To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription
@@DaveMcKeegan Why no comment about how flat earth is the least absurd and ridiculous belief of the christians? any theist is infinite times worse than a person who gets the shape of the earth wrong!
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 because that would be a silly comment. I'm no christian, I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't be offended by that observation. But the number of christians that are flat earthers is vanishingly small. No religion today has flat earth as dogma. I would say christians knew the earth was round pretty much from the beginning. Maybe the original authors of the Old Testament were flat earthers (thousands of years before Christ) and that's a big MAYBE. Moreover not all flat earthers are christians, some I believe are atheists. I don't know if you can find a "core belief", shared by the vast majority of christians (remember, almost no one is a fundamentalist), that is more absurd than flat earth. Big Daddy in the sky? Silly, yet unfalsifiable. "2000 years ago one guy resurrected"? No proof, but no way to directly disprove. Every classic belief held by the "standard christian" is blind faith in something unfalsifiable. Flat earth is blind faith in a collective delusion about objective reality. Tough to beat.
FE's have trouble enough fathoming how large Earth is when they're stood on it, much less an area many times that they can't observe unaided. Scale is a problem they just can't get past.
@@borano2031 That always makes me laugh. Like this gigantic enormous multi billion conspiracy wouldn't think to edit out the bubbles if they were faking 🤣
THIS. I've always said the math really dooms a flat earther. They are too stubborn to try and understand that mathematical models are what we use to check observations and predict future events (and then when we observe them, it all lines up). The one flat earther I've ever interacted with admitted that he ignores math completely. I told him I couldn't help him then.
Most of the evidence for anything we know about the world via science (i.e. everything we know about the world) is described mathematically. When flat earthers, the most basic science-deniers out there, hand wave away mathematics then they get rid of about 99.9% of the evidence for what we know. They think this is winning. Unfortunately, the, say, 0.1% that we do know, that isn't mathematically described (or informed by maths), explains the world *far better* than any explanation (of which there aren't many) advanced by flat earth proponents. In the years that they have been denying reality, the sum of facts uncovered by flat earthers is ... zero. The square root of zero. Zero to the infinite exponent. People new to the flat earth *hypothesis* (it is thousands of facts away from scientific theory status) need to explain this... Things about the world found out by flat earthers: 2015-2024: 0 Prior to 2015: 0
They want to discredit centuries of increasingly complex mathematics developed by the finest mathematician in history with out using math. It's CGI, nah-ah, and laugh emojis are good enough for flerfs
Many of them, when you try to nicely explain to them that they lack the understanding and skills to even grasp why they are incorrect, they will tell you math doesn't matter or that math is just a tool used by THEM to indoctrinate us. Smfh.
It does amuse me that flat earthers/moon landing deniers will use CGI as an argument as if rendering photo/video with perfect realtime weather conditions (as we see on the ISS livestream that points down at the Earth) is easier that shooting a rocket into space
@@ctsean well, one CGI image or video is easier and cheaper to make if you have the data provided by... a satellite. Though, to really gather all the data necessary in order to accomplish such a level of photographic fidelity, and the work you need o put into it, no to mention the sheer number of RAW images provided mot only by NASA but by so many other space agencies, it would be just too expensive, impractical, no one would make so many images, and, if you really want a flat Earth, the CGI is your best bet, yet I've yet to see any realistic CGI image of the Earth, I wonder why...
@@ilaion11No only that, but Dave also showed that the footage of Earth shows weather patterns that precisely match the weather on Earth, some of it being live footage from the ISS.
@@ctsean Not to mention the Photos of the earth from the 60s-70s, Obviously CGI! When special effects artists of the time, were still filming hand painted balls to get this kind of shot, good for the time but not photo level, Oh and true CGI didn't really get legs until, late 80s-90s, but obviously the 60s photos of earth are CGI fakes, the ones they were showing in the 60s-70s!! The Doc and Marty have some questions to answer! because, high end ''For Today'' CGI images being shown to people in the 60s-70s, I'm calling high jinx, time travel, tomfoolery going on! little scallywags they are! Don't worry Flat Earthers, soon as we find the Delorean, we can finally prove you right!
@@taqresu5865 The only thing that would be even better would be someone taking photos from the ground of those exact patterns to show that it's true. You'de have proof from the ISS, weather images and ground images all showing the same cloud patterns... But Flerfers are never convinced by proof. They will demand a certain kind of proof and when they get it, they'll either dismiss it as irrelevant, claim it's fake or just simply demand another proof. All the while whining that they would _totally_ be persuaded to stop believing their bullshit fairy tale Flerf nonsense, if only that one single proof would exist. Until it does. Then they demand another. But that last proof will totally be the one to persuade them. It's a treadmill of bullshit.
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” ~Douglas Adams
I have my towel and my thumb is out. Get me away from these Flat Earthers. I will gladly listen to Volgon Poetry rather than listen to Flat Earth buffoons.
The point is that the speed of an object in orbit is directly related to its altitude, so any satellite orbiting at the same altitude as the ISS will have a speed close to it. The result is that many satellites orbiting near the ISS's altitude will have a small _relative_ velocity, and so won't be whizzing past the ISS's cameras as some folks imagine they might.
Remember, these are people who either don't understand, or disbelieve, that things in orbit are all going about five miles per second. When "that's all whizzing around at Mach 25" isn't in the back of your head, things getting close to each other doesn't seem very scary. So they don't think about things like the importance of orbit separation, or else that think that it all sounds way too hard and it's therefore just a big lie.
@@akunekochan I've read that over 4000 people die of dihydrogen monoxide overexposure per year in the United States alone! Someone should really regulate it.
Dihydrogen monoxide chemtrails? That sounds very toxic. You probably wouldn't want to breathe in dihydrogen monoxide. It might interfere with oxygen transfer.
I love how you explained in such detail why we usually shouldn't be able to see satelites, answering to the flatty's argument, only to then show us footage that proves we actually can see satelites from the ISS, just not always. First dismantle their claim inside their line of argumentation, to show them that you could beat them there, but then disprove their evidence entirely, making the argument itself pointless to begin with. "I could beat you at your own game, but here is why that's not even neccessary"
Here's a challenge for flerfs, climb to the top of Salisbury Cathedral spire, at 404ft the tallest church spire in England, look down at the grass, and tell us how many insects you can see.
@@iamrightoutsideyourwindowhello I do not see any of them, that for sure they do not exist both. Probably that Boston thing is made up by NASA too, because I do not see it.
There are approximately 8500 satellites in low earth orbit. That is a volume of space that is 1,213,214,170,881 cubic kilometers or 291,065,685,954 cubic miles. That is one satellite every 34,243,022 cubic miles. Space is VAST!
Most of the flat earth arguments involve a misunderstanding of the sheer size of the earth. They are just incapable of grasping the concept of how big it is.
I bet they think China is just right around the corner, a rousing little walk away, nothing more. Otherwise, they should understand that the sheer size of the earth and its relative meaninglessness compared to the size of the universe completely obliterates their entire worldview.
Don't forget a lot of depictions are also nowhere near scale, so they can fit in an image. Like they believe planes are really as big as they appear, on the tracking map. And they believe any image, that appears to agree with them. Well, I guess they could scale the solar system down to fit across 2 pages in a text book. You really wouldn't be able to see all the planets or moons though.
As a kid camping out in the wilderness, at night I could see the milky way galaxy, but myself, my sister and parents could see satellites in the nighttime sky often and with ease . You need to see it in a nightime sky. Even from ISS.
No shit, it's only a matter of time before you see the Starlink chain. That really tripped me out, the first time I saw it, with my naked eyes. Nothing else in the universe looks that linear. I felt as though they had violated me. 😟 And that was accidental. I wasn't looking for it. I just look up a lot. It was practically impossible to miss, because it was bright orange.
@@SloppyGoat One of the few times I have ever had edibles also happened to come as I saw a Starlink train go by in the sky just after sunset in a pretty rural area, and it made me irrationally angry and afraid. Yeah, edibles (and billionaires ruining astronomy) turn out to not be my thing.
