a little sphere... This simple demonstration sent him over the edge... Yelling all manner of craziness. I know we're living in a new world where everything can mean anything and the go to in arguments is asking to prove a negative but there are so many people who just refuse to just look at the world around them!!! The point is... I enjoyed the video...
isn't it fascinating? They only know "vacuum cleaners" so they are STEADFASTLY convinced all vacuums have to SUCK. But anybody with even basic physic knowledge has to realize the enormous problem with that. Empty space has no source of energy to move anything. It has to come from the other direction, gas trying to egalize its pressure to the surrounding and thus moving outwards until contained or held back by a different force (like Gravity)
It's such a misunderstanding of what a vacuum is. It's pressure trying to equalise itself. Gravity prevents this by being the stronger force. Flat Earthers think that a vacuum works like the eponymous machine by sucking air out.
I once convinced a flat earth the world was round using only a compass. Next time I'll be using a cricket bat. The compass was to badly damaged to use it again.
Love the video Emma! For the whole thing about the atmosphere escaping - I've heard this one before and it goes something like this: 1. Gasses expand to fill a container 2. Space is a Vacuum and (relatively) infinite container 3. The atmosphere does not fly off of the earth to fill space 4. Therefore, science is wrong which means the world is flat When countered with the fact that gravity holds the atmosphere down, he points to the fact that a box full of air in a vacuum will be violently emptied until it equalizes with the vacuum - even if under gravity. It's the simple misunderstanding of air pressure and the fact that miles of air pushing down holds our atmosphere down and ignoring the fact that mainstream science accepts that some lighter elements in our atmosphere really do leak out. I'm also perplexed because a flat earth would still have the issue of air rushing out into space.
You could also pop a vacum bubble underwater. Because water would rush upwards into the vacum chamber against gravity, that means the surface of the ocean doesn't exist. It must be under a dome otherwise water would just fly off
The thing is, we _are_ losing "light" gasses like helium to space. (Tom Scott has a video on that.) But for the majority of gasses, gravity is stronger than the pull of the vacuum of space.
LOL But the DOME. :) It is so weird to think that I'm worried about Quantum Mechanics and the inherent instability of apparently stable objects and these people think there's a big dome over the Earth.
Kudos to Phil and Holly for treating Mark with respect while challenging his position. When Mark was talking about Antarctica I didn't recall him mentioning any of the research stations that have been based there for decades or if they have found evidence confirming the existence of the wall of ice.
Obviously, THEY are faking those images as well. There's no research stations there and penguins are paid actors in fursuits. Yeah, conspiracy theorists really believe that kind of stretch. Like we live on a flat earth is just the start; people think we live in a crater and the earth is vastly bigger than the land we know and there's more hidden places behind the ice wall. It's both astounding and rather sad that people can fall that far down the rabbit hole.
I personally know someone who's a rocket scientist working for NASA. Him saying they dump them in the ocean infuriated the Hell out of me for that reason. My question to him would be, "Why would they spend millions of dollars and do many hours of research, just to dump them in the ocean?".
My singular argument to debunk flat earth involves only 2 rings. In every accepted Flat Earth Model, they put the north pole in the center and the south pole at the outer rim. This means that if I were to trace a path along the equator and call it ring 1, and trace another orbit path further south and call it ring 2, on the Flat Earth model ring 1 is smaller than ring 2. However, in a globe model, ring 2 is smaller than ring 1, since the longest latitude ring on a globe is the equator. This means, all you would need to do to prove one model over the other is fly 2 planes simultaneously. One flies at the equator, one flies south of the equator, both pointing due East and taking stops at the same time. If the globe is true, the southern plane will take less time to accomplish this flight, while the equator plane will take less time if the flat earth model is correct.
My top 3 favorite moments from the Behind the Curve doc. 3: Mark Sargent and Patricia Steele visiting the the space agency and roasting NASA for not being able to create a display that works when in reality, they failed to notice the big red button marked "Start". 2: Jeranism's light beam experiment where he couldn't see the light beam until his partner lifted the light over his head thus proving the curvature. And my # 1 favorite moment: Bob Knodel got his hands on a Ring Laser Gyroscope and found that there was a 15 degree/hour drift which is what you would get with a rotating Earth.
I once worked with Dr Carl Kruzelnicki on the Foucault Pendulum in the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney Australia. If you ever want to actually watch the rotation of the earth beneath your feet, watch one of these for a bit. It changes your understanding of the way you stand on the planet.
I once watched a documentary were a guy went through the standard flat earth tests, came away with all the results stating the Earth is round, and went to the flat earth community with the results. He was told to pray, and then do them again.
As someone who sat and watched the live footage of the Apollo 11 moonlanding, I can say that the fuzzy pictures were frustrating. BUT If the USA had wanted to fake that, it would have been such a production. Star Trek wouldn't have had a look in!!!!
We laugh at this stuff, and it is amusing, but it is also quite sad that some people are this screwed up. Thanks Emma for bringing this to our attention.🫣🥰🤔Keep’em on the run.
My favorite comment about the conspiracy claim that Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon landing is that Kubrick was such a perfectionist that he would have insisted on going to the Moon to set up the shot.
Great video - and I think you're right in saying that this conspiracy is the only thing keeping Mark Sargent on the guestlist. Without this he has nothing. Loving your conspiracy videos.
You're just too young to remember that Philip Schofield started his presenting career working with Gordon the Gopher (a glove puppet). So dealing with a flat Earther with a straight face will be easy for him.
Gordon the gopher was significantly more honest, erudite and charismatic than the disingenuous, grifting flerf. I imagine Phil was longing for those days whilst suffering that moronic interview.
The second point he is making. Take two containers, connect them with a closed valve, draw a constant vacuum on one chamber and open the valve. The chamber that didn't have a vacuum will be emptied of air. He doesn't account for the various forces creating the very thing layer that comprise our atmosphere.
There are two questions I always want asked of flat earthers that never get answered, and those are: Why does nautical navigation, the means by which ships knew where they were in the world prior to the advent of GPS and the like, rely on the fact that the earth is a globe and completely fall apart mathematically when you apply their 'model'? How does GPS work in their model? Because without satellites orbiting the globe, GPS also simply doesn't function. And you can't handwave it away with "oh that's just showing you what cell tower/wifi you're closest to" because GPS works just fine in the middle of the freaking ocean or desert, hundreds of miles from the nearest cell tower.
FTFE, McToon and others already debunked a ton of shit about sextants, as FEs claim that sextants ONLY work in a flat earth... Don't ask them, they will just throw you a ton of nonsense buzz words salad until you give up. Your error here is to expect them to behave rationally
I love this question. Why can I take an 11 hour trip from Johannesburg Africa to Sydney Australia. If passenger planes can only fly a distance on average of about 15,300 km without fueling, and on your flat earth model, the distance on that same flight would be 4x that distance and be 20 hours long?
How it is that on a disc-shaped, stationary Earth with north in the centre, people in South America, South Africa, and Australia can all look directly south and see the same stars, often at the same time?
Such a great video and extremely entertaining. Your reactions are gold dust. I remember watching this episode of This Morning live at the time and still cant believe how desperate he gets at the end just rattling of made up facts as fast as he can so no one can respond
You might be interested by this; Sebastien Lapierre, a canadian, did cross the antartic continent, passing through the south pole, in 2017. He did this in complete autonomy. and carrying communication equipment,
Flat Earthers should at least take a moment to appreciate that Globe Earthers managed to come up with a "lie" that's more plausible than the "truth." Real science describes things in a much more simple, unified way where flat earther's descriptions of various mechanics usually contradict each other very hard.
Yes, night and day work quite nicely on a globe, and are an utter disaster on their flat model. I've never even heard a good explanation for constellations in the southern hemisphere not being observable in the northern.
Total debunk, thanks for this. What I find amazing about the Van Allen argument is they seem to assume that "radiation" gets trapped there and lives there permanently, when in reality it's in flow, passing through, on it's way to deeper space. If it hung around; well, we'd be a singularity, not a planet. I mean, the very way that radiation works disproves the entire premise. 🤯
One of the favourite blather points of flat earthers is that you can't have a vacuum next to a pressurised system without a container. I've repeatedly asked them what they experience when they drive up or down a hill. Their ears pop. Why? Pressure change. And why mountaineers need oxygen at the top of Everest. Pressure change. And why do high altitude balloons pop. Pressure change. And why pressure changes? Gravity. You can see where I am going with this...
A lot of these people like Mark actually do find ways to make a living through donations or speaking events or other things. And it does become a grift even if it didn't start out that way. I feel this is how televangelists get started. They don't wake up one day and think, "I'm going to start a ministry and tell desperate people clinging to hope that their donations will come back to them three fold, and then buy that private jet I've always wanted." They truly believe in the gospel and then it becomes a grift as they realize the benefits of power and wealth. It doesn't have to be this extravagant. It might only be enough for a middle class lifestyle. But once you find the formula (the talking points, the answers, the debate style), and once you find the market for your bullshit, then it perpetuates itself. I think that fits Mark to a T.
The various parts of the Apollo mission (1st, 2nd, 3rd stages, Lunar Excursion Module, etc.) were contracted out and built by different aerospace manufacturers in the US.
Your statement on conspiracies being formed after educating oneself within an echo chamber of misinformation strikes home. I've got an uncle who - as intelligent as he is - has fallen into such a trap. Quite a frustrating experience trying to formulate any sort of discussion or debate when the points used by the opposing parties are based on unfounded conclusions that often deny the plausibility of any explanation outside their own. Like talking to a loud and assertive rock lol
Oh yes. "I've done my research". Clearly you're not very good at researching because all the points that you raised after the 'research' have been debunked over and over, and two minutes of Googling would have found that. Like one anti-vaxxer I knew who had 'researched' vaccines but had never heard of and had no idea what herd immunity was. Yeah, you've done some thorough reading there, buddy! And that's why I cannot stand these Flerfers or their ilk. Their irredeemable ignorance might be laughable now but it turns truly dangerous when they start denying basic medical facts in the midst of a global pandemic because "it's all a hoax". They deserve to be treated with utter contempt for the disingenuous fools that they are.
@@UltrEgoVegeta What was the other ? I have the impression Qanon encompasses so many areas of rather common knowledge that the domain were their intelligence is relevant must be extraordinarily narrow and very oddly circumscribed .
@@UltrEgoVegeta Well I met plenty of idiots during mine and to be honest I'm not that bright myself. A college education is not synonymous to intelligence and an absence of one isn't to stupidity either. Don't get me wrong I'm not decrying education at all just asserting it's not the silver bullet against very common human limitations as it is often purported to be. There is a silver lining to mvts such as flat earth and that is it forces lazy minds such as mine to put in a little effort to critically reassess our beliefs and improve /cleanup our understanding of our experience. Also college educations can be awfully specialized to the point they ressemble more some kind of elaborate animal training than anything remotely interesting.
