@@Angel-nl1hp Thought-provoking as i try to be, may i ask my fellow atheists who dived-into the Atheist-Community-and-such if they ever considered Socialism? I was surprised myself how biased i was and how much Stigma was pushed into my mind when i watched 'Socialism for Beginners' by 'Second Thought'. I always agreed that Capitalism is just outdated to the point of Harmfullness, as 'Some More News' explains very well in his video 'Capitalism vs Corona' but i simply did not know how much Bias i did had.
Thought-provoking as i try to be, may i ask my fellow atheists who dived-into the Atheist-Community-and-such if they ever considered Socialism? I was surprised myself how biased i was and how much Stigma was pushed into my mind when i watched 'Socialism for Beginners' by 'Second Thought'. I always agreed that Capitalism is just outdated to the point of Harmfullness, as 'Some More News' explains very well in his video 'Capitalism vs Corona' but i simply did not know how much Bias i did had.
@@kamielzeegers8106 no you don't, you would sink as a brick, even Phelps would sink in a fizzy ocean or whatever body of water. the fizzyness lowers the density of water. Ships are known to have sunk, when layers of carbonhydrate stored in the bottom of the sea suddenly desolves in the water, creating a boiling sea. Come to think; when someone build a hottub as large as an average pool people would drown as soon as the bubbles are turned on.
@@kamion53 apparently this effect isnt as bad as you might think, you can swim in those bubble chambers that they use in sewage treatment centres, and they are crazy strong. Kyle hill did a video on it, worth a watch. I was suprised
5:29 It's also funny how flat earthers also only do experiments once and perform them very briefly. They always do the zoom in on ships and the sun to observe that they're not quite at or over the horizon, but don't continue the observation which shows them going over the horizon over time.
With all those „experiments“ of that kind, it’s practically impossible that they all got the timing right to get their desirable results just by accident. They have to plan for the timing, which means that they know what will happen if they don‘t. And that’s the reason why I am pretty much convinced that at least most of the flerf youtubers are in for the cash per click while knowing very well that their videos are trash.
@@christianosminroden7878 _"... impossible that they all got the timing right to get their desirable results just by accident."_ Could be and it is also likely. But it could also be that they discard all observations with show the opposite. Because they "know" in their deepest corners of their hearts that the earth is flat and all contradictory findings must be somehow wrong. They do their experiments as long as they get the desired results. This applies IMHO to the "hobby" FE "supervisors". A good example who support this assumption are some christian scientists. Even geologists with PhD who are sure that earth is just a couple thousands years old because their scripture says so. And radiometric dating is a bunch of flaws. I am convinced they really believe what they say, even if they should know better. But that does not mean that some full-time opinion leaders know that they are wrong and just do it for profit by taking advantage of some gullible.
@@christianosminroden7878 There's a line in a book I read as a child that's really stuck with me--to the effect that good liars can convince others, but great liars can also convince themselves. I think for at least some of them, they genuinely don't notice the mental swerves and editing they're doing to avoid experiencing even a moment of doubt.
I live within walking distance of the Dutch west coast and am no stranger to the water horizon of the North Sea. Yet in all my life, I have never seen the UK coast at said horizon, not even with a telescope. When I asked flerfs about it, all I got was "haze" or some mambo-jumbo about perspective that made no sense.
@@vapenshred But he is actually right. If you travel accross the ocean regularly you will always see the top of the skyline of cities appear first. Or if you have a lighttower build on a cliff you will see the lighttower before the cliff. So obviously if someone spends a lot of time on the ocean he knows that the earth is round... he also uses navigational tools that wouldn't even work on a flat earth. On a flat earth you could navigate using polaris everywhere on the planet, now try that on the actual earth.
Also… speaking as someone who actually photographed a *whole* sunset, I can guarrantee eventually you’ll get a half-gone sun. No matter how much you zoom…
This is what baffles me the most - there is lots of footage out there showing everything nicely cut in half (not only the sun, ships too), and if you live at the coast, you can see it even with your own eyes (protecting your eyes with welding glass if you try to look at the sun), but they always pretend that it ain't so (and show abysmal footage that only proves that they have no clue about properly taking photos and videos).
The argument that "It's just common sense", can also be described as "An argument from incredulity". It is at least good that they are admitting to their logical fallacies.
I'm an American and lived in Wellington for a few years, and I was surprised how hard it was to shake the feeling that I was upside down, and could easily fall off the planet. You know, because if you live in the northern hemisphere, it's the southern hemisphere that's upside down. Weird how the moon looked different, too.
I love how flat Earthers always think “up” is north. Since Earth is tilted about 60 degrees to the Galactic Equator, relative to the Milky Way East would be more “up” than North.
Flat Earthers have habit of see think too literally, that is why they can just go and say "if the Earth is a spheres, the people on the underside of the Earth would fall out into space"
@@shikniwho7215 Yes. One of the worst "proofs" of a flat Earth was a guy using a model airplane and a model globe to "show" that the aeroplane was upright when it left the Northern hemisphere and upside down when it arrived in the Southern hemisphere. How he could overlook that the wheels pointed down towards the Earth the whole "flight" is still beyond me. All he could do to test (and dismiss) his own theory was to to go on a trans-equatorian flight, bring a plum bob and let it hang from his hand from time to time, demonstrating that it would always point towards the floor no matter the plane's geographical position during that flight.
@@sneakyfox4651 even more stupid is how they believe the freemasons and world government have been brainwash and hide the truth for decades, from made sky project to hide the true sun, build a fake moon's set to film the moon landing, project the ISSS in the sky.... yet "they" can't seem to able to control information floating on the internet. Like how flat earthers keep using the footage of Neil Armstrong and other as proof the moon landing is fake because "they clearly feel guilty to lied to so many people"
@@sneakyfox4651 I have seen a fly land upside down on the ceiling. I am surprised the flerfs haven't used this as an argument yet. Perhaps I shouldn't give them ideas.