@@Bnio Yeah, I was kind of shocked at my own reaction. Of course, my first thought was a UFO, but it didn't take me 2 seconds to figure out what it was. It still bothers me, even though I haven't seen it again. 😢
As a kid I used to spend hours in the Dublin mountains at sunset looking up at passing satellites. It was always the best local spot to use my telescopes away from light pollution.
I've seen some large space debris illuminated by the sunlight fall apart and one of the parts drifted off in a slightly different direction. I think all flerf logic falls apart the moment you actually look at the sky, but for that you'd have to look, and they don't want to do that because their fragile narrative immediately falls apart.
@Haze_Nexus_realAh, shit. Here we go again... WHAT DO YOU MENA FISH DON'T EXIST? WE EAT THEM ALL THE TIME! GO TO THE MARKET! FISH! ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR NON-EXISTENT MIND?
flat earthers and conspiracy theorists always have the same argument and mindset towards everything: "this doesn't make sense.... and no, I'm not going to go out of my way and research it"
I can't comment this enough.. Your videos are so fkn thorough!!!! Man, I've been following so many "debunking" channels and although they get the main point through, most always seem to miss so many obvious details and intuitive explanations. But your videos always hit the mark!! Also you seem to address the most common FE misconceptions and not just debunking random braindead FEs on YT that even a lotta FEs don't agree with. If a Flat earther is still confused by the end of your video, there is truly no hope for them.
This reminds me of a story a Lunar Module pilot told about rendezvousing with the Command Module during a Moon landing mission. He said it was very odd because the LM and the CM were the only things out there in space next to the Moon and he knew the direction where the CM was, yet he could see nothing for most of the time they were approaching each other. Then, he started to see a dot, and eventually that dot grew into the CM, and they docked. (It was a similar experience for the CM pilot). Because on Earth we always have reference points, it's easy to forget what it's like to be in a place where there are no reference points, and the vastness of space is easy to underestimate. You and someone else can both be flying in an area that's relatively close from an orbital standpoint, yet your spacecrafts are both too small to notice each other unless you use radar or get very close.
A similar issue will occur for folks walking on the moon. There are no reference points so the foreground will blend in with the background. Is that a distant mountain or a tiny hill? Wont be able to tell. Future astronauts on the moon will need detailed maps and GPS to navigate safely otherwise they could be driving towards a cliff and not even know it.
@@motokid6008 And due to the missing atmosphere, that distant mountain will appear just as crystal clear as the tiny, nearby hill, making it even harder to judge distances.
Do they think that all those satellites are as large as *_TEXAS?_* Them thinking that the satellites should be visible to those on the ISS, is like thinking that those on the ISS should be able to see a family sedan on Earth, from the ISS, with their naked eyes. Absurd.
Just this quote from DNA came to mind 🤔 “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”
I love how your videos treat their claims seriously only to destroy them. Much better than what some other debunkers do where they are great at convincing those who are already convinced but just insult those who might actually be persuaded.
@@RazgrizXMG0079 the worst offender in my book is Professor Dave, who so obviously drips with contempt and disdain for his opponents that I find him tedious to watch, even though I agree with his points. I think he and LEO thoroughly deserve to get a room together somewhere.
Drive out into the country about an hour after sunset. Allow 30 minutes for your eyes to adapt to the darkness. Look up, you'll see them if you're not blind.
I could be wrong, but I don't think they're arguing that satellites don't exist, but rather that the ISS video depicting Earth's spherical rotation can't be real because it doesn't show them.
@marauderdz Divide the volume of the sphere of space around the Earth by the number of satellites and the density is quite low. They're literally hundreds or thousands of miles apart.
@@AM-rd9pu others say a balloon wouldn’t possibly be able to travel as the ISS does. Not in the distance covered nor in the straight path nor in the accuracy it appears in the sky. So some might be just wrong.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx with what regard? What would you want to prove with that you can’t prove with the uncut livestream or the accuracy it appears overhead? First and foremost it’s not there to prove to anyone it exists, but for scientists to perform lab work.
@@michaelleifels2004 Flerfs like to ignore the fact that you can independently verify the altitude and and speed of the ISS. There’s an excellent Scott Manley video where he explains exactly how to do this. The usual responses are along the lines of “nuh uh”.
How do they think there are so many liars regarding space? Pilots must be lying, astronauts are lying, nasa employees, government contractors, foreign pilots, etc. At what point does someone concede that the earth is a globe?
They've gone their whole lives thinking everyone is looking down at them for how dumb they are, despite the fact 9.9999999% of people they interacted with their whole lives didn't actually think that until they got suckered by the conspiracy, so they looked for ways to let them look down on others and Feel Smart And Special.
I did the math (poorly) and with 29000 debris over 10cm, and all 11000 satellites, each one of approximately 40,000 objects has around 12,000 KM squared of space to itself (excluding things under 10cm). We as humans really lack the ability to conceive of great scales.
There are 2 million cars in New York City alone. Imagine if those were the only cars in the state and we took all them and spread them across the state of New York instead of just the city. Now imagine getting rid of 99.5% of them. How often would you expect to see a car while wandering the state of New York? Not very often. Now spread that out across the US and it gets even worse. Spread that across all land on earth and you may be lucky if you ever see a car in your lifetime. That is still a fraction of the size of the space we are dealing with in orbit.
That is the worst. Exposure to that fallout can get you deadly sick if you are not prepared and equipped with safety gear to deal with it. Can't believe that shit is legal.
I alway thought, articles with : space is getting full " are dumb. On our earth there are millions of cars, buildings and Billions of people. But there are spaces of nothing.
"Football field sized" satellites made me cringe. But as a good counter argument to that clear misinformation, surely they can point out the football fields on the surface of the Earth... Now imagine that most satellites are no bigger than a person, with only a few getting as big as a sedan. Can you see any people or sedans on earths surface from the ISS? All this and it atill doesn't consider the lighting conditions of the sun either because no light is reflected/scattered off nearby objects to give the appearance of something being present, like Saturn's rings... And thats really only applicable at a distance, because we know the rings look vastly different when close, especially when looking towards the dark side.
and you can see a ton of satelits in the night if you got the right circumstances. i have a house in hungary in a rural area, so there is pretty much no light pollution. i love to lay in the grass in the night and watch satelites fly by
The level of detail in your vids is excellent Dave. These poor flerfs have no grasp of scale, distance, or apparent angular size. Those dots representing individual pieces of debris would be tens of miles in diameter in real life. A 10cm piece of junk passing by at high hypersonic speeds at only one field length away would be impossible to see, let alone at many miles.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx "provide a working globe map first how bout that?" Open basically any maps you want. Google maps will be easiest for you. Here you go, maps that use the globe for calculation of distances.
Imagine sitting in the living room and suddenly, out of nowhere... a battery punches through your roof, and goes straight down to the downstairs neighbour 😂
The earth is very big while a satellite is very small. Try walking from the UK to Australia, when you can walk the length of a satellite in seconds. To put it into perspective.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Your lack of an engineering degree is showing again. "Because you are living a lie, not me" "Perspective makes things disappear bottom first" "Cranes debunk globe earth" "AEP bs maps are a hoax..." "I'm a mechanical engineer by degree but no longer working in that field" "I am a mechanical engineer in black forest"
a particularly annoying molecule, mainly known for it's corrosive capabilities when in contact with electronics, and ironically used to transfer heat from electronics, by some PC enthusiasts, among others.
@@yag-yet_another_gamer And don't forget that science still can't answer why does it freeze faster when it's hot compared to when it starts cold. They let this dangerous and still not fully understood chemical out into the atmosphere...
Meanwhile is the NASA secret Photoshop HQ. "Sir everyone apart from a handful of people still accept the earth is round, but we can't be too careful. One person we are monitoring said why doesn't space debris hit the ISS, shall we commence in creating a highly detailed Photoshop and accompanying backstory that a piece of space debris went through the ISS, so that everyone on earth is still convinced space exists, even though they never even question it? The budget for this operation is around $25,000" "My god, yes! Get to it pronto, make sure your Photoshop skills are unearthly brilliant!"