Thanks so much for doing this Emma! This was my lockdown tbh going down that rabbit hole because I couldn't understand why people would think this. Would love to answer some of your questions!
Honest misunderstanding, ignorance, and knowledge gaps for most. There is a core of them who have been shown unequivocally that the earth is a globe, but don't change due to the notoriety of being the leaders of their community.
I read that if you shrank the Earth to the size a snooker ball, it would be the smoothest, most spherical object in the universe. Conversely, if you increased the the size of a snooker ball to the size of the Earth, the little imperfections on the surface of the ball would look like craters and mountains ten miles high. I don't believe this guy believes what he is saying - attention seeker!
I saw Neil DeGrasse Tyson say something similar. He was saying that on the scale of a typical schoolroom globe, the tallest mountains and deepest trenches would be smaller than the height of the ridges in your fingerprints.
Similar scenario I've seen with car windshields. The feel smooth to us by actually have lots of microscopic. All these smooth-glassers out there being indoctrinated by the government and NASA.
I love that he describes the moon as emitting "a cold laser light". I think even if we agreed with the ludicrous notion that the moon breaks the laws of thermodynamics with cold light, we can recognise that it's definitely not frickin' lasers! But no, he's somehow decided that the moon is literally firing freeze rays at us.
Why laser light though? That would be a single wavelength of light unless it was all sorts of different lasers emitting different wavelengths. Laser seems to be a particularly poor choice for an explanation.
@@alysdexia You are close. Any light rays reflected from a body that is sufficiently far away will appear to be parallel ( collimated ), same with sunlight (frequencies notwithstanding, well spotted nineteenthly). This is why polarised sunglasses work. What amuses me about his very primitive view of the moon being an energy emitter in the visual range is why the moon appears to change shape over its monthly cycle. Surely a light emitting moon would look round all the time. Sargent, rhymes with grifter...
We lose a lot of atmosphere to space all the time, everyday. The fact is, the earths atmosphere extends fairly far away from earth into “space” continuing to thin until it matches the almost perfect vacuum of space.
27:50 I saw their "experiments" on that. Laughable. They mesure the temperature of a glass of water outside, in the cold night, and they compared it to the temperature of a glass of water "outside" protected from the light of the moon but also protected from any form of air movement, creating some kind of shelter that will loose heat slower. They see a tiny difference of temperature between them (of course), and they conclude that the moon light is cold. The magnifying stuff he's talking about is purely hypothetical, I never saw an attempt to prove it.
They don’t repeat the experiment on a moonless night to verify that the impact was actually the moonlight. I’m sure he has been told about radiative cooling, but chooses to ignore it.
@@mjjoe76 They are very good at ignoring constructive criticism. They'd rather listen to insults and such, and pretend that's all that "globers" can respond. Some of them will pretend to listen to real arguments though. But just pretend, because when they respond, it's obvious that they were only listening to what they expected to hear, not what was really said.
The glass of water is losing heat to the very old, clear night sky. When they block out part of the cold sky, the water of course cools down more slowly. Same result even if the moon is not in the part being blocked out.
eh·ruh·taas·thuh·neez Granted, it's a toughy. You and Creaky and SciMan and Sir Sic and Gutsick Gibbon and Shannon Q are keeping me off the ledge. Thank you, Emma!
@@alysdexia The language is not Hellenic. It's Greek. Hellenismos would be the various religions of the Greeks, in more modern reconstructionist traditions, but GREEK is the language. Don't call people who are using the correct words dumb, lest you look dumb yourself.
How can they give this guy any airtime? It just gives more credibility in the minds of those who are predisposed to conspiracy theories like this. It’s irresponsible and immoral of these tv producers.
If I met him and he used the prove it argument, I'd say: -Mark, prove to me, right now, that what you are breathing isn't Satans farts. You have 5 minutes.
the prove it "argument" is a fallacy. Not only it is not up to others to provide proof, the flerfs have to provide evidence for their claim, but science is not about proof, but evidence and interpretation using the hypothesis formulated before gathering evidence.
Spot on Emma! I did this similar research on the radiation belts some years ago, and you hit all the high points. The Russians did the research before Van Allen, so it might have been call the Vernov Belt, if not for being so secretive. I had learned about rockoons (rockets launched from balloons), and the failed nuclear space blasts, and how NASA went overkill on insulating their capsules from the radiation... So Emma, I’m beaming with joy at your cleverness!
For his gravity/vacuum point -- I think he's painting a picture that if you set up an air filled chamber with a vacuum on top, and you open the chamber to the vacuum, the air will rush into the vacuum until equilibrium is reached. His argument is, if space exists and is a vacuum, why doesn't the air/atmosphere flow into space? The answer is that the atmosphere is already in a dynamic equilibrium between gravity, the energy added by the sun, and the vacuum of space, amongst other factors.
And he's completely missing that the atmosphere is losing helium and other light gasses to the vacuum of space. Or that's just another part of the conspiracy. And the helium is actually stored in giant tanks under the Earth. I don't know any more.
First off, that top is so stinking cute on you! Absolutely adorbs. Second when I was a kid, my parents took me to Cape Canaveral to watch the shuttle launch. We had a little portable TV and I watched the the launch with my own eyes and watched the on board cameras as it left the atmosphere with perfect continuity, so I guess I'm part of the conspiracy.
I really wanted to hear where he was going when he said "None of it is secret information, it's on a flash drive...". That has got to be one momentous flash drive to have been passed between so many conspiracy theorists. It's too bad we don't have satellites that could wirelessly send those files through the ethernet instead of having to mail the single "Not Secret Documents" flash drive to each new recruit.
Imagine the boon to the world's tourist industry if the world was flat, trips to the ice wall to visit the ice wall would be sold everywhere, as for anything else we'll, people wouldn't care what shape the planet is because they would still have to goo to work, go shopping and cook dinner. People just wouldn't care as a whole they have more to worry about, my proof for that is the disinterest shown regarding earth having more of a vague potato shape than a perfect sphere, when told that the interest rate lasts seconds then people just get on with life and forget about it.
Off topic, I'd just like to say your voice and your accent is so perfect. I can hear you doing voiceover for animated characters, or maybe even doing narration. Back on topic, great video. I've seen many, many other debunkers cover this since it came out and yours is easily one of the most fun to watch. You've gained another sub.👍
Back in mid 2019 I got back in touch with this guy I had went to high school with. He wasn't ever my _friend,_ but he was a guy I was on friendly terms with in school -- an acquaintance, really. I didn't realize that he was ... factually challenged, let's say. The whole reason I got back in touch with him was because of a chance meeting at a retail store where he worked, and he was eager to talk to someone, I guess. It turned out that my semi-monthly D&D group had had some people leave -- one moved, the other had twins and no longer had free time. And as this guy said he was looking to do something on the weekends, I off-handedly said that there _might_ be a spot in group. This was a mistake I had made. I don't know if he always had had trouble thinking things through or being rational, but it became clear somewhat quickly that even in a game of make-believe that is D&D, he wasn't particularly good at considering the logical consequences of his actions (or that it was a _collaborative_ game and not just about him being the main character and everyone else just being extras). And his "character" (which was just him, actually, because he made no distinction between what he thought or wanted versus the make-believe character he was controlling) would occasionally make some really odd statements. And given that the group was mostly consisting of those of us who like to have a semblance of reality in the game and logical consistency in the world and even out of game will interrogate ideas that seem a bit sketch... it wasn't a great combo for this guy. Anyway, while as far as I know that guy wasn't a flat-earther, he did believe other conspiracy theory things that are more clearly problematic (flat-earthers are more of a gate-way to worse conspiracies and anti-logic). Mostly I just recall being a bit surprised at how his mind worked (or at times "failed" to work) in regard to what seemed like the simplest of critical thinking. Just asking "but why, though?" wasn't a thing he did or could focus on, usually sidetracking to something else entirely before ever really exploring the simple question of "but _why_ do you think that is how it works?" or "why do you think you can do that without any of the obvious repercussions?" and too often him waiving off the questions with something like _because those things just won't happen._ Cause and effect? Nah, not gonna happen because it'd be convenient for him if cause and effect just wasn't a thing.
This is why we get to know people before we let them into our lives. My cousin is in a relationship with a man who she met on tinder then moved out of state to be with him, but didn't know anything about him. My sister met him when they were in Flordia and my god, she says this man was a creep and my cousin doesn't understand that his behavior is not ok. He gives her food that she cannot eat and doesn't tell her what's in it. Dairy gives her hives and pork makes her puke, but this dumbass is under the impression that she is faking it and forgot that it is illegal to do that. You don't just give someone food and not tell them what's in it. Food allergies are a thing. I can reason with her because my cousin chose to be ignorant. She chose to not bother with education, she had people doing her work for in high school and college, thinking ain't in her top priorties.
In the Navy, I left Norfolk Va, through the Suez Canal, Indian Ocean, Austraila then Singapore. Wher I met a friend who sailed from Coronado California. I ran into no Ice Wall.
Another great video, not sure Mark was expecting a grilling, Holly and Philip seem like just nice daytime presenters, must have come as a shock to him.
I get that in politics it's a good thing to have opposing opinions aired, but when talking about fact based topics, there are no opposing opinions. Fact are not opinions.