It's amazing how Flerfs, who don't even understand map projections, can assert that they know more about the shape of the Earth than Wolfie6020--an international pilot. This is akin to the lager lurgy conspiracy theorist, who, despite the fact that he knew nothing about medical issues, told me that it was impossible to get a virus infection.
@@maxwellshammer5283 Oakley's egocentrism is astonishing. Nathan Oakley makes entirely unsupported claims, and insists that they are the real facts. Wolfie can't even persuade idiots like Oakley that they are wrong, by showing them the genuine observable facts.
8:21 I love how he says the curve is a purely religious belief, when one of the biggest arguments flat earthers say is that the bible says the earth is flat.
Funny thing is, I have actually had Christian folk claim that ancient Christians didn't believe the earth was flat, apparently to avoid looking like a bunch of idiots.
I thought it sounded like him, I just know him as the guy who said that a man not being attracted to a 15 yo girl was mentally ill. He makes me ill, not just mentally
JMTruth once claimed that an SR-71 flying at Mach 3 would have to push with 4g to follow the curve of the earth. I got suspicios and calculated the radius that is required for such g-forces. I found that the SR-71, flying in 20 miles height, would have to fly around a 20 mile radius globe to achieve such g-forces. Such is the amount of strawmanning the globe, off by a factor of 300... And I even forgot that I forgot that the first negative g is compensated by gravity, so it would be a 5g-turn, so the strawman globe is even smaller.
Let me add a for to debunk number 5. Go to the beach around sun set and then lay down on the "floor" and wait until the sun is gone, then stand up and see the sun again. Even better exaggerate it. right after standing up climb a ladder and see that you still have like 4 more minutes of sun set, when it was already gone once. The only mathematically geometrical figure that can make something like this happen is a sphere. This absolutely does not work on a flat plane, you could bring the sun back into picture with and IR camera if flat, but this does not happen and can not be done, because of curvature.
works best at a beach, over looking the sunset onthe water, and a tall building you can ride an elevator up on... but yea. somehow - it becomes visable again, the same size, and spot, just by changing altitude. Odd, on a flat earth, if it were just "going further away and getting smaller" this altitude change, wouldn't matter, but in reality.. it does.
@@M4RC90 I mean - would that really be a loss of a flatard did it? :D But yes - i was thinking about using them AFTER the sun has set, just to see that you can not bring it back into view with magnification.
@Errickfoxy On a flat earth you should actually see less far if you are higher up. Since the only thing that makes you not see everything are athmospheric disturbances, so if you move up to see something at sea level you are farther away from it. So ships as an example would not have a mast for spotting, because moving up on a ship would actually make it less likely to see things (although the difference would be minimal).
No flat Earth argument has ever made me question the shape of the Earth, even briefly. Plenty have made me question the Enlightenment Project, the quest to educate the populace and make them smarter. Fortunately, I remember flat Earthers are a tiny minority and the world can run without them.
To those who find flat earthers foolish, those people are a never ceasing carousel of amusement to Flat-Earthers such as myself, who delight in observing the consternation of those with enough knowledge to know the earth is round, but not enough sophistication to understand which side of the fishbowl they are on.
I always thought stuff weights less at the equator because the Earth is not a sphere but an ellipsoid. But thinking about it, the ellipsoid shape happens due to the rotation, which already boils down to centrifugal force. Welp, may be obvious to others, but I learned something new today. Thank you!
Well Both - the earth is very slightly ellipsoidal due to the rotation, which means that the surface-level is slightly further away and thus slightly less gravity.
Correct. It's both. When you measure the exact force of acceleration due to gravity at any given location, you apply corrections for latitude, or rotation, and for elevation or distance from the Earth's centre. Once again, this is one that flerfs don't like hearing about, since there's no such thing as gravity 😉
@@ABaumstumpf But your weight is lower at the equator regardless. The sum of forces on you is mostly the sum of centrifugal and gravitational forces if you use newtonian mechanics. Due to the formula for the centrifugal force it is obviously 0 at the poles and not 0 at the equator. There is likely also an impact on the force of gravity due to earths imperfect shape (or you being not at sea level), but this likely isn't that impactful. Even the highest centrifugal forces reduce acceleration only by 0,03m/s2 or about 0,3%.
For any one wanting to find the globe: First off do some maths to see just how little difference 8" x Miles^2 makes when you take into account perspective. It looks flat because it is so close to actually being flat thanks to the Earth being almost 42,000,000 times as wide as a 1 foot ball. So to see the effects of the curve we need miles and miles of distance and something nice and large we can see at that distance. An off-shore wind farm would do quite nicely, and I get good results at about 11 miles from the wind farm. . If you can travel, then a visit to the Equator on the Equinox would be eye opening and nice and warm. Seeing the Sun go staright up from due East to overhead and then straight down to due West should pose the question where will the Sun go over the next 12 hours, and how is it overhead for people elsewhere on the flat Earth. Surely it should have headed around to the North to get to the other side of the flat Earth. . If you can travel and don't mind the cold, a trip to New Zealand and a December Antarctic Cruise would be a nice way to see some penguins and the 24 hour Sun, singular that is, not just a bright sky, or a strange smear bouncing off a supposed dome. . That should do for starters.
First, using the 8 inches x mile^2 results in some funky math after a few miles... (10 mile distance causes a 800 inch drop... 100 mile distance causes a 8,000 inch drop.... 1,000 mile distance causes 8,000,000 inch drop)
@@aralornwolf3140 On land you'll need a good vantage point to see more than a handful of miles. If you use the sea then it seems to end after a handful of miles. So in normal life a 6 foot drop at