This is funny. Because this means in the flat earthers world NASA just said "fuck this guy in particular" to a random guy in Florida and has the military airstrike his house for no reason XD
obviously the ISS didnt cover the area of a football field when it was launched 🤦♂️ you can literally look up how the parts were send to space and how the ISS was put together as it is today. Try and think about it buddy, why would nasa claim that they send a huge satelite to orbit if it was impossible to do? Its your confirmation bias
@phobosex7504 you missed his point. He does not think any football sized stuff was launched... off course not, just imagine the size of the rocket! He knows that the iss was launched as smaller components and assembled and that satellites are not.
Only things coming to my mind aside from space stations are JWST with the size of a tennis court and from what we know about them some military satellites (like "Orion Mentor" with 100 meter dish)
Had an interesting talk, from an Astro photographer on Monday. Richard Guest. He had some amazing images of deep space nebula’s and even the ISS passing across the Sun. Flat Earthers could photograph satellites with the right equipment. But then they would debunk themselves. As they would have to calculate their trajectories using the globe earth model. 😂
@@yag-yet_another_gamer What i've seen in a lot of their videos is they use autofocus but it really doesn't work well on celestial objects so they're almost never in focus and the idiots are incapable of realizing this and post absurd videos about out-of-focus images.
I feel like "flat earth debunkers" would make incredible primary school teachers.... you're so good at explaining things in simple ways. says a lot about "flat earthers"..
I'm curious what flat earthers would think about non-Euclidean geometry. For those that have only heard the term in Sci-Fi type settings, Veritasium has a neat video about what it actually means and its etymology and history. The video is called "How One Line in the Oldest Math Text Hinted at Hidden Universes".
It's about that time when school finishes in Germany, I imagine YepButNo / Waschbekenpinkler will arrive shortly to tell everyone that he's an 'engineer' with a 'degree'.
I once thought to try to explain this by saying imagine randomly dumping a couple thousand rowboats in the Pacific Ocean. Now launch a motor boat and try to find them. The problem with that analogy is they will likely think the task easy….
@@leftpastsaturn67 which also go around the world, a fact they would know if they would look at maps other than the ones that support their theory. Cherry pickers unite!
This is the first flat Earth debunking video I've watched in more then two years. I just had to stop. Glad to see their arguments have only gotten worse. See you in another two years.
at that point the arguments would've devolved into...uh...well i was gonna leave an exaggeration as a joke but every one i could think of is being used as a legitimate flat earth argument. they're stupider than i can pretend to be
Except the cameras are also angled towards the front... and there's a tiny window of opportunity whe they'd see stuff, regardless of altitude, as it appears from beyond the horizon (similar to what was shown at 11:43). 🤓
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
There are about 100,000 airline flights every day. Why am I not seeing other planes buzzing by our wingtips every time I take a multi-hour flight? Airline lies, debunked!
The earth is pretty big and even if planes took off and landed at regular intervals and only flew over 1% of the area of the earth (globe) they would still be about 35 km apart. Or something like that.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Every summer I go to Airventure in Oshkosh Wisconsin. I see tons of aircraft that use avgas. Everything from antique aircraft to various warbirds. There are several trucks that dispense avgas that roam the field. That stuff is $$$$. But since Jeran says it doesn’t exist I guess it’s free?
That is the single most interesting video you have produced!! I am one of those who have never understood how satellites aren’t constantly hitting each other. That was brilliantly explained. However, I do firmly believe Kessler’s cascade WILL happen and I’m of the mind that it has started. We are just at the start of an exponential growth. Superb explanation that clarified so much for me. Thanks
One thing relative to another in general is their nemesis. just look at the 'hurr durr we should be getting 1000 mile per hour winds if the erf wuz spinning!' bs lol.
The vapour phase of Dihydrogen Monoxide is relatively harmless, but you need to watch out for the solid form of Oxygen Hydride that occasionally falls out of the sky in big lumps.
I didn't know that we had CGI around 1969 when Apollo 10 took photos of the Earth. How did football size objects get launched into orbit? In conclusion, small minds can't comprehend the magnitude of the Earth or space.
"The football field sized ones." I'm glad you commented on that later in the video. Does lil homie think there's thousands of space stations up there? I mean, someday we might have a swarm of orbiting solar arrays and yeah, those probably would be pretty visible depending on their altitude.
I sat out for several hours both this last Friday and Saturday. Friday, the aurora pretty much obscured everything(what a wonderful show!) including stars, but Saturday, there wasn't any aurora and we sat and watched the stars. We saw many satellites go over. You do have to watch carefully to see the difference between ISS and high flying planes(look for the red and green lights)
@@leftpastsaturn67 I think I might have seen it last Saturday night. It was going se to nw and moving too fast for a plane, and too big for a typical satellite. I didn't go google to see if it was overhead at that point so it is just a possibility.
@@leftpastsaturn67 Exactly how I immediately knew it when I saw the ISS for the first time (from a balcony in a big city at sunset). It looked so unreal. I've also spotted satellites, but they're often not that easy to distinguish from very far away planes.
Its the asteroid belt problem. Thanks to movies like The Empire Strikes Back people think asteroids are closely packed together and moving in unpredictable trajectories. The truth is individual asteroids are usually several miles apart and moving in a steady orbit around the sun. Even with over 33k satalites and 200k pieces of space debris the individual objects are strung out few and far between in earths orbit. The orbits also vary greatly. The ISS orbits way underneath most of those satalites, so any shot from the ISS looking towards the earth is not going to be looking where most of the orbital objects are.
Relatively speaking, asteroids ARE close together. And considering that they are on average 3% the mass of the moon (8.1*10^19 tons), they are pretty damn big. In other words, the average asteroid is 2.43 * 10^18 or 243,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. That's 243 quintillion tons. If you honestly think you aren't going to see something that fucking massive even at several miles away in deep space with the sun's light hitting the side of it, you don't really understand how light works.
@@protoborg The largest asteroid was Ceres (now designated a dwarf planet) is 600 miles in diameter. Then Vesta, 326 miles in diameter. On average these asteroids are an average of 600,000 miles apart in the main belt. The average size of an asteroid is about one kilometer. ( thought to be around 100.000). The remaining majority are smaller. By no means are they close together like they are shown in science fiction movies.
A boring "bog standard" scientific approach would be to (1) do some calculations to estimate how many you would expect to see in a given time period, (2) observe for that time period, and (3) do a statistical confidence test to see if the number observed is consistent with the number expected. In the course of doing (1) you'd realise that the observation rate is going to be rather low. Flerfs are somewhat hampered by not being able to do any maths or physics at all, so they just go by "common sense" and gut feeling. This might work well for everyday phenomena we are familiar with, but for phenomena we are not familiar with it amounts to a simple uneducated random guess. Guesses don't form a good basis for convincing arguments.
Imagine trying to deal with the insurance claim of having ISS space debris go through your house. Must have been a nightmare of bureaucracy for all involved.
Wonder how/why NASA would punch a hole thru someone's house just to keep up the 'conspiracy'? If they're in it for the money, why pay damage claims on someone's house. Just say it fell in the ocean, right?
The surface area of the earth is 197 million square miles. With 11 thousand satellites, that would be one satellite per 18 thousand square miles if they were on the surface of the earth. Obviously, there is more room in space. In addition, at any height the orbital speed is the same, so the distance between satellites at the same altitude will remain the same. They won't get any closer to each other.
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is very dangerous. People die from inhaling it all the time. Same for prolonged contact with DHMO, as it can cause severe tissue damage to the point of amputation. Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. It's an industrial solvent and a nuclear coolant, yet can be found as an ingredient in foods we feed our children. Dihydrogen Monoxide is a major component of acid rain. :)
Of course, the geostationary satellites are some 36,000 km away, so it's the same problem of seeing a car-sized object against a black sky from farther away than you could POSSIBLY see any airplane on earth (since you can only see, at most, a few hundred km through Earth's atmosphere). The fact that they're relatively stationary against the background stars is not the only handicap in trying to spot them.
It's a few hundred km along the surface, the fact it gets thinner the higher you go means you can see further and further through the atmosphere as a whole, never mind the fact more Curvature is revealed to you.