I've watched quite a bit of this flat earth gibberish, so am able to actually interpret what he's trying to say on those last 5 points. 1. Some FEers have claimed that the disappearing of an object over the horizon is due to inability to resolve the detail, and that modern cameras are now powerful enough to resolve detail "beyond" the horizon. This is absurd since telescopes have existed for hundreds of years not to mention high end SLR lenses that have existed for decades. I myself have taken photos that clearly show ships going below the horizon hull first. And then I've climbed a cliff and with the same camera taken another picture of the same ship where the hull has magically reappeared, merely seconds later. The other thing he is possibly referencing is the refraction effect of the atmosphere. Under certain conditions the refractive index of the atmosphere closely matches the curvature and so we can see beyond the horizon (or rather the visible horizon is further away than usual). 2. this is a classic misunderstanding of science by FLers. What he is saying is that if you contain air in a container with a vacuum above, then open the container, the air immediately floats up into the vacuum. So since there is no "roof" to the atmosphere, why doesn't the air float away into the vacuum? It's a classic misdirect, since he is biasing the outcome by saying the cork is in the top of the container. If the cork was released from the bottom of the container the air would rush downwards. The air no matter whether it comes from the top or bottom will eventually settle within the atmosphere depending on the pressure gradient, which is a function of gravity. The air in the atmosphere doesn't rush up to the vacuum of space because gravity is holding it to the Earth. 3. this is based on a misunderstanding about what science says about the rays from the sun are effectively parallel - which would mean a 2000 mile wide moon should cast a 200o mile wide shadow on earth. Okay so FLers try and say that sun rays spreading out from the holes in the clouds (corpuscular rays) show that the sun is much much closer than science says it is, since if you trace those rays back to the source, the sun has be very close. They then trace a straight line from those rays to a meeting point and say that is where the sun is. Science then says no, from earth the sun's rays appear "almost" parallel, and you cannot measure the distance to the sun that way BY EYESIGHT ALONE, and further corpuscular rays are caused by diffraction and are not straight lines back to the sun. FLers jump on this "parallel lines" business to then dispute the size of the moon's shadow on earth during an eclipse. But on the scale of the sun/earth/moon system, some of those rays are un-parallel enough to actually shine around the moon on to the Earth leaving only a 70 mile wide shadow. In a FEers mind everything is so close together they just can't conceptualise scale. 4. Just pure poppycock. Numerous measurements have shown that moonlight raises temperatures of objects not cools them. It's a very very weak thermal affect though so you need quite sensitive equipment to detect any warming (relative to surfaces shaded from the moonlight). You also need to be sure to eliminate sources of artificial lighting which also heat objects and would invalidate the experiment if not allowed for. 5. The van allen belts are not "deadly" unless you have sufficient length of exposure. The path of the spacecraft was designed to minimise the exposure to stay within safe limits. Perhaps a key reason FEers find this hard to believe is the "evidence" that millions of electron volts are produced by the belts and that the spacecraft passes through this energy, and so it should immediately fry a person (and the spacecraft). However that is a very flawed understanding of the risks and the constitution of the belts. So the belts are made of cosmic rays (high energy protons and atoms stripped of electrons) which are guided by electromagnetic lines of force (the planet's magnetosphere). Simplified version. The cosmic rays are deadly but mostly arc harmlessly around the metal walls of the space ship which the magnetic field lines follow. The electorn volts is produced by the electric current of the magnetosphere and is not the same component as the cosmic rays. This electron flow is vey high voltage but very low current, so it doesn't carry very much energy at all, at least not in the small area of a human spacecraft. And also this current is directed around the spacecraft by the metal surface. So the occupants are mostly shielded from the van allen belts primarily by the spacecrafts metal skin. FEers will point to claims about the modern Orion spacecraft having much better shielding than the original Apollo spacecraft, but this is also a misunderstanding. The Orion spacecraft has significantly more powerful and also more sensitive electronic equipment and the shielding is to protect that rather than the occupants.
On 5... Idk why FEers would have trouble understanding it. Like my dumbass brain goes.. Harm comes from length of exposure. Easily compare it to fire in that context; Move finger quickly through the flame on a candle = little to not damage Move finger slower = more damage Leave finger sitting in the flame = increasing damage the longer finger stays in the flame Ofc I know they just wanna believe their own shit but like... Blargh
@@leothenomad5675 sure, it's tiresome but in this case Emma asked people to weigh in so I thought I'd give a comprehensive explanation of what he was saying and why it's wrong. People can take it or leave it as they like. I'm just info dumping.
@@techlifebio Oh I have no problem with it, and I'm probably the rare person who reads long posts, I especially like your debunk of the moonlight point. I was just pointing out the problems of having counter all of Mark's "facts"
@@leothenomad5675 I just treat it as an intellectual exercise. A bit of fun :-) Occasionally they throw something a little less straight forward to debunk which is good for exercising the old brain matter haha
27:27 I'm not a scientist but I think I can decode what he said. He is claiming 1. gravity isn't a force ("Can't say gravity anymore"), 2. and because gravity isn't a force in his mind the atmosphere should be flying off into the vacuum of space, so 3. when they open the doors, he thinks the air in the studio should evacuate the building. Freaking idiot. The "moonlight" claim is him not recognizing the light we see from the Moon is reflected from the Sun.
Yep to expand on what Daniel said, 1. Gravity doesn't pull down it pulls toward center so if the world is flat they have to find a new cause for gravity. 2. So if gravity doesn't work they way we've been told what keeps the atmosphere in place, it must be a dome then. 3 just more dome justification. Then the moonlight BS. Flat Earthers all only have a middle school understanding of science. Also if you haven't watched Professor Dave Explains, rip apart flat earth you really should.
@@MisterPunch19 Well put. I hadn't considered what explanation Flat Earthers use to explain atmosphere retention. Flat Earth isn't just a stupid ideology, it is aggressively ignorant that continues to create problems the longer one thinks about it!
OK, the gravity argument can be that or that since it is a flat surface, it now lacks the mass to keep that much of the atmosphere. The moonlight claim is him claiming that the moon gives it's own light like the sun and it isn't actually lit up by the sun. Yes, it's wrong. Yes, I think what is wrong with them is hard to pronounce.
You can tell how nonsensical a Bible literalist view is by how many branches of science they have to say are fake. For flerfers, that’s relativity, thermodynamics, the standard model, fluid dynamics, astrophysics, et cetera. YECs toss all those plus radioactive decay, geology, biology, plate tectonics, thermonuclear science (see also: Oklo, Gabon), medicine, chemistry, quantum mechanics, genealogy, et fam, all to shove things into a 6000 year timeframe.
@@Rosyna Agreed. Though Young Earth creationists transgress in a few more areas such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, and honestly probably more. It isn't just stupid, it is aggressively stupid.
"Prove it in a court of law". Going on the assumption that like with a murder trial it can only stand if the entire Jury in united, and they are assuming at least one person in that room will be dumb as them
I remember seeing something, where the guy had a model plane, and he "flew" it over a globe so it was at the bottom part, then said if the earth was a globe, why don't we have photos of planes flying upside down. Probably because the camera at the "bottom" part of the globe was also upside down?
i'm glad you mentioned that experiment they did in the documentary! i think the sad thing about it is that it was actually a really nice experiment. it's a creative yet simple way to estimate the size of the earth, and it does take some thinking to form the experiment. the only shame was that they threw away the result when it didn't fit the hypothesis.
I've been following the movement for years. With respect the ancient Greeks, flat earthers believe they were incorrect about the distance to the sun. If it were small and local, some of the same results could occur on a flat plane. Regarding the vacuum, what he was trying to convey was that if gravity won't keep the atmosphere from rushing into a vacuum chamber with a hole pierced into it on earth, why would gravity keep the air from rushing into the vacuum of space. The mental gymnastics involved never cease to amaze.
Regarding the vacuum thing: Don't they accept that air pressure is lower at higher altitudes then? (Athletes training at higher altitudes, or people going to extreme places like Mt Everest.) Or what about diving? The increased pressure as you go lower is pretty much the same thing, isn't it? In the end, it seems like they have to throw away pretty much all that we know about physics. Millions of people would have to be in on the conspiracy.
2 года назад
@@RikardPeterson, yeah, they don't believe in a pressure gradient, as far as I'm aware. But to be honest, the vast majority of them are just trolls.
It's true that Eratosthenes' experiment would work on a flat earth, giving a small and close sun if you assume the earth is flat. But that's with two sticks. Use 3 or 4 or more at different latitudes and you get a different result with each pair.
If there's no South pole, and only a North pole, this means that our North pole is a monopole! How does one make a magnetic monopole, oh wise flatearthers?
Pity, he did start a great question with "so you flew here in a straight line?".. pick up the flat model and say "but here you would have a constant turn to one side, otherwise you flew over this and this country and it would have taken you x hours longer" :)
Many years ago I got on a plane heading west towards the setting sun. I stopped in many countries but I kept flying west into the setting sun. Eventually I ended up at home again. I wonder how they would try to twist that one.
I have recently begun watching some of your videos. Very entertaining. For proof against flat earthers just go to any airline route in the southern hemisphere (thanks to Professor Dave Explains). If the earth were a flat disc, the flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile would go over the north pole (the shortest route on a flat disc), but that's not what the planes do (of course).
so wholesome to end the interview with just "lets go! lets go see the wall!" freaking loved that. also, i feel like they would say the ancients that did the math initially were just wrong and hen not explain how (because they can't do the math.)
When you think about what it takes to believe the earth is flat - all the things you have to discount, all of the evidence right in front of our faces that is clearly inconsistent with a flat earth - it's really staggering. For example, how could we possibly have Google Maps and all the other similar direction finding apps without satellites orbiting the globe?
Flerfs claim: 1: Space is fake, there are no satellites. 2: GPS doesn't work in oceans, It is all land based towers. 3: Google maps is only CGI. Etc.... What ever doesn't fit their narrative is fake.
Hi Emma, I'll try to explain what Mark doesn't quite get at minute 27. He's saying that if theoretically a vacuum chamber was connected above the room they were in, everything would be sucked in the vacuum chamber in spite of gravity. Ergo gravity doesn't exist :). In reality the two chambers will eventually equalise pressure buuuut, the room below will have more air than the room above. Guess because of gravity :). He's asking next if there's a vacuum of space why does this vacuum not suck the atmosphere out. What he fails to understand is that lack of matter cannot and will not exert any force what so ever, in other words vacuums don't suck. Instead matter will transit into a state of equilibrium. If there is a difference in pressure, higher pressure fluid will move to a lower pressure until equilibrium is reached. There is a formula we can use to calculate the pressure exerted by a column of fluid (in physics gases and liquids are considered fluids) influenced by gravity which is: mean density of the fluid x hight of the column x gravitational acceleration. This is why the higher you go into the atmosphere the lower the pressure, all three parameters decrease. Therefore, if you continue to go up, at the edge of Earth's atmosphere the pressure is virtually zero. The same reasoning explains why the pressure increases the deeper you go in water, all three parameters increase. Have a nice day!
I wrote a simplified version of this in another comment. Thanks for the explanation, this is exactly what Flatties don't understand about the Vacuum of space.
30:43 Answer is simple: It's a _belt_ not a sphere. They chose a trajectory that stayed far from the dangerous zone. Once again, a FEer asking a question but not doing a single minute of honnest research to find the answer.
One time I got into it with a flat earther in a twitch chat. He, Ken, told me that NASA is an ancient Yiddish word for liar and implored me to try and see it from his perspective. So I applied the logic he was presenting and promptly realized that he was none other than Ken Ham. It was right in front of me that whole time... Oh yeah PS the court of law standard of evidence applied to the scientific process is perfectly legitimate, everyone knows that Darwin proved evolution by suing the catholic church, and as a counterexample recall when Diogenes successfully disproved the existence of man by suing Socrates.
I would like a flat earther to explain to me how the celestial navigation work that I have done has worked out as correct positioning if the earth is flat. I'm listening.
I totally agree. I think part of the reason there is so much far right nonsense around these days is that the media gave platforms to fringe lunatics and the lunatics became less and less fringe until suddenly the fringe lunacy was mainstream politics and the media are all like, "Oh no, how did this happen?"