I am surprised that you did not do the math on the average distance each satellite is apart from each other and how small it would look. A school bus 100 miles away is not visible. This relates to people who say we never laded on the moon because no one with a telescope can see the items left behind. They are just too small to be seen by even the best telescopes.
Back in the 1990s,my late mother and I used to stand up the back yard of our house, stargazing. Every night we did so,without fail,at 00:15,we saw a tiny light, which passroughly East - West,moving straight through Cassiopeia. What would this woman say about that? What would she say we were watching? Night.. after night. after night..? An angel? 🙄🎇
The Asteroid belt scene in Empire Strikes back has forever ruined people appreciation for the distances between things in space. Movies warp peoples view of reality in many ways. Unless you are well traveled, or otherwise go out of your way to learn these things, the entirety of your perception of what foreign countries look like is based off of movies, TV, or the curated pictures of social Media. Saving Private Ryan created a distorted vision of WWII, particularly for Americans, that is only now starting to fade. They show up to Omaha Beach and its literally 5 miles long and the landscape looks nothing like the movie and some people can never get past this. They are certain that the movie version of Omaha Beach in their head is what it looked like in reality. They get mad at their tour guide because it doesn't and he won't take them to the spot where Tom Hanks used the gum mirror. And they leave with the movie vision in their heads, forever unchanged. I bet those people trend very strongly towards flat earth.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription
Great video but just a small note. 5.77 * 10^8 = 577,000,000. Not sure how you got to hundreds of trillions there (10^14).
@@whodafeak Thanks for spotting that
It's meant to be 10^14
Is km is 10^8, I'd converted it to meters but seemingly forgot to change the power
@@DaveMcKeegan Why no comment about how flat earth is the least absurd and ridiculous belief of the christians?
any theist is infinite times worse than a person who gets the shape of the earth wrong!
Yey...another video from that nice doggy with the yapping sidekick human....
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 because that would be a silly comment. I'm no christian, I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't be offended by that observation. But the number of christians that are flat earthers is vanishingly small. No religion today has flat earth as dogma. I would say christians knew the earth was round pretty much from the beginning. Maybe the original authors of the Old Testament were flat earthers (thousands of years before Christ) and that's a big MAYBE.
Moreover not all flat earthers are christians, some I believe are atheists. I don't know if you can find a "core belief", shared by the vast majority of christians (remember, almost no one is a fundamentalist), that is more absurd than flat earth. Big Daddy in the sky? Silly, yet unfalsifiable. "2000 years ago one guy resurrected"? No proof, but no way to directly disprove. Every classic belief held by the "standard christian" is blind faith in something unfalsifiable. Flat earth is blind faith in a collective delusion about objective reality. Tough to beat.
I can't see the bugs on the mountain 50 km from my place. Therefore, insects don't exist.
By flat earth logic, if you can't show us video of those bugs then YOU don't exist
"And I can't hear them, so all my senses are saying that they don't exist!"
And the mountains aren't real. But "THEY" want you to see them
@@Culky by flat earth logic, any video or photo is CGI
In Douglas Adams' universe, we could make that real. Sigh....
Surprise surprise, they still can't comprehend scale.
they think football field are big compared to earth, li think for a fucking second, a football field floating around earth would be barely visible
@@naruarthur If you think about your assumptions carefully, you aren't flerfing properly.
Yeah, I was going to say, isn't that one of the reasons they believe the earth is flat in the first place?
one of their two biggest mistakes they make is not understanding just how big the Earth is and Gravity ! 🙂
_"they still can't comprehend"_
Is enough, actually ;-)
Satellites/space-debris small, space big. Dumbed it down to the FE crowd.
Flerfs have no perception of scale or magnitude whatsoever.
FE's have trouble enough fathoming how large Earth is when they're stood on it, much less an area many times that they can't observe unaided.
Scale is a problem they just can't get past.
Thats actually too technical 😕
You forgot to explain that small things are hard to see.
Or 3 dimensions
Flat Earthers: We can't see satellites in ISS footage
Reality: Here's a video of us seeing satellites in ISS footage
Flat Earthers: Nuh uh.
It is impossible to convince anyone if their response to any and all evidence is that it is fake.
"It´s only water bubbles in the water tank".... Rgr
They always move the goal posts
Flat Earthers: "Stop Cherry Picking the footage that proves me wrong"
😂
@@borano2031 That always makes me laugh. Like this gigantic enormous multi billion conspiracy wouldn't think to edit out the bubbles if they were faking 🤣
"None of this proves anything because I don't know math." - flat earthers
THIS. I've always said the math really dooms a flat earther. They are too stubborn to try and understand that mathematical models are what we use to check observations and predict future events (and then when we observe them, it all lines up). The one flat earther I've ever interacted with admitted that he ignores math completely. I told him I couldn't help him then.
Most of the evidence for anything we know about the world via science (i.e. everything we know about the world) is described mathematically. When flat earthers, the most basic science-deniers out there, hand wave away mathematics then they get rid of about 99.9% of the evidence for what we know. They think this is winning. Unfortunately, the, say, 0.1% that we do know, that isn't mathematically described (or informed by maths), explains the world *far better* than any explanation (of which there aren't many) advanced by flat earth proponents. In the years that they have been denying reality, the sum of facts uncovered by flat earthers is ... zero. The square root of zero. Zero to the infinite exponent.
People new to the flat earth *hypothesis* (it is thousands of facts away from scientific theory status) need to explain this...
Things about the world found out by flat earthers:
2015-2024: 0
Prior to 2015: 0
They want to discredit centuries of increasingly complex mathematics developed by the finest mathematician in history with out using math.
It's CGI, nah-ah, and laugh emojis are good enough for flerfs
Same energy as "This sign can't stop me because I can't read!"
Many of them, when you try to nicely explain to them that they lack the understanding and skills to even grasp why they are incorrect, they will tell you math doesn't matter or that math is just a tool used by THEM to indoctrinate us. Smfh.
Flat Earthers will just call it CGI if they saw debris anyway.
It does amuse me that flat earthers/moon landing deniers will use CGI as an argument as if rendering photo/video with perfect realtime weather conditions (as we see on the ISS livestream that points down at the Earth) is easier that shooting a rocket into space
@@ctsean well, one CGI image or video is easier and cheaper to make if you have the data provided by... a satellite. Though, to really gather all the data necessary in order to accomplish such a level of photographic fidelity, and the work you need o put into it, no to mention the sheer number of RAW images provided mot only by NASA but by so many other space agencies, it would be just too expensive, impractical, no one would make so many images, and, if you really want a flat Earth, the CGI is your best bet, yet I've yet to see any realistic CGI image of the Earth, I wonder why...
@@ilaion11No only that, but Dave also showed that the footage of Earth shows weather patterns that precisely match the weather on Earth, some of it being live footage from the ISS.
@@ctsean Not to mention the Photos of the earth from the 60s-70s, Obviously CGI! When special effects artists of the time, were still filming hand painted balls to get this kind of shot, good for the time but not photo level, Oh and true CGI didn't really get legs until, late 80s-90s, but obviously the 60s photos of earth are CGI fakes, the ones they were showing in the 60s-70s!!
The Doc and Marty have some questions to answer!
because, high end ''For Today'' CGI images being shown to people in the 60s-70s,
I'm calling high jinx, time travel, tomfoolery going on!
little scallywags they are!
Don't worry Flat Earthers, soon as we find the Delorean, we can finally prove you right!
@@taqresu5865 The only thing that would be even better would be someone taking photos from the ground of those exact patterns to show that it's true. You'de have proof from the ISS, weather images and ground images all showing the same cloud patterns...
But Flerfers are never convinced by proof. They will demand a certain kind of proof and when they get it, they'll either dismiss it as irrelevant, claim it's fake or just simply demand another proof. All the while whining that they would _totally_ be persuaded to stop believing their bullshit fairy tale Flerf nonsense, if only that one single proof would exist. Until it does. Then they demand another. But that last proof will totally be the one to persuade them. It's a treadmill of bullshit.
Flerf: "This children's illustration depicts the satellites as being a quarter the size of Earth. We should be able to see them from the surface!"
Pretty sure a children's book is still to intellectual for them.
@@calvinhobbes2680 Probably explains why one flerfer goes into book stores and destroys such books.
@Packhorse-bh8qnjust compared my channel to eveyone in this chat... seems like I'm doing better in life n actually exist 😂 u foolish bots 🤖..
@Packhorse-bh8qn u have a typical glober bot account with nothing to show for yourself or your life🏆😃😃😃😃
@@InscentiveAdviceWild "the main protagonist syndrome dumbass" appeared
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”
~Douglas Adams
I came here for that.
Still looking for the Father Ted ref. I'm sure I'll find it, but for now I'm off to the pharmacy, oops I meant chemist's.
even smaller than peanuts compared to space
I have my towel and my thumb is out. Get me away from these Flat Earthers. I will gladly listen to Volgon Poetry rather than listen to Flat Earth buffoons.
@@blindleader42 “These are small, but the ones out there are far away.”
Long distances mean nothing when you have an improbability drive
“Where’s the other satellites???”
Well one would goddamn hope that they’re in a completely different orbit and kept well away from the ISS…
The point is that the speed of an object in orbit is directly related to its altitude, so any satellite orbiting at the same altitude as the ISS will have a speed close to it. The result is that many satellites orbiting near the ISS's altitude will have a small _relative_ velocity, and so won't be whizzing past the ISS's cameras as some folks imagine they might.
Remember, these are people who either don't understand, or disbelieve, that things in orbit are all going about five miles per second. When "that's all whizzing around at Mach 25" isn't in the back of your head, things getting close to each other doesn't seem very scary. So they don't think about things like the importance of orbit separation, or else that think that it all sounds way too hard and it's therefore just a big lie.
"Trails of dihydrogen monoxide that are spewing out the back of them" 🤣
there have to be regulations preventing them from dumping that corrosive substance into the environment, right?
@@yag-yet_another_gamer dihydrogen monoxide ???? the thing with the 7pH???? I can't believe they just trow it at the atmosphere like this!!11
@@akunekochan I've read that over 4000 people die of dihydrogen monoxide overexposure per year in the United States alone! Someone should really regulate it.
How long until one of the larpers quote Dave's joke thinking it wasn't a joke?
Dihydrogen monoxide chemtrails?
That sounds very toxic.
You probably wouldn't want to breathe in dihydrogen monoxide. It might interfere with oxygen transfer.
I love how you explained in such detail why we usually shouldn't be able to see satelites, answering to the flatty's argument, only to then show us footage that proves we actually can see satelites from the ISS, just not always. First dismantle their claim inside their line of argumentation, to show them that you could beat them there, but then disprove their evidence entirely, making the argument itself pointless to begin with.
"I could beat you at your own game, but here is why that's not even neccessary"
I feel like he buried the lede there... Should have shown that video first...
These satellites are small. That earth is far away. 🐮
Small......Far away. Lol.
CLASSIC 🐄
Here's a challenge for flerfs, climb to the top of Salisbury Cathedral spire, at 404ft the tallest church spire in England, look down at the grass, and tell us how many insects you can see.
what?
@@conspiracy1914 If you can't see the insects from the top of the Cathedral, then insects must not exist. Just like seeing satellites in space.
@@conspiracy1914 Which part of the very simple comment are you struggling with understanding?
@@conspiracy1914 It's a crude recreation of the scale of these pieces of space debris.
@@leftpastsaturn67 every
I cant see Belgium from my window in Boston therefore it doesnt exist.
It's a conspiracy made by the Germans so they can keep invading France.
Alright but in all seriousness Belgium doesn't
@@shragamildiner8472 You must be mistaken, it's France that doesn't exist
@@iamrightoutsideyourwindowhello I do not see any of them, that for sure they do not exist both. Probably that Boston thing is made up by NASA too, because I do not see it.
There are approximately 8500 satellites in low earth orbit. That is a volume of space that is 1,213,214,170,881 cubic kilometers or 291,065,685,954 cubic miles. That is one satellite every 34,243,022 cubic miles. Space is VAST!
Most of the flat earth arguments involve a misunderstanding of the sheer size of the earth. They are just incapable of grasping the concept of how big it is.
I bet they think China is just right around the corner, a rousing little walk away, nothing more.
Otherwise, they should understand that the sheer size of the earth and its relative meaninglessness compared to the size of the universe completely obliterates their entire worldview.
Large planet, small minds. There's no way to bridge the gap.
Don't forget a lot of depictions are also nowhere near scale, so they can fit in an image. Like they believe planes are really as big as they appear, on the tracking map. And they believe any image, that appears to agree with them.
Well, I guess they could scale the solar system down to fit across 2 pages in a text book. You really wouldn't be able to see all the planets or moons though.
@@jrod4344 The Earth/Moon in artistic depictions is usually way off, to show both. Reality, the distance is something like 30 earth-widths.
@cjc363636 so big you can fit every planet in the solar system between them, touching each other, and they still won't reach the moon...
As a kid camping out in the wilderness, at night I could see the milky way galaxy, but myself, my sister and parents could see satellites in the nighttime sky often and with ease .
You need to see it in a nightime sky. Even from ISS.
"Football field sized satellites..."
That's our Mindsclock. Jumping feet first into the dumb.
Ya, like the Imperial Star Destroyers from star wars
how can he jump into the dumb when he's been at the bottom of it the whole time?
@@mrxmry3264 rock bottom always has a basement
@@mrxmry3264you wouldn’t believe how deep it goes.
@@martinurbani yeah, every time i think they've hit rock bottom, they dig deeper.
I've seen heaps of satellites with my naked eye. But I do tend to find myself in areas of low to zero light pollution.
No shit, it's only a matter of time before you see the Starlink chain. That really tripped me out, the first time I saw it, with my naked eyes. Nothing else in the universe looks that linear. I felt as though they had violated me. 😟 And that was accidental. I wasn't looking for it. I just look up a lot. It was practically impossible to miss, because it was bright orange.
@@SloppyGoat One of the few times I have ever had edibles also happened to come as I saw a Starlink train go by in the sky just after sunset in a pretty rural area, and it made me irrationally angry and afraid. Yeah, edibles (and billionaires ruining astronomy) turn out to not be my thing.
@@Bnio
Yeah, I was kind of shocked at my own reaction. Of course, my first thought was a UFO, but it didn't take me 2 seconds to figure out what it was. It still bothers me, even though I haven't seen it again. 😢
As a kid I used to spend hours in the Dublin mountains at sunset looking up at passing satellites. It was always the best local spot to use my telescopes away from light pollution.
I've seen some large space debris illuminated by the sunlight fall apart and one of the parts drifted off in a slightly different direction. I think all flerf logic falls apart the moment you actually look at the sky, but for that you'd have to look, and they don't want to do that because their fragile narrative immediately falls apart.
Its kind of like how theres trillions if fish in the sea yet you probably wont see a single one if you were randomly dropped onto the ocean
To be fair, if I was randomly dropped into the ocean the last thing I would be doing is looking for fish.
@romanroad483 pretty sure that's how anyone stranded in space would feel as well regarding satellites and debris haha
@@romanroad483 tru dat
@@cuross01 tru tru dat
@Haze_Nexus_realAh, shit. Here we go again... WHAT DO YOU MENA FISH DON'T EXIST? WE EAT THEM ALL THE TIME! GO TO THE MARKET! FISH! ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR NON-EXISTENT MIND?
The only thing more unimaginably vast, and depressingly empty, than the universe itself is the inside of a flerfer's head.
nice dig to the chemtrail crowd..."di-hydrogen monoxide" LOL
one of the main substances in devastating acid rain.
@@yag-yet_another_gamer 100% of people who have ingested dihydrogen monoxide have died, isn't that scary??
@@yag-yet_another_gamer And all serial killers consumed it in some form or another when growing up.
That's a chemical. So it's a chemtrail.
@@yag-yet_another_gamer YES..... water 🤣🤣🤣
Another excellent video, Dave. Those shots of satellites flaring as the ISS approaches daylight were new to me, so thanks for that.
A representation has them stumped again. Look! "this toy cow small, but the cows out there are really really far away" 🤯🤯🤯
"ok, for the last time".