The frustrating thing is even if you put him on the actual moon point him at the earth and let him see what it really is, he will just claim it CGI inside the helmet.
Thank you so much for watching! Remember to check out Yours App using this link: yoursapp.com/emma or use the code "EMMA" at check out to get 60% off your yearly plan! Thanks so much to Yours App for the sponsor, especially as this video is under a lil copyright monetization battle... 😅
Side note: _Please guys I only needed one person to correct me on the pronunciation of Eratosthenes I TRIED MY BEST ;~;_
Emma when you said you didn't understand what he meant when he said we couldn't be travelling through an impossible vacuum is because flat earthers say if space existed and was a vacuum our atmosphere would gets sucked off the planet 😅 and say gravity cannot hold the atmosphere but scientists say that the atmosphere has weight and it causes a gradient the higher we go and gets thinner.
they don't even believe in gravity
Also, you are really cool. Thank you for spreading awareness of the blatant misinformation spreading like wildfire in the modern-day.
"Cold Moonlight"
It's well understood, and called "Radiative cooling".
Basically "Moonlight" has nothing to do with it, it's just that to get Moonlight there needs to be no clouds, therefore limited insulation from the atmosphere.
So it's cold in the moonlight, because thermodynamics is trying to equal the temperature of the object in the moonlight with space.
PS
The red dot on a cheap IR thermometer probably won't point at the same spot the sensor is pointing at.
You didn't understand his points, because you aren't stupid enough!!
Most of it is some flimflam misrepresenting how the Earth retains it's atmosphere, and dishonestly conflating it with ground level vacuums and buoyancy.
Emma, why not consider getting in touch with Mark Sargent? I'm quite he would be up for it and available. It would make great coverage and veiwing for you and your followers to question a real Flat Earther. Please again consider it, many thanks
My first question for Mark would be "Who is your psychiatrist?" The whole flat earth ideology is founded on ignorance. Erastothenes is pronounce air-a-stoth-e-nees.
The first photographs of earth taken from space were produced by emulsion film cameras, decades before CGI technology.
Environmentalism was very much an issue in the 50's. The issues back then was acid rain caused by industries that used coal.
The greenhouse effect caused by petroleum and the harmful effects of nuclear energy. All these issues were were the topic of the 1962 documentary film Mondo Cane.
I am convinced that Mark Sargent kmows the Earth is a globe. His only interest in flat Earth is monetary.
He's a grifter!
@@graemerose1616 Definitely attention seeking. He really doesn't care what he say's or what people think of him as log as he gets the attention and people know his name.
Didn't Ranty Flatearth claim that they went into it believing, but quickly worked out they were wrong, and couldn't admit it for ego/financial reasons.
Wasn't Sargent the guy lusting after that Flatearth woman?
He wants a free trip to space, and he’s pretty close to annoying the scientific community enough to get one just to shut him up.
Watch this stuff for long enough and they jump from conspiracy to conspiracy, whatever is in the public trend most at the time, to maximize the dosh they can grift
Step 1: Get flat Earthers to raise enough money to send a trusted flat Earther on a bit of space tourism.
Step 2: The tourist sees the curve of the Earth and documents it.
Step 3: The tourist renounces Flat Earth and encourages others to view their evidence and abandon Flat Eartherism.
Step 4: The Flat Earth movement will now believe that the tourist has been replaced by a lizard person who is grooming their kids.
And only flatearthers are allowed to groom the kids of flateathers...
You must be from the future with spot on prognostications such as this.
Step 5: Claim windows on rocket, are TV screens showing CGI.
There is absolutely nothing you can do to get these idiots to admit was is obviously true. It's their whole lives. They get off on thinking they're smarter than everyone else.
@@kevinshort3943 Step 6: smash their head through the fucking window. Their skulls are dense enough. They'll be fine.
I'm so glad that you point out that opinions are NOT always equal, and should not be treated as such. Thinking like this only gives oxygen to groups like Flat Earthers.
If the Earth is flat, how come my life is going down hill?
I was a Flat Earther for four years then I turned five.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.
OK so let's answer Mark's 5 points here:
1. That's the "black Swan" picture they have. Been debunked, all down to refraction. Even the oil platforms themselves are distorted.
2. They don't believe in pressure gradients and think that the vacuum of space is a literal vacuum cleaner that sucks. Gravity holds the atmosphere to the planet and that's why the air is thinner the further you get from the surface.
3. Shadows cast by small objects when the light source is much larger are smaller than the object. Again been thoroughly debunked.
4. Cold moon light doesn't exist. That's idiotic. It's radiative cooling and they don't understand simple physics. Places in shadow of the moonlight have excess heat that is trapped by whatever casts the shadow.
5. Yes they are but they flew through the lowest intensity areas at high speed and basically chanced it. Radiation can be stopped by paper for example. Lead is only needed for gamma radiation protection. We don't send spacecraft through them now as our current tech is much more advanced and also more prone to be damaged by radiation compared to the very analogue tech of the 60's.
Mark is an idiot.
Thank you for taking the time
Good points you make, from Western Australia, the black swan state. 😃👍🏴☠️
they are doing this all based on spaceballs science. lol
2. Additional points: it's the remaining particels in space that make it necessary for spacestations to every now and then accelerate. They slow down because what we call the vaccuum of space is not really perfectly particle free.
It's just that the further you get away from massive objects the less particels there are. (which you can proof yourself by hiking up a really high mountain)
At some point we artificially put up a value at which we say this is the point at which it is effectively a vaccuum for all intends and purposes...
I actually don't think he's a complete idiot. He's no genius, clearly, but among flat earthers he's uniquely articulate - I think he is at least smart enough to know that what he's saying is absurd. He knows the earth's not flat. I think he's a huckster, a misanthrope and a very sad, lonely, detached person who somehow derives a twisted satisfaction from leading the group of idiots that constitutes flat earthers.
I was a math tech at a tracking radar station with computers that calculated the positions of missiles and aircraft in XYZ coordinates. We got lots of complaints from aircraft that the values reported for altitude were incorrect. All I could say was "That's not altitude. The Z values are vertical at the radar. If the Earth were flat then Z would be the same as altitude." Later we updated the software to calculate position in spherical coordinates with the origin at the center of the earth and then subtracting out the radius of the earth to get altitude.
That bit when he starts listing bullet points is a perfect example of how charlatans work.
He hit them with a firehose of nonsense, speaking too fast to give them a chance to pick at any one thing for any time.
I suspect that he used the limited time to his advantage, because he is aware that these programs won't have time to actually dig into anything said by their guests.
It's popularly known as the 'Gish Gallop', after Duane Gish, young-earth creationist.
If I ever see a discussion with one of these bombastic ignorance jackasses where they don't employ the Gish gallop, I will assume that the enemies of reason are slipping in their game.
@@Palimbacchius
So that's where that term comes from. Thanks.
First bullet point: 8in per mile squared posits a belief in a parabolic curve. We don't, not for the Earth's curve, you cannot make a globe from a parabolic curve. Maybe you got confused with the maths of the sky dome? Why even look at points 2 - 5 if this the standard?
So quick rule: If you demand the other side proofs something to the degree that it would hold up in a court of law but you can just throw out accusations without the slightest bit of evidence (e.g. "This is just CGI") then you are full of shit.
....or you are Mark Sargent, same thing really
Technically, at some point in the day, we ALL are full of shit.
Court of law, discovery period requiring sources of evidence. Charge reckless endangerment, trying to tell people gravity isn't real can cause easily demonstrable harm.
@@erwinsteneker4078 Sort of, but there are other things in the abdominal cavity besides just the rectum.
Exactly, court of law requires proof beyond *reasonable* doubt. In an actual court of law, the defense can't simply wave any photographic evidence away as CGI, they'd need to present strong evidence that it could be.
What I love so much about this interview is that Mark has clearly, unwittingly stepped out of his comfort zone and is clearly regretting his choices. Somebody told him UK daytime TV and he probably met Phil and Holly and thought they seem nice...
But he was not ready for what came. To be honest those two are good pals so he fucked up. The moment he tried to put down Phill he basically waved a red flag at the bull as far as Holly was concerned!
Every time she asked him a really simple question, he groaned like she'd just asked him how to solve an ancient unsolved puzzle. So fucking funny.
If the Earth was flat, then cats would have pushed everything off the edge years.ago.
Touche
Hi Emma, fellow Brit here - I believe the correct pronunciation of Eratosthenes is along the lines of "Error Toss The Knees". Hope this helps, loving the video!
EDIT: Sorry, I'm apparently a day late to this party and this has been covered already :)
What a lovely vocalisation but yeah, that checks out
As was I, but longer. 🤦♂️
That's how Sagan said it and by gum that's how I say it.
Also, I love how "the public wasn't ready" to find out we live on a flat earth in 1960, but we were totally comfy with the idea before Aritosthenes. 🙄🙄🙄🤣🤣🤣 Stop it, you. Lmao
For his second point about the atmosphere flying into space, he’s asking since space is a vacuum why doesn’t the atmosphere fly into space to equalize the pressure. The answer is the atmosphere is a gradient, pressure slowly decreases as you increase in elevation. So for any atmospheric particle, the pressure below is only slightly greater than the pressure above, which does result in a force pushing the particle upward. But… this force is balanced by the gravitational force pulling the particle down so it doesn’t move. It’s like he thinks there’s a hard line that separates the atmosphere from space, there isn’t.
Exactly Brandon. These fools love to cite the second law of thermodynamics Zero of them have ever studied thermodynamics and you can tell when they say sillychit like moonlight is cold.
It's because he believes in a dome. So to him, there *is* a hard line - that's where the dome is. Just like there's a hard line at the "Antarctic wall".
Also, we _are_ losing light gasses like helium to "outer space", because it's floating up and out of the atmosphere.
Gravity is the problem for Sargent. He doesn't accept it.
Plus his whole point about how you can't say gravity is what's holding the atmosphere in place because air would rush in to fill a vacuum above them... despite the fact that it's the _weight_ of the miles of atmosphere above, pushing down, because of gravity, that _create_ the pressure that would push air upward to fill in that vacuum. Rather than disprove gravity holding everything in place, his example only proves it.
Not even 10 seconds into the interview and Phil already takes the piss out of it. Gotta love it.
I'm so glad Sargent was asked about the South Pole, because back in the late '70's the renowned explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, went on an expedition to circumnavigate the Earth.. pole to pole. It's known as "The Transglobe Expedition". Starting from Greenwich, the expedition took them down through Europe, across West Africa, then south to Cape Town. From there, straight to the South pole, reaching the actual South pole in December of 1980, then carrying on to Auckland, then to Sydney Australia, then to Los Angeles, making his way up to the North pole, and finally back to Greenwich again. That route that took them *directly* across the South Pole, a path that simply cannot exist with flat earth theories.
Strange how that well-documented journey is never mentioned by flat earth believers.
Emma, I understand how difficult ancient Greek names can be to pronounce but it was Eratosthenes ( era-toss-then-eez) in 280 BC that measured the shadows and used geometry to estimate the circumference of the Earth. Wonderful video. You hit on the major fallacies very well.
I really hope I meet you sometime, Emma, just to be able to elucidate "era-toss-then-eez"... 😝 - I was wincing (and smiling) each time! 😍
Wouldn't error-toss-the-knees be more accurate?
@@pattheplanter , I considered that pronunciation breakdown as well., though I'd stick with "era" for the first syllable. Both are viable. Whatever helps.
@@pattheplanter Ἐρατοσθένης would be more accurate. :Þ
Eh - ra - t - o - ss - th¹ - eh - n - ih - ss
¹ As in "thin" and "smith," not dh as in "this" and "that."
Not only that, but he was pretty close, too.
Once, I was talking to a ten year old about flat earth and, purely to be daft, I pretended I believed in it and gave all the arguments I knew sincerely. He debunked every one, easily. What are we to conclude from this?
That the vast majority of flattards are actually trolls.
That kid didn't go to school in rural America?
Then something clearly was wrong with your arguments. The kid debunked them? Tell me how, I'm curious!
@@whiteknight8399you believe In flat earth??
@@whiteknight8399 If Flat Earthers were sincere, they’d pool their money and go to space with Tesla, Branson or Bezos and resolve this very quickly. If they were sincere...
We have that attitude in the U.S. as well. That everyone's views are supposed to be treated as equally valid and opinions deserve equal respect. And that's just nonsense.
My grandfather told me to be suspicious when anyone says to “open your mind”.
And don’t take that advice as usually when people “open their minds” their brains fall out.
See video for evidence.
The phrase goes back a long way. Some suggestion that it was Professor Max Radin in 1937 in the Yale Law Journal. I like it when Tim Minchin uses it before his song "Take my Wife".
The whole Antartica thing with flat earthers is so easy to debunk. People have sailed around Antartica. There’s a solo yacht race, The Vendee Globe, that goes around Antartica every four years. Qantas Airlines offers a 12 to 14 hour tourist flight over Antartica. You can book flights to the South Pole and stay for a week. It would be great if a bunch of flat earthers tried to sail along the Antarctic coast. If they were headed west, according to their map, they would have to bear right to stay along the coast. It would be fun to see their reactions when the discover they have to bear to the left to stay along the coast.
Circumnavigating Antarctica requires about 11,000 miles. Sailing around the ice wall of a flat earth would require about 70,000 miles. Sailors would notice the difference.
Long before I heard of the modern flat-earthers, I read two different true stories about sailing ships that were trying to go westward below South America, and decided it was easier to turn around and go eastward all around Antarctica. On a flat earth, that would be a long trip, and the winds would be entirely different.
Yeah had a mate who worked in Antarctica, he was part of a maintenance team for a site out there, he has a ton of pics from land and air.
@@mitchellminer9597 yes they do not believe there is a South pole
the thing is, they'd say its all made up
I mean, there are people who think Australia is fake and a cover up story for british crimes (ie killing prisoners, saying they're deported). Which originally was a parody on stupid conspiracy theories... they basically think that theres a special resort in south america where tourists are brought to to believe theyre in australia.
@@Glimmlampe1982 I’ve never heard that one before.🤣🤣🤣
Holly attempting to keep a straight face is priceless.
I really enjoyed this! I worked with a very pleasant, intelligent and highly skilled fellow for over a year. I had the utmost respect for him... Then I heard his rant about the flat Earth... My understanding of him was completely altered by learning an observable fact. I probed further, asking a series of simple questions that were answered with the most ludicrous answers. He went for the "Water doesn't curve" argument... I happened to have a dropper with me and I picked a leaf... Dropped a bit of water onto the leaf and it, obviously, made a little sphere... This simple demonstration sent him over the edge... Yelling all manner of craziness. I know we're living in a new world where everything can mean anything and the go to in arguments is asking to prove a negative but there are so many people who just refuse to just look at the world around them!!!
The point is... I enjoyed the video...
@notfiveo CGI... Or, you just WANTED to see it.
Or the whole thing was CGI
I'm not even close to being a flat earther but that was clearly a fusheye lense.
@@TheSecretOfSelf At what time in the video? I'm watching a movie, I don't want to rewatch the whole thing right now.
Sounds like he went apeshit like the black folk who see street magic.
When he said why doesn't air rush into space, I just started laughing!! OMG poor man!
isn't it fascinating? They only know "vacuum cleaners" so they are STEADFASTLY convinced all vacuums have to SUCK.
But anybody with even basic physic knowledge has to realize the enormous problem with that.
Empty space has no source of energy to move anything. It has to come from the other direction, gas trying to egalize its pressure to the surrounding and thus moving outwards until contained or held back by a different force (like Gravity)
It's such a misunderstanding of what a vacuum is. It's pressure trying to equalise itself. Gravity prevents this by being the stronger force. Flat Earthers think that a vacuum works like the eponymous machine by sucking air out.
Me too. Laughed out loud. I seldom do that.
Yeh but he said it so quickly. I'm convinced.
I once convinced a flat earth the world was round using only a compass. Next time I'll be using a cricket bat. The compass was to badly damaged to use it again.
I miss Mark Sargent, his stream of BS really did disappear after beyond the curve documentary. Flat earthers proving they are wrong is always funny
He has been very quiet since Patricia was accused of being a CIA plant
Check out Creaky Blinder - he does hilarious debunks of flatearth and other nonsense
@@davel9514 poor fella is under the weather at the moment, he has (or had) covid
@@Molloy244 Creaky? He's away on holiday to Spain
@@davel9514 I could be watching videos out of order so…..
Love the video Emma!
For the whole thing about the atmosphere escaping - I've heard this one before and it goes something like this:
1. Gasses expand to fill a container
2. Space is a Vacuum and (relatively) infinite container
3. The atmosphere does not fly off of the earth to fill space
4. Therefore, science is wrong which means the world is flat
When countered with the fact that gravity holds the atmosphere down, he points to the fact that a box full of air in a vacuum will be violently emptied until it equalizes with the vacuum - even if under gravity.
It's the simple misunderstanding of air pressure and the fact that miles of air pushing down holds our atmosphere down and ignoring the fact that mainstream science accepts that some lighter elements in our atmosphere really do leak out. I'm also perplexed because a flat earth would still have the issue of air rushing out into space.
It wouldn't, it has that large glass dome over it. Can't believe I just defended this theory 😂
@@bluetoad2668 Oh yeah I forget it's just so ridiculous I guess I block it out
You could also pop a vacum bubble underwater. Because water would rush upwards into the vacum chamber against gravity, that means the surface of the ocean doesn't exist. It must be under a dome otherwise water would just fly off
The thing is, we _are_ losing "light" gasses like helium to space. (Tom Scott has a video on that.) But for the majority of gasses, gravity is stronger than the pull of the vacuum of space.
LOL But the DOME. :)
It is so weird to think that I'm worried about Quantum Mechanics and the inherent instability of apparently stable objects and these people think there's a big dome over the Earth.
The hosts were so nice in humoring the crazy man.
Probably a good thing that Buzz Aldrin wasn’t there.
All the flat earthers have a mental issue, if the earth really was flat and nobody suggested it
was round, these people would.
Kudos to Phil and Holly for treating Mark with respect while challenging his position. When Mark was talking about Antarctica I didn't recall him mentioning any of the research stations that have been based there for decades or if they have found evidence confirming the existence of the wall of ice.
Obviously, THEY are faking those images as well. There's no research stations there and penguins are paid actors in fursuits.
Yeah, conspiracy theorists really believe that kind of stretch. Like we live on a flat earth is just the start; people think we live in a crater and the earth is vastly bigger than the land we know and there's more hidden places behind the ice wall. It's both astounding and rather sad that people can fall that far down the rabbit hole.
Super cute, highly educated, well-spoken, British, bi, atheist, and a Mass Effect fan? You are the total package, Emma!! ❤️
I started cackling out loud when he said the live space station footage is CGI. Its 20 past 11 at night, I may have accidentally woken my dad up.
*appears with a belt*
As an American, I sometimes desperately need to come up for logical, reasonable air; Emma provides that reprieve and I'm super thankful for it
I personally know someone who's a rocket scientist working for NASA. Him saying they dump them in the ocean infuriated the Hell out of me for that reason. My question to him would be, "Why would they spend millions of dollars and do many hours of research, just to dump them in the ocean?".
Why do you flush your turds?
My singular argument to debunk flat earth involves only 2 rings. In every accepted Flat Earth Model, they put the north pole in the center and the south pole at the outer rim. This means that if I were to trace a path along the equator and call it ring 1, and trace another orbit path further south and call it ring 2, on the Flat Earth model ring 1 is smaller than ring 2. However, in a globe model, ring 2 is smaller than ring 1, since the longest latitude ring on a globe is the equator.
This means, all you would need to do to prove one model over the other is fly 2 planes simultaneously. One flies at the equator, one flies south of the equator, both pointing due East and taking stops at the same time. If the globe is true, the southern plane will take less time to accomplish this flight, while the equator plane will take less time if the flat earth model is correct.
My top 3 favorite moments from the Behind the Curve doc.
3: Mark Sargent and Patricia Steele visiting the the space agency and roasting NASA for not being able to create a display that works when in reality, they failed to notice the big red button marked "Start".
2: Jeranism's light beam experiment where he couldn't see the light beam until his partner lifted the light over his head thus proving the curvature.
And my # 1 favorite moment: Bob Knodel got his hands on a Ring Laser Gyroscope and found that there was a 15 degree/hour drift which is what you would get with a rotating Earth.
The button that the person using the camera, most definitely did not miss.
Thanks, Bob!
Best part was how much that gyroscope cost. Wasn’t it like $25,000?
Great list!!! Best of the best
I once worked with Dr Carl Kruzelnicki on the Foucault Pendulum in the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney Australia.
If you ever want to actually watch the rotation of the earth beneath your feet, watch one of these for a bit.
It changes your understanding of the way you stand on the planet.
I once watched a documentary were a guy went through the standard flat earth tests, came away with all the results stating the Earth is round, and went to the flat earth community with the results. He was told to pray, and then do them again.
As someone who sat and watched the live footage of the Apollo 11 moonlanding, I can say that the fuzzy pictures were frustrating. BUT If the USA had wanted to fake that, it would have been such a production. Star Trek wouldn't have had a look in!!!!
We laugh at this stuff, and it is amusing, but it is also quite sad that some people are this screwed up. Thanks Emma
for bringing this to our attention.🫣🥰🤔Keep’em on the run.