People like that are the reason why we have signs like this: live.staticflickr.com/3037/2751783282_c2a8ca3ea0_b.jpg
flat earthers and conspiracy theorists always have the same argument and mindset towards everything: "this doesn't make sense.... and no, I'm not going to go out of my way and research it"
I love how many flat Earth arguments boil down to a lack of understanding of scale
A farmer in Saskatchewan found a chunk of debris in his field just the other day.
Any flerfer: "Saskatchewan is a hoax". Rgr
@@borano2031Saskatchewan is the very definition of flat Earth. 😊
could you imagine just chilling in your room and a frickin space battery comes flying through your ceiling.
@@borano2031 Saskatchewan is also very flat!
@@borano2031-- Mood
I can't comment this enough.. Your videos are so fkn thorough!!!! Man, I've been following so many "debunking" channels and although they get the main point through, most always seem to miss so many obvious details and intuitive explanations. But your videos always hit the mark!! Also you seem to address the most common FE misconceptions and not just debunking random braindead FEs on YT that even a lotta FEs don't agree with. If a Flat earther is still confused by the end of your video, there is truly no hope for them.
This reminds me of a story a Lunar Module pilot told about rendezvousing with the Command Module during a Moon landing mission. He said it was very odd because the LM and the CM were the only things out there in space next to the Moon and he knew the direction where the CM was, yet he could see nothing for most of the time they were approaching each other. Then, he started to see a dot, and eventually that dot grew into the CM, and they docked. (It was a similar experience for the CM pilot). Because on Earth we always have reference points, it's easy to forget what it's like to be in a place where there are no reference points, and the vastness of space is easy to underestimate. You and someone else can both be flying in an area that's relatively close from an orbital standpoint, yet your spacecrafts are both too small to notice each other unless you use radar or get very close.
A similar issue will occur for folks walking on the moon. There are no reference points so the foreground will blend in with the background. Is that a distant mountain or a tiny hill? Wont be able to tell. Future astronauts on the moon will need detailed maps and GPS to navigate safely otherwise they could be driving towards a cliff and not even know it.
@@motokid6008don't forget a whole lot of standard sized, bright orange flags to mark said cliffs lol
@@motokid6008
And due to the missing atmosphere, that distant mountain will appear just as crystal clear as the tiny, nearby hill, making it even harder to judge distances.
Every time they hit rock bottom on the dumb scale, someone hands them a shovel
*pickaxe
Shovels are for dirt, pickaxes are for stone and rock
Do they think that all those satellites are as large as *_TEXAS?_*
Them thinking that the satellites should be visible to those on the ISS, is like thinking that those on the ISS should be able to see a family sedan on Earth, from the ISS, with their naked eyes. Absurd.
Just this quote from DNA came to mind 🤔
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”
Ok, so he has a second given name, Noel. Without knowing this it is hard to figure out what DNA should mean in this context :D
DNA?
That quote is from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
@@A15degreeperhourdrift That is the author's initials: Douglas Noel Adams
@@RelakS__ Then why didn't he just say Douglas Adams?
@@A15degreeperhourdrift I don't know. I would be easier to understand though.
I love how your videos treat their claims seriously only to destroy them. Much better than what some other debunkers do where they are great at convincing those who are already convinced but just insult those who might actually be persuaded.
one of the few channels like that in this sphere.
Yeah, Scimandan kinda needs to take a page out of Dave's book here.
@@RazgrizXMG0079 the worst offender in my book is Professor Dave, who so obviously drips with contempt and disdain for his opponents that I find him tedious to watch, even though I agree with his points. I think he and LEO thoroughly deserve to get a room together somewhere.
@@KarlEchtermeyer Nah, Professor Dave's contempt is understandable, especially when dealing with grifters.
@@RazgrizXMG0079 it is, but it really will turn off those who are persuadable
"Flat earthers think" - Now there's some words you don't see used together often...
Haven't they seen Armageddon? No matter how much debris is up there: "it is a big ass sky."
I always chuckle when I hear that in Armageddon, because it really is a big ass sky
the sky is much bigger than the earth
It can’t be, the earth is infinite.
Drive out into the country about an hour after sunset.
Allow 30 minutes for your eyes to adapt to the darkness.
Look up, you'll see them if you're not blind.
And if you are blind, WHY ARE YOU DRIVING???
😆
They'd say it was cgi in real life
@@blankityblankblank2321 "There is the dome; a perfect surface to project holografic images on." /s
I could be wrong, but I don't think they're arguing that satellites don't exist, but rather that the ISS video depicting Earth's spherical rotation can't be real because it doesn't show them.
@marauderdz
Divide the volume of the sphere of space around the Earth by the number of satellites and the density is quite low. They're literally hundreds or thousands of miles apart.
From the people who doesn't understand how vast the Earth is, here comes:
Not Understanding How Vast Space Is.
I live 10km from an international airport on the approach path, I can count on one finger how many I see at any one time
If the ISS doesn’t exist, I wonder what the ISS shaped object was I photographed a week ago…
Some will say it’s a balloon.
@@AM-rd9pu others say a balloon wouldn’t possibly be able to travel as the ISS does. Not in the distance covered nor in the straight path nor in the accuracy it appears in the sky. So some might be just wrong.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx with what regard? What would you want to prove with that you can’t prove with the uncut livestream or the accuracy it appears overhead? First and foremost it’s not there to prove to anyone it exists, but for scientists to perform lab work.
@@michaelleifels2004 Flerfs like to ignore the fact that you can independently verify the altitude and and speed of the ISS. There’s an excellent Scott Manley video where he explains exactly how to do this.
The usual responses are along the lines of “nuh uh”.
X-15 drone or rocket in high altitude. Not a space station. There is no attestation of any thing built or maintained in space ISS is fake bro .
How do they think there are so many liars regarding space? Pilots must be lying, astronauts are lying, nasa employees, government contractors, foreign pilots, etc.
At what point does someone concede that the earth is a globe?
They've gone their whole lives thinking everyone is looking down at them for how dumb they are, despite the fact 9.9999999% of people they interacted with their whole lives didn't actually think that until they got suckered by the conspiracy, so they looked for ways to let them look down on others and Feel Smart And Special.
I did the math (poorly) and with 29000 debris over 10cm, and all 11000 satellites, each one of approximately 40,000 objects has around 12,000 KM squared of space to itself (excluding things under 10cm). We as humans really lack the ability to conceive of great scales.
There are 2 million cars in New York City alone. Imagine if those were the only cars in the state and we took all them and spread them across the state of New York instead of just the city. Now imagine getting rid of 99.5% of them. How often would you expect to see a car while wandering the state of New York? Not very often. Now spread that out across the US and it gets even worse. Spread that across all land on earth and you may be lucky if you ever see a car in your lifetime. That is still a fraction of the size of the space we are dealing with in orbit.
Nice nod to the chem-trail set. We are suffering from dihydrogenmonoxide fall out here today.
Did you know everyone that consumes dihydrogen monoxide dies? In large enough quantities, it happens quite quickly.
We've been having dihydrogen monoxide fallout almost every day for a week now... The lakes, rivers, and underground aquifers are full of this stuff!
That is the worst. Exposure to that fallout can get you deadly sick if you are not prepared and equipped with safety gear to deal with it. Can't believe that shit is legal.
My grass desperately needs some dihydrogen monoxide right now...
I alway thought, articles with : space is getting full " are dumb.
On our earth there are millions of cars, buildings and Billions of people. But there are spaces of nothing.
True, but there are thousands of collisions every day between cars. Collisions between satellites are still very rare.
"Football field sized" satellites made me cringe. But as a good counter argument to that clear misinformation, surely they can point out the football fields on the surface of the Earth... Now imagine that most satellites are no bigger than a person, with only a few getting as big as a sedan. Can you see any people or sedans on earths surface from the ISS?