It was interesting watching SeeTruthSpeakTruth and Ranty -Flat Earth- deconvert, because they instantly became so less angry.
Yep. Anyone who believes in flat earth or any god...same sad delusions.
It's all fun and games until psychos like this start passing laws. As an American, I can, sadly, attest to that danger.
Most flat Earth people don't know or care about the shape of the Earth. It's just a need for attention.
And especially at Mark's age it's quite worrying
My favorite comment about the conspiracy claim that Stanley Kubrick faked the Moon landing is that Kubrick was such a perfectionist that he would have insisted on going to the Moon to set up the shot.
What I love about this is that one probably wouldn't expect that an Interview on Daytime TV is that hard for the Interviewed.
Great video - and I think you're right in saying that this conspiracy is the only thing keeping Mark Sargent on the guestlist. Without this he has nothing. Loving your conspiracy videos.
You're just too young to remember that Philip Schofield started his presenting career working with Gordon the Gopher (a glove puppet). So dealing with a flat Earther with a straight face will be easy for him.
Gordon the gopher was significantly more honest, erudite and charismatic than the disingenuous, grifting flerf. I imagine Phil was longing for those days whilst suffering that moronic interview.
I’m old enough to remember Spit the Dog and even HE was more honest, erudite and charismatic than Mark Sargent!
The second point he is making. Take two containers, connect them with a closed valve, draw a constant vacuum on one chamber and open the valve. The chamber that didn't have a vacuum will be emptied of air. He doesn't account for the various forces creating the very thing layer that comprise our atmosphere.
There are two questions I always want asked of flat earthers that never get answered, and those are:
Why does nautical navigation, the means by which ships knew where they were in the world prior to the advent of GPS and the like, rely on the fact that the earth is a globe and completely fall apart mathematically when you apply their 'model'?
How does GPS work in their model? Because without satellites orbiting the globe, GPS also simply doesn't function. And you can't handwave it away with "oh that's just showing you what cell tower/wifi you're closest to" because GPS works just fine in the middle of the freaking ocean or desert, hundreds of miles from the nearest cell tower.
FTFE, McToon and others already debunked a ton of shit about sextants, as FEs claim that sextants ONLY work in a flat earth... Don't ask them, they will just throw you a ton of nonsense buzz words salad until you give up. Your error here is to expect them to behave rationally
The question I've always asked them that they repeatedly fail to answer is: How does the flat Earth explain the Southern Celestial Pole?
My favourite question is 'How long is the Equator'? If you get the answer of 24,900 miles, you have them by the short and curlys.
I love this question.
Why can I take an 11 hour trip from Johannesburg Africa to Sydney Australia. If passenger planes can only fly a distance on average of about 15,300 km without fueling, and on your flat earth model, the distance on that same flight would be 4x that distance and be 20 hours long?
How it is that on a disc-shaped, stationary Earth with north in the centre, people in South America, South Africa, and Australia can all look directly south and see the same stars, often at the same time?
Such a great video and extremely entertaining. Your reactions are gold dust. I remember watching this episode of This Morning live at the time and still cant believe how desperate he gets at the end just rattling of made up facts as fast as he can so no one can respond
You might be interested by this; Sebastien Lapierre, a canadian, did cross the antartic continent, passing through the south pole, in 2017. He did this in complete autonomy. and carrying communication equipment,
Flat Earthers should at least take a moment to appreciate that Globe Earthers managed to come up with a "lie" that's more plausible than the "truth." Real science describes things in a much more simple, unified way where flat earther's descriptions of various mechanics usually contradict each other very hard.
Yes, night and day work quite nicely on a globe, and are an utter disaster on their flat model. I've never even heard a good explanation for constellations in the southern hemisphere not being observable in the northern.
@@meme-gd2pk Indeed. The horizon itself doesn't work on a flat earth. Especially not if you consider that you can see farther at higher elevations.
Occam's Razor cuts again...
Of course they contradict each other but its so funny!🤣🤣😂😂
You have to at least credit flat earthers with making other people laugh!😂😂😂😂
Total debunk, thanks for this. What I find amazing about the Van Allen argument is they seem to assume that "radiation" gets trapped there and lives there permanently, when in reality it's in flow, passing through, on it's way to deeper space. If it hung around; well, we'd be a singularity, not a planet. I mean, the very way that radiation works disproves the entire premise. 🤯
Really everything disproves the premise but why would you let pesky things like facts and the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy.
Private industry is already involved. And they know it's a sphere. So there's that.
Shoulda waited to the end - Emma said the same thing
One of the favourite blather points of flat earthers is that you can't have a vacuum next to a pressurised system without a container. I've repeatedly asked them what they experience when they drive up or down a hill. Their ears pop. Why? Pressure change. And why mountaineers need oxygen at the top of Everest. Pressure change. And why do high altitude balloons pop. Pressure change. And why pressure changes? Gravity. You can see where I am going with this...
A lot of these people like Mark actually do find ways to make a living through donations or speaking events or other things. And it does become a grift even if it didn't start out that way. I feel this is how televangelists get started. They don't wake up one day and think, "I'm going to start a ministry and tell desperate people clinging to hope that their donations will come back to them three fold, and then buy that private jet I've always wanted." They truly believe in the gospel and then it becomes a grift as they realize the benefits of power and wealth. It doesn't have to be this extravagant. It might only be enough for a middle class lifestyle. But once you find the formula (the talking points, the answers, the debate style), and once you find the market for your bullshit, then it perpetuates itself. I think that fits Mark to a T.
I love how part of his argument rests on private industry not being involved, when it has been for a over decade
The various parts of the Apollo mission (1st, 2nd, 3rd stages, Lunar Excursion Module, etc.) were contracted out and built by different aerospace manufacturers in the US.
Your statement on conspiracies being formed after educating oneself within an echo chamber of misinformation strikes home. I've got an uncle who - as intelligent as he is - has fallen into such a trap. Quite a frustrating experience trying to formulate any sort of discussion or debate when the points used by the opposing parties are based on unfounded conclusions that often deny the plausibility of any explanation outside their own. Like talking to a loud and assertive rock lol
I know other wise intelligent people who fell for qanon
Oh yes. "I've done my research". Clearly you're not very good at researching because all the points that you raised after the 'research' have been debunked over and over, and two minutes of Googling would have found that.
Like one anti-vaxxer I knew who had 'researched' vaccines but had never heard of and had no idea what herd immunity was. Yeah, you've done some thorough reading there, buddy!
And that's why I cannot stand these Flerfers or their ilk. Their irredeemable ignorance might be laughable now but it turns truly dangerous when they start denying basic medical facts in the midst of a global pandemic because "it's all a hoax". They deserve to be treated with utter contempt for the disingenuous fools that they are.
@@UltrEgoVegeta What was the other ? I have the impression Qanon encompasses so many areas of rather common knowledge that the domain were their intelligence is relevant must be extraordinarily narrow and very oddly circumscribed .
@@ingridschmid1709 people with college education
@@UltrEgoVegeta Well I met plenty of idiots during mine and to be honest I'm not that bright myself.
A college education is not synonymous to intelligence and an absence of one isn't to stupidity either.
Don't get me wrong I'm not decrying education at all just asserting it's not the silver bullet against very common human limitations as it is often purported to be.
There is a silver lining to mvts such as flat earth and that is it forces lazy minds such as mine to put in a little effort to critically reassess our beliefs and improve /cleanup our understanding of our experience.
Also college educations can be awfully specialized to the point they ressemble more some kind of elaborate animal training than anything remotely interesting.
Thanks so much for doing this Emma! This was my lockdown tbh going down that rabbit hole because I couldn't understand why people would think this.
Would love to answer some of your questions!
What was your conclusion?
Honest misunderstanding, ignorance, and knowledge gaps for most. There is a core of them who have been shown unequivocally that the earth is a globe, but don't change due to the notoriety of being the leaders of their community.
8:32 “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
I read that if you shrank the Earth to the size a snooker ball, it would be the smoothest, most spherical object in the universe. Conversely, if you increased the the size of a snooker ball to the size of the Earth, the little imperfections on the surface of the ball would look like craters and mountains ten miles high. I don't believe this guy believes what he is saying - attention seeker!
"If you took, like, all the stars in the universe, and put them in a bag, they would be... Um... Yeah. " Tim Heidecker
If you shrank earth to the size of a snooker ball it would, ironically, be the exact same size of the brain of some flat earthers.
I saw Neil DeGrasse Tyson say something similar. He was saying that on the scale of a typical schoolroom globe, the tallest mountains and deepest trenches would be smaller than the height of the ridges in your fingerprints.
But the earth has a massive bulge owo
Similar scenario I've seen with car windshields. The feel smooth to us by actually have lots of microscopic. All these smooth-glassers out there being indoctrinated by the government and NASA.
I love that he describes the moon as emitting "a cold laser light". I think even if we agreed with the ludicrous notion that the moon breaks the laws of thermodynamics with cold light, we can recognise that it's definitely not frickin' lasers!
But no, he's somehow decided that the moon is literally firing freeze rays at us.
Why laser light though? That would be a single wavelength of light unless it was all sorts of different lasers emitting different wavelengths. Laser seems to be a particularly poor choice for an explanation.
@@nineteenthly collimated?
@@alysdexia You are close.
Any light rays reflected from a body that is sufficiently far away will appear to be parallel ( collimated ), same with sunlight (frequencies notwithstanding, well spotted nineteenthly). This is why polarised sunglasses work.
What amuses me about his very primitive view of the moon being an energy emitter in the visual range is why the moon appears to change shape over its monthly cycle.
Surely a light emitting moon would look round all the time.
Sargent, rhymes with grifter...
@@squiremc shall; -ized.
We lose a lot of atmosphere to space all the time, everyday. The fact is, the earths atmosphere extends fairly far away from earth into “space” continuing to thin until it matches the almost perfect vacuum of space.
27:50 I saw their "experiments" on that. Laughable. They mesure the temperature of a glass of water outside, in the cold night, and they compared it to the temperature of a glass of water "outside" protected from the light of the moon but also protected from any form of air movement, creating some kind of shelter that will loose heat slower. They see a tiny difference of temperature between them (of course), and they conclude that the moon light is cold. The magnifying stuff he's talking about is purely hypothetical, I never saw an attempt to prove it.
They don’t repeat the experiment on a moonless night to verify that the impact was actually the moonlight. I’m sure he has been told about radiative cooling, but chooses to ignore it.
@@mjjoe76 They are very good at ignoring constructive criticism. They'd rather listen to insults and such, and pretend that's all that "globers" can respond.
Some of them will pretend to listen to real arguments though. But just pretend, because when they respond, it's obvious that they were only listening to what they expected to hear, not what was really said.
The glass of water is losing heat to the very old, clear night sky.
When they block out part of the cold sky, the water of course cools down more slowly.
Same result even if the moon is not in the part being blocked out.
eh·ruh·taas·thuh·neez
Granted, it's a toughy. You and Creaky and SciMan and Sir Sic and Gutsick Gibbon and Shannon Q are keeping me off the ledge. Thank you, Emma!
I always have trouble with those names, it's all Greek to me
Old Ratty Knees? He shouldn't have worn such short togas.
@@engineeredlifeform ouhtn’t
That’s not how to say Hellènic unless you’re a duhmb westerner.
@@alysdexia The language is not Hellenic. It's Greek. Hellenismos would be the various religions of the Greeks, in more modern reconstructionist traditions, but GREEK is the language. Don't call people who are using the correct words dumb, lest you look dumb yourself.
How can they give this guy any airtime? It just gives more credibility in the minds of those who are predisposed to conspiracy theories like this. It’s irresponsible and immoral of these tv producers.
It's hilarious how you used Creaky's CGI clip in your video 😂
Love your content - I'll definitely keep looking out for your videos 🥰
If I met him and he used the prove it argument, I'd say: -Mark, prove to me, right now, that what you are breathing isn't Satans farts. You have 5 minutes.
the prove it "argument" is a fallacy. Not only it is not up to others to provide proof, the flerfs have to provide evidence for their claim, but science is not about proof, but evidence and interpretation using the hypothesis formulated before gathering evidence.
He is actually breathing nuclear waste of stars.
question for Mark -- what's under the disc of the flat earth? What's it sitting on? Must be one mighty big coffee table
Turtles all the way down of course! 😂
Spot on Emma! I did this similar research on the radiation belts some years ago, and you hit all the high points.
The Russians did the research before Van Allen, so it might have been call the Vernov Belt, if not for being so secretive.
I had learned about rockoons (rockets launched from balloons), and the failed nuclear space blasts, and how NASA went overkill on insulating their capsules from the radiation...
So Emma, I’m beaming with joy at your cleverness!
For his gravity/vacuum point -- I think he's painting a picture that if you set up an air filled chamber with a vacuum on top, and you open the chamber to the vacuum, the air will rush into the vacuum until equilibrium is reached. His argument is, if space exists and is a vacuum, why doesn't the air/atmosphere flow into space? The answer is that the atmosphere is already in a dynamic equilibrium between gravity, the energy added by the sun, and the vacuum of space, amongst other factors.
And he's completely missing that the atmosphere is losing helium and other light gasses to the vacuum of space. Or that's just another part of the conspiracy. And the helium is actually stored in giant tanks under the Earth. I don't know any more.
Flat Earthers can't comprehend that multiple forces can act on something at the same time.
The Antarctic Treaty only prevents governments from establishing military bases on the continent. It doesn't prohibit civilians from going anywhere.
First off, that top is so stinking cute on you! Absolutely adorbs. Second when I was a kid, my parents took me to Cape Canaveral to watch the shuttle launch. We had a little portable TV and I watched the the launch with my own eyes and watched the on board cameras as it left the atmosphere with perfect continuity, so I guess I'm part of the conspiracy.
How much are you getting paid? I want to get in on this! 😂 I still have never received any of my payments.. such a shame
I really wanted to hear where he was going when he said "None of it is secret information, it's on a flash drive...".
That has got to be one momentous flash drive to have been passed between so many conspiracy theorists. It's too bad we don't have satellites that could wirelessly send those files through the ethernet instead of having to mail the single "Not Secret Documents" flash drive to each new recruit.
It's the same flash drive Randy Pitchford lost that one time with the explicit adult material next to his game presentations.
Imagine the boon to the world's tourist industry if the world was flat, trips to the ice wall to visit the ice wall would be sold everywhere, as for anything else we'll, people wouldn't care what shape the planet is because they would still have to goo to work, go shopping and cook dinner.
People just wouldn't care as a whole they have more to worry about, my proof for that is the disinterest shown regarding earth having more of a vague potato shape than a perfect sphere, when told that the interest rate lasts seconds then people just get on with life and forget about it.
Off topic, I'd just like to say your voice and your accent is so perfect. I can hear you doing voiceover for animated characters, or maybe even doing narration. Back on topic, great video. I've seen many, many other debunkers cover this since it came out and yours is easily one of the most fun to watch. You've gained another sub.👍
Back in mid 2019 I got back in touch with this guy I had went to high school with. He wasn't ever my _friend,_ but he was a guy I was on friendly terms with in school -- an acquaintance, really. I didn't realize that he was ... factually challenged, let's say.
The whole reason I got back in touch with him was because of a chance meeting at a retail store where he worked, and he was eager to talk to someone, I guess. It turned out that my semi-monthly D&D group had had some people leave -- one moved, the other had twins and no longer had free time. And as this guy said he was looking to do something on the weekends, I off-handedly said that there _might_ be a spot in group. This was a mistake I had made.
I don't know if he always had had trouble thinking things through or being rational, but it became clear somewhat quickly that even in a game of make-believe that is D&D, he wasn't particularly good at considering the logical consequences of his actions (or that it was a _collaborative_ game and not just about him being the main character and everyone else just being extras). And his "character" (which was just him, actually, because he made no distinction between what he thought or wanted versus the make-believe character he was controlling) would occasionally make some really odd statements. And given that the group was mostly consisting of those of us who like to have a semblance of reality in the game and logical consistency in the world and even out of game will interrogate ideas that seem a bit sketch... it wasn't a great combo for this guy.
Anyway, while as far as I know that guy wasn't a flat-earther, he did believe other conspiracy theory things that are more clearly problematic (flat-earthers are more of a gate-way to worse conspiracies and anti-logic). Mostly I just recall being a bit surprised at how his mind worked (or at times "failed" to work) in regard to what seemed like the simplest of critical thinking. Just asking "but why, though?" wasn't a thing he did or could focus on, usually sidetracking to something else entirely before ever really exploring the simple question of "but _why_ do you think that is how it works?" or "why do you think you can do that without any of the obvious repercussions?" and too often him waiving off the questions with something like _because those things just won't happen._ Cause and effect? Nah, not gonna happen because it'd be convenient for him if cause and effect just wasn't a thing.
Any example conversations?
This is why we get to know people before we let them into our lives. My cousin is in a relationship with a man who she met on tinder then moved out of state to be with him, but didn't know anything about him. My sister met him when they were in Flordia and my god, she says this man was a creep and my cousin doesn't understand that his behavior is not ok.
He gives her food that she cannot eat and doesn't tell her what's in it. Dairy gives her hives and pork makes her puke, but this dumbass is under the impression that she is faking it and forgot that it is illegal to do that. You don't just give someone food and not tell them what's in it. Food allergies are a thing.
I can reason with her because my cousin chose to be ignorant. She chose to not bother with education, she had people doing her work for in high school and college, thinking ain't in her top priorties.
In the Navy, I left Norfolk Va, through the Suez Canal, Indian Ocean, Austraila then Singapore. Wher I met a friend who sailed from Coronado California. I ran into no Ice Wall.
YOU-UNS WAS IN THE NAY-VEE! YOU-UNS IS PART OF THAT, THERE CON- SPEER,-A-SEE!!!!!!
Another great video, not sure Mark was expecting a grilling, Holly and Philip seem like just nice daytime presenters, must have come as a shock to him.
I don't think it was meant to be a grilling. Flat Earth is so silly that it doesn't even stand up to simple questions.
@@johnsensebe3153 "We're going to throw you a few softballs."
"THE BALL IS FAKE NEWS!"
@@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT softflats*
I get that in politics it's a good thing to have opposing opinions aired, but when talking about fact based topics, there are no opposing opinions. Fact are not opinions.
It doesn't have to make sense; it just has to make money!
I've watched quite a bit of this flat earth gibberish, so am able to actually interpret what he's trying to say on those last 5 points.
1. Some FEers have claimed that the disappearing of an object over the horizon is due to inability to resolve the detail, and that modern cameras are now powerful enough to resolve detail "beyond" the horizon. This is absurd since telescopes have existed for hundreds of years not to mention high end SLR lenses that have existed for decades. I myself have taken photos that clearly show ships going below the horizon hull first. And then I've climbed a cliff and with the same camera taken another picture of the same ship where the hull has magically reappeared, merely seconds later. The other thing he is possibly referencing is the refraction effect of the atmosphere. Under certain conditions the refractive index of the atmosphere closely matches the curvature and so we can see beyond the horizon (or rather the visible horizon is further away than usual).
2. this is a classic misunderstanding of science by FLers. What he is saying is that if you contain air in a container with a vacuum above, then open the container, the air immediately floats up into the vacuum. So since there is no "roof" to the atmosphere, why doesn't the air float away into the vacuum? It's a classic misdirect, since he is biasing the outcome by saying the cork is in the top of the container. If the cork was released from the bottom of the container the air would rush downwards. The air no matter whether it comes from the top or bottom will eventually settle within the atmosphere depending on the pressure gradient, which is a function of gravity. The air in the atmosphere doesn't rush up to the vacuum of space because gravity is holding it to the Earth.
3. this is based on a misunderstanding about what science says about the rays from the sun are effectively parallel - which would mean a 2000 mile wide moon should cast a 200o mile wide shadow on earth. Okay so FLers try and say that sun rays spreading out from the holes in the clouds (corpuscular rays) show that the sun is much much closer than science says it is, since if you trace those rays back to the source, the sun has be very close. They then trace a straight line from those rays to a meeting point and say that is where the sun is. Science then says no, from earth the sun's rays appear "almost" parallel, and you cannot measure the distance to the sun that way BY EYESIGHT ALONE, and further corpuscular rays are caused by diffraction and are not straight lines back to the sun. FLers jump on this "parallel lines" business to then dispute the size of the moon's shadow on earth during an eclipse. But on the scale of the sun/earth/moon system, some of those rays are un-parallel enough to actually shine around the moon on to the Earth leaving only a 70 mile wide shadow. In a FEers mind everything is so close together they just can't conceptualise scale.
4. Just pure poppycock. Numerous measurements have shown that moonlight raises temperatures of objects not cools them. It's a very very weak thermal affect though so you need quite sensitive equipment to detect any warming (relative to surfaces shaded from the moonlight). You also need to be sure to eliminate sources of artificial lighting which also heat objects and would invalidate the experiment if not allowed for.