All this and it atill doesn't consider the lighting conditions of the sun either because no light is reflected/scattered off nearby objects to give the appearance of something being present, like Saturn's rings... And thats really only applicable at a distance, because we know the rings look vastly different when close, especially when looking towards the dark side.
and you can see a ton of satelits in the night if you got the right circumstances. i have a house in hungary in a rural area, so there is pretty much no light pollution. i love to lay in the grass in the night and watch satelites fly by
The level of detail in your vids is excellent Dave. These poor flerfs have no grasp of scale, distance, or apparent angular size. Those dots representing individual pieces of debris would be tens of miles in diameter in real life. A 10cm piece of junk passing by at high hypersonic speeds at only one field length away would be impossible to see, let alone at many miles.
It's like asking why you can't see a golf ball in Ohio from Orlando Florida.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Provide a working flat earth map.
@@frantaspacek Flat earth is a horrible joke. There is no possibility of creating anything remotely resembling a functional map.
@@melsop54 I am well aware, it's just the simplest way to show how completely nonsensical their beliefs are.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx "provide a working globe map first how bout that?" Open basically any maps you want. Google maps will be easiest for you. Here you go, maps that use the globe for calculation of distances.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx And yet, you are outperformed by a sick...
Imagine sitting in the living room and suddenly, out of nowhere... a battery punches through your roof, and goes straight down to the downstairs neighbour 😂
The earth is very big while a satellite is very small. Try walking from the UK to Australia, when you can walk the length of a satellite in seconds. To put it into perspective.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx No, we've found the north pole.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Your lack of an engineering degree is showing again.
"Because you are living a lie, not me"
"Perspective makes things disappear bottom first"
"Cranes debunk globe earth"
"AEP bs maps are a hoax..."
"I'm a mechanical engineer by degree but no longer working in that field"
"I am a mechanical engineer in black forest"
"these cows are small, the ones outside are far away...."
Sorry, I'll get my coat.
"Spewing out dihydrogen monoxide" 😄
a particularly annoying molecule, mainly known for it's corrosive capabilities when in contact with electronics, and ironically used to transfer heat from electronics, by some PC enthusiasts, among others.
@@yag-yet_another_gamer And don't forget that science still can't answer why does it freeze faster when it's hot compared to when it starts cold. They let this dangerous and still not fully understood chemical out into the atmosphere...
@@yag-yet_another_gamer if only that, we could stand it. But it dissolves mountains too.
10:18 can be used to find satellites but you need good viewing and timing. But you only see the largest ones ie bus size.
Once again they're baffled by scale. If I had a penny every time that happens I could probably make a decent living from in alone.
It* should've checked the spelling and my mobile YT is glitched so I can't edit the comments.
Meanwhile is the NASA secret Photoshop HQ.
"Sir everyone apart from a handful of people still accept the earth is round, but we can't be too careful. One person we are monitoring said why doesn't space debris hit the ISS, shall we commence in creating a highly detailed Photoshop and accompanying backstory that a piece of space debris went through the ISS, so that everyone on earth is still convinced space exists, even though they never even question it? The budget for this operation is around $25,000"
"My god, yes! Get to it pronto, make sure your Photoshop skills are unearthly brilliant!"
This is funny. Because this means in the flat earthers world NASA just said "fuck this guy in particular" to a random guy in Florida and has the military airstrike his house for no reason XD
@8:34 "You're more likely to see those trails of dihydrogen mono oxide that are spewing out the back of them" Brilliant 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I signed up for NASA to text the times that the ISS will be going over my house. It's beautiful. It's like a huge bright flying star.
Football field sized satellites? When has anyone ever launched a football field sized satellite? Wow. Confirmation bias is strong in this one.
They launch it all the time. With a city size rockets:)
obviously the ISS didnt cover the area of a football field when it was launched 🤦♂️ you can literally look up how the parts were send to space and how the ISS was put together as it is today.
Try and think about it buddy, why would nasa claim that they send a huge satelite to orbit if it was impossible to do?
Its your confirmation bias
@phobosex7504 you missed his point. He does not think any football sized stuff was launched... off course not, just imagine the size of the rocket!
He knows that the iss was launched as smaller components and assembled and that satellites are not.
The ISS is just about football field size.
Only things coming to my mind aside from space stations are JWST with the size of a tennis court and from what we know about them some military satellites (like "Orion Mentor" with 100 meter dish)
Had an interesting talk, from an Astro photographer on Monday. Richard Guest. He had some amazing images of deep space nebula’s and even the ISS passing across the Sun. Flat Earthers could photograph satellites with the right equipment. But then they would debunk themselves. As they would have to calculate their trajectories using the globe earth model. 😂
HAHA you really think they're capable of focusing a camera?
@@mechtheistgiven their fear of math, autofocus is probably frowned upon.
Interesting
@@yag-yet_another_gamer What i've seen in a lot of their videos is they use autofocus but it really doesn't work well on celestial objects so they're almost never in focus and the idiots are incapable of realizing this and post absurd videos about out-of-focus images.
@@mechtheist Nope😂
I feel like "flat earth debunkers" would make incredible primary school teachers.... you're so good at explaining things in simple ways.
says a lot about "flat earthers"..
Many flerfs seem like they failed kindergarten.
For a flat-Earther question, the first answer tried should always be: big.
It's like turning it off & back on
I'm curious what flat earthers would think about non-Euclidean geometry. For those that have only heard the term in Sci-Fi type settings, Veritasium has a neat video about what it actually means and its etymology and history. The video is called "How One Line in the Oldest Math Text Hinted at Hidden Universes".
I can't see people from the plane. where are the people gone every time I'm flying?
It's about that time when school finishes in Germany, I imagine YepButNo / Waschbekenpinkler will arrive shortly to tell everyone that he's an 'engineer' with a 'degree'.
You were indeed correct
@@5peciesunkn0wn Unfortunately so.
I once thought to try to explain this by saying imagine randomly dumping a couple thousand rowboats in the Pacific Ocean. Now launch a motor boat and try to find them. The problem with that analogy is they will likely think the task easy….
Funniest one is Flat Earthers who argue online. Internet wouldn’t exist without satellites which orbit around the earth.
Their default excuse is 'undersea cables'.
Have flerfers explain how Starlink works without satellites...
@@mdrsmeltracy 'Balloons' (or 'Satalloons') probably.
@@leftpastsaturn67 which also go around the world, a fact they would know if they would look at maps other than the ones that support their theory. Cherry pickers unite!
@@mdrsmeltracy flerfers! Haha. Almost sounds like fluffers from a certain film industry
This is the first flat Earth debunking video I've watched in more then two years. I just had to stop. Glad to see their arguments have only gotten worse. See you in another two years.
at that point the arguments would've devolved into...uh...well i was gonna leave an exaggeration as a joke but every one i could think of is being used as a legitimate flat earth argument. they're stupider than i can pretend to be
The stupidity is scary. Imaghine these people have kids and can vote...
Even here, in the middle of a large built-up area, I've seen lines of Starlink satellites, the ISS and other stuff in orbit.
Did you mention communications satellites are thousands of miles above the ISS, downward facing cameras could never see them.
Except the cameras are also angled towards the front... and there's a tiny window of opportunity whe they'd see stuff, regardless of altitude, as it appears from beyond the horizon (similar to what was shown at 11:43). 🤓
02:04 - Gravity, for me one of the best space movies ever. It's so well done you feel like you're there. Also, Sandra Bullock.
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Was looking for this
Thanks Dave for a well thought out and informative video. Keep up the great work 👍
Quick summary of every imminent rebuttal.... 'nuh-uh!'
There are about 100,000 airline flights every day. Why am I not seeing other planes buzzing by our wingtips every time I take a multi-hour flight? Airline lies, debunked!
*air lies
You think you're looking out windows. But they're actually super high definition TV screens.
The earth is pretty big and even if planes took off and landed at regular intervals and only flew over 1% of the area of the earth (globe) they would still be about 35 km apart. Or something like that.
Jeran says avgas is fake.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Every summer I go to Airventure in Oshkosh Wisconsin. I see tons of aircraft that use avgas. Everything from antique aircraft to various warbirds. There are several trucks that dispense avgas that roam the field. That stuff is $$$$. But since Jeran says it doesn’t exist I guess it’s free?