5. The van allen belts are not "deadly" unless you have sufficient length of exposure. The path of the spacecraft was designed to minimise the exposure to stay within safe limits. Perhaps a key reason FEers find this hard to believe is the "evidence" that millions of electron volts are produced by the belts and that the spacecraft passes through this energy, and so it should immediately fry a person (and the spacecraft). However that is a very flawed understanding of the risks and the constitution of the belts. So the belts are made of cosmic rays (high energy protons and atoms stripped of electrons) which are guided by electromagnetic lines of force (the planet's magnetosphere). Simplified version. The cosmic rays are deadly but mostly arc harmlessly around the metal walls of the space ship which the magnetic field lines follow. The electorn volts is produced by the electric current of the magnetosphere and is not the same component as the cosmic rays. This electron flow is vey high voltage but very low current, so it doesn't carry very much energy at all, at least not in the small area of a human spacecraft. And also this current is directed around the spacecraft by the metal surface. So the occupants are mostly shielded from the van allen belts primarily by the spacecrafts metal skin. FEers will point to claims about the modern Orion spacecraft having much better shielding than the original Apollo spacecraft, but this is also a misunderstanding. The Orion spacecraft has significantly more powerful and also more sensitive electronic equipment and the shielding is to protect that rather than the occupants.
On 5... Idk why FEers would have trouble understanding it. Like my dumbass brain goes.. Harm comes from length of exposure. Easily compare it to fire in that context;
Move finger quickly through the flame on a candle = little to not damage
Move finger slower = more damage
Leave finger sitting in the flame = increasing damage the longer finger stays in the flame
Ofc I know they just wanna believe their own shit but like... Blargh
Thats the problem with gish gallops, look how much writing you had to do to debunk what he said in about 60 seconds.
@@leothenomad5675 sure, it's tiresome but in this case Emma asked people to weigh in so I thought I'd give a comprehensive explanation of what he was saying and why it's wrong. People can take it or leave it as they like. I'm just info dumping.
@@techlifebio Oh I have no problem with it, and I'm probably the rare person who reads long posts, I especially like your debunk of the moonlight point. I was just pointing out the problems of having counter all of Mark's "facts"
@@leothenomad5675 I just treat it as an intellectual exercise. A bit of fun :-) Occasionally they throw something a little less straight forward to debunk which is good for exercising the old brain matter haha
27:27 I'm not a scientist but I think I can decode what he said. He is claiming 1. gravity isn't a force ("Can't say gravity anymore"), 2. and because gravity isn't a force in his mind the atmosphere should be flying off into the vacuum of space, so 3. when they open the doors, he thinks the air in the studio should evacuate the building. Freaking idiot. The "moonlight" claim is him not recognizing the light we see from the Moon is reflected from the Sun.
Yep to expand on what Daniel said, 1. Gravity doesn't pull down it pulls toward center so if the world is flat they have to find a new cause for gravity. 2. So if gravity doesn't work they way we've been told what keeps the atmosphere in place, it must be a dome then. 3 just more dome justification. Then the moonlight BS. Flat Earthers all only have a middle school understanding of science.
Also if you haven't watched Professor Dave Explains, rip apart flat earth you really should.
@@MisterPunch19 Well put. I hadn't considered what explanation Flat Earthers use to explain atmosphere retention. Flat Earth isn't just a stupid ideology, it is aggressively ignorant that continues to create problems the longer one thinks about it!
OK, the gravity argument can be that or that since it is a flat surface, it now lacks the mass to keep that much of the atmosphere.
The moonlight claim is him claiming that the moon gives it's own light like the sun and it isn't actually lit up by the sun. Yes, it's wrong. Yes, I think what is wrong with them is hard to pronounce.
You can tell how nonsensical a Bible literalist view is by how many branches of science they have to say are fake. For flerfers, that’s relativity, thermodynamics, the standard model, fluid dynamics, astrophysics, et cetera.
YECs toss all those plus radioactive decay, geology, biology, plate tectonics, thermonuclear science (see also: Oklo, Gabon), medicine, chemistry, quantum mechanics, genealogy, et fam, all to shove things into a 6000 year timeframe.
@@Rosyna Agreed. Though Young Earth creationists transgress in a few more areas such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, and honestly probably more. It isn't just stupid, it is aggressively stupid.
"Prove it in a court of law". Going on the assumption that like with a murder trial it can only stand if the entire Jury in united, and they are assuming at least one person in that room will be dumb as them
I remember seeing something, where the guy had a model plane, and he "flew" it over a globe so it was at the bottom part, then said if the earth was a globe, why don't we have photos of planes flying upside down. Probably because the camera at the "bottom" part of the globe was also upside down?
and of course, we do have pics of planes flying upside down...
@@repjr7gmailcom That's nothing, I even have a picture of Mark Sargent upside down :)
@@giannitedesco6153 i get the impression he's always a little sideways at best if not all the way upside down.
My favorite part of Saturday! Thanks Emma! 💜🏴☠
i'm glad you mentioned that experiment they did in the documentary! i think the sad thing about it is that it was actually a really nice experiment. it's a creative yet simple way to estimate the size of the earth, and it does take some thinking to form the experiment. the only shame was that they threw away the result when it didn't fit the hypothesis.
I've been following the movement for years. With respect the ancient Greeks, flat earthers believe they were incorrect about the distance to the sun. If it were small and local, some of the same results could occur on a flat plane. Regarding the vacuum, what he was trying to convey was that if gravity won't keep the atmosphere from rushing into a vacuum chamber with a hole pierced into it on earth, why would gravity keep the air from rushing into the vacuum of space. The mental gymnastics involved never cease to amaze.
Regarding the vacuum thing: Don't they accept that air pressure is lower at higher altitudes then? (Athletes training at higher altitudes, or people going to extreme places like Mt Everest.) Or what about diving? The increased pressure as you go lower is pretty much the same thing, isn't it?
In the end, it seems like they have to throw away pretty much all that we know about physics. Millions of people would have to be in on the conspiracy.
@@RikardPeterson, yeah, they don't believe in a pressure gradient, as far as I'm aware. But to be honest, the vast majority of them are just trolls.
@@RikardPeterson I saw a guy in a fb group the other day saying that air pressure increases with altitude, because of wind.
It's true that Eratosthenes' experiment would work on a flat earth, giving a small and close sun if you assume the earth is flat. But that's with two sticks. Use 3 or 4 or more at different latitudes and you get a different result with each pair.
Absolutely a fantastic way to start my Sunday morning. A bloody fantastic debunk and commentary, Emma. ♥️♥️♥️
If there's no South pole, and only a North pole, this means that our North pole is a monopole! How does one make a magnetic monopole, oh wise flatearthers?
Emma, you're awesome and I love everything you do. Keep it up.
I don't love 'everything you do' Emma, but I do enjoy your channel
Pity, he did start a great question with "so you flew here in a straight line?".. pick up the flat model and say "but here you would have a constant turn to one side, otherwise you flew over this and this country and it would have taken you x hours longer" :)
Flatearthers say no one can cross over the wall of Ice
Many years ago I got on a plane heading west towards the setting sun. I stopped in many countries but I kept flying west into the setting sun. Eventually I ended up at home again.
I wonder how they would try to twist that one.
I have recently begun watching some of your videos. Very entertaining. For proof against flat earthers just go to any airline route in the southern hemisphere (thanks to Professor Dave Explains). If the earth were a flat disc, the flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile would go over the north pole (the shortest route on a flat disc), but that's not what the planes do (of course).
so wholesome to end the interview with just "lets go! lets go see the wall!" freaking loved that.
also, i feel like they would say the ancients that did the math initially were just wrong and hen not explain how (because they can't do the math.)
When you think about what it takes to believe the earth is flat - all the things you have to discount, all of the evidence right in front of our faces that is clearly inconsistent with a flat earth - it's really staggering. For example, how could we possibly have Google Maps and all the other similar direction finding apps without satellites orbiting the globe?
Flerfs claim:
1: Space is fake, there are no satellites.
2: GPS doesn't work in oceans, It is all land based towers.
3: Google maps is only CGI.
Etc....
What ever doesn't fit their narrative is fake.
Hi Emma,
I'll try to explain what Mark doesn't quite get at minute 27.
He's saying that if theoretically a vacuum chamber was connected above the room they were in, everything would be sucked in the vacuum chamber in spite of gravity. Ergo gravity doesn't exist :). In reality the two chambers will eventually equalise pressure buuuut, the room below will have more air than the room above. Guess because of gravity :).
He's asking next if there's a vacuum of space why does this vacuum not suck the atmosphere out. What he fails to understand is that lack of matter cannot and will not exert any force what so ever, in other words vacuums don't suck. Instead matter will transit into a state of equilibrium. If there is a difference in pressure, higher pressure fluid will move to a lower pressure until equilibrium is reached. There is a formula we can use to calculate the pressure exerted by a column of fluid (in physics gases and liquids are considered fluids) influenced by gravity which is: mean density of the fluid x hight of the column x gravitational acceleration. This is why the higher you go into the atmosphere the lower the pressure, all three parameters decrease. Therefore, if you continue to go up, at the edge of Earth's atmosphere the pressure is virtually zero. The same reasoning explains why the pressure increases the deeper you go in water, all three parameters increase.
Have a nice day!
I wrote a simplified version of this in another comment. Thanks for the explanation, this is exactly what Flatties don't understand about the Vacuum of space.
30:43 Answer is simple: It's a _belt_ not a sphere. They chose a trajectory that stayed far from the dangerous zone. Once again, a FEer asking a question but not doing a single minute of honnest research to find the answer.
That is one of the most entertaining ways I’ve ever heard someone pronounce Eratosthenes. 😂 phonetically: “Era-toss-ten-ease”
One time I got into it with a flat earther in a twitch chat. He, Ken, told me that NASA is an ancient Yiddish word for liar and implored me to try and see it from his perspective. So I applied the logic he was presenting and promptly realized that he was none other than Ken Ham. It was right in front of me that whole time...
Oh yeah PS the court of law standard of evidence applied to the scientific process is perfectly legitimate, everyone knows that Darwin proved evolution by suing the catholic church, and as a counterexample recall when Diogenes successfully disproved the existence of man by suing Socrates.
Another Jewish conspiracy..... 😵💫
Yiddish has existed for less than a thousand years, and it's based on High German. He probably got his Jewish languages mixed.
What about the 15 degree per hour drift? Thanks Bob lol. Toidi. 🤔🖖💜🇬🇧
I would like a flat earther to explain to me how the celestial navigation work that I have done has worked out as correct positioning if the earth is flat. I'm listening.
The media's forced neutrality is such a problem. When things are clearly wrong they need to be addressed as such.
I totally agree. I think part of the reason there is so much far right nonsense around these days is that the media gave platforms to fringe lunatics and the lunatics became less and less fringe until suddenly the fringe lunacy was mainstream politics and the media are all like, "Oh no, how did this happen?"
The frustrating thing is even if you put him on the actual moon point him at the earth and let him see what it really is, he will just claim it CGI inside the helmet.
Then take his f'in helmet off.
Pronunciation of "Eratosthenes" is:
Air-a-TOSS-tha-knees. Love your channel, Emma!