That is the single most interesting video you have produced!! I am one of those who have never understood how satellites aren’t constantly hitting each other. That was brilliantly explained. However, I do firmly believe Kessler’s cascade WILL happen and I’m of the mind that it has started. We are just at the start of an exponential growth. Superb explanation that clarified so much for me. Thanks
Ahhh the common flat earth problem with just how frikking big the planet and space actually is
Scale and relative scale are the flatearthers’ nemesis. A lot of their arguments revolve around their failure to appreciate just how big things are.
One thing relative to another in general is their nemesis. just look at the 'hurr durr we should be getting 1000 mile per hour winds if the erf wuz spinning!' bs lol.
I think they must be short, because you don't have to be very high up to see the curve.
Our HAM radio club in Tennessee put a HAMSAT into orbit and I got to communicate through it.
40 seconds into this video and I already noticed that the Flerf speaking has no concept of scale when it comes to the earth.
The vapour phase of Dihydrogen Monoxide is relatively harmless, but you need to watch out for the solid form of Oxygen Hydride that occasionally falls out of the sky in big lumps.
in golf ball size lumps
...or in tiny flakes than can accumulate as much as several meters thick on the ground!
@@danielklopp7007 warning! Largest can be way larger than tennis balls (or even handball balls)
I didn't know that we had CGI around 1969 when Apollo 10 took photos of the Earth. How did football size objects get launched into orbit? In conclusion, small minds can't comprehend the magnitude of the Earth or space.
"The football field sized ones." I'm glad you commented on that later in the video. Does lil homie think there's thousands of space stations up there? I mean, someday we might have a swarm of orbiting solar arrays and yeah, those probably would be pretty visible depending on their altitude.
It's genuinely shocking that InfoWars is still allowed to operate.
I sat out for several hours both this last Friday and Saturday. Friday, the aurora pretty much obscured everything(what a wonderful show!) including stars, but Saturday, there wasn't any aurora and we sat and watched the stars. We saw many satellites go over. You do have to watch carefully to see the difference between ISS and high flying planes(look for the red and green lights)
The ISS is always the brightest and fasted moving object, no aircraft can move at a comparable speed. Makes it easy to distinguish it from aircraft.
@@leftpastsaturn67 I think I might have seen it last Saturday night. It was going se to nw and moving too fast for a plane, and too big for a typical satellite. I didn't go google to see if it was overhead at that point so it is just a possibility.
@@lyndafjellman3315 It's worth getting one of the many apps which will show you where it is, the one I have was free to download.
@@leftpastsaturn67 Exactly how I immediately knew it when I saw the ISS for the first time (from a balcony in a big city at sunset). It looked so unreal. I've also spotted satellites, but they're often not that easy to distinguish from very far away planes.
Its the asteroid belt problem. Thanks to movies like The Empire Strikes Back people think asteroids are closely packed together and moving in unpredictable trajectories. The truth is individual asteroids are usually several miles apart and moving in a steady orbit around the sun. Even with over 33k satalites and 200k pieces of space debris the individual objects are strung out few and far between in earths orbit. The orbits also vary greatly. The ISS orbits way underneath most of those satalites, so any shot from the ISS looking towards the earth is not going to be looking where most of the orbital objects are.
Relatively speaking, asteroids ARE close together. And considering that they are on average 3% the mass of the moon (8.1*10^19 tons), they are pretty damn big. In other words, the average asteroid is 2.43 * 10^18 or 243,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. That's 243 quintillion tons. If you honestly think you aren't going to see something that fucking massive even at several miles away in deep space with the sun's light hitting the side of it, you don't really understand how light works.
@@protoborg
The largest asteroid was Ceres (now designated a dwarf planet) is 600 miles in diameter. Then Vesta, 326 miles in diameter. On average these asteroids are an average of 600,000 miles apart in the main belt. The average size of an asteroid is about one kilometer. ( thought to be around 100.000). The remaining majority are smaller.
By no means are they close together like they are shown in science fiction movies.
We appreciate the amount of research you do. Something flat earthers simply don't do.
A boring "bog standard" scientific approach would be to (1) do some calculations to estimate how many you would expect to see in a given time period, (2) observe for that time period, and (3) do a statistical confidence test to see if the number observed is consistent with the number expected. In the course of doing (1) you'd realise that the observation rate is going to be rather low. Flerfs are somewhat hampered by not being able to do any maths or physics at all, so they just go by "common sense" and gut feeling. This might work well for everyday phenomena we are familiar with, but for phenomena we are not familiar with it amounts to a simple uneducated random guess. Guesses don't form a good basis for convincing arguments.
Imagine trying to deal with the insurance claim of having ISS space debris go through your house. Must have been a nightmare of bureaucracy for all involved.
Wonder how/why NASA would punch a hole thru someone's house just to keep up the 'conspiracy'? If they're in it for the money, why pay damage claims on someone's house. Just say it fell in the ocean, right?
I bet that's still being 'worked out' who the PAY OUT party is.
With gov it's if you don't spend a billion dollars this year you don't get a billion dollars the next year. So NASA probably cut a check.
The surface area of the earth is 197 million square miles. With 11 thousand satellites, that would be one satellite per 18 thousand square miles if they were on the surface of the earth. Obviously, there is more room in space. In addition, at any height the orbital speed is the same, so the distance between satellites at the same altitude will remain the same. They won't get any closer to each other.
Di-hydrogen mono-oxide was a good one since a lot of conspiracy theorists think its poison gas being emitted from the planes.
Di-hydrogen monoxide gas is pretty bad stuff, it can cause explosions and tends to melt biological material.
I love the "di-hydrogen, mono-oxide" comment regarding contrails.
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is very dangerous. People die from inhaling it all the time. Same for prolonged contact with DHMO, as it can cause severe tissue damage to the point of amputation. Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. It's an industrial solvent and a nuclear coolant, yet can be found as an ingredient in foods we feed our children. Dihydrogen Monoxide is a major component of acid rain.
:)
Of course, the geostationary satellites are some 36,000 km away, so it's the same problem of seeing a car-sized object against a black sky from farther away than you could POSSIBLY see any airplane on earth (since you can only see, at most, a few hundred km through Earth's atmosphere). The fact that they're relatively stationary against the background stars is not the only handicap in trying to spot them.
It's a few hundred km along the surface, the fact it gets thinner the higher you go means you can see further and further through the atmosphere as a whole, never mind the fact more Curvature is revealed to you.
Oh man, don’t get them started on DHMO and its inherent dangers to everyone!!!
Inhalation is deadly, should be banned!
In large enough volumes that stuff can be lethal
TBF, in large enough volumes *_anything_* will be lethal. 😈
I am surprised that you did not do the math on the average distance each satellite is apart from each other and how small it would look. A school bus 100 miles away is not visible.
This relates to people who say we never laded on the moon because no one with a telescope can see the items left behind. They are just too small to be seen by even the best telescopes.
Flat earther´s paradigm:
1 - What we can´t see doesn´t exist
2 - What we can see is fake
Back in the 1990s,my late mother and I used to stand up the back yard of our house, stargazing.
Every night we did so,without fail,at 00:15,we saw a tiny light, which passroughly East - West,moving straight through Cassiopeia.
What would this woman say about that?
What would she say we were watching?
Night..
after night.
after night..?
An angel?
🙄🎇
The Asteroid belt scene in Empire Strikes back has forever ruined people appreciation for the distances between things in space. Movies warp peoples view of reality in many ways. Unless you are well traveled, or otherwise go out of your way to learn these things, the entirety of your perception of what foreign countries look like is based off of movies, TV, or the curated pictures of social Media. Saving Private Ryan created a distorted vision of WWII, particularly for Americans, that is only now starting to fade. They show up to Omaha Beach and its literally 5 miles long and the landscape looks nothing like the movie and some people can never get past this. They are certain that the movie version of Omaha Beach in their head is what it looked like in reality. They get mad at their tour guide because it doesn't and he won't take them to the spot where Tom Hanks used the gum mirror. And they leave with the movie vision in their heads, forever unchanged. I bet those people trend very strongly towards flat earth.
Lost it at dihydrogen monoxide! Poking fun at “chemtrails”
Well done, as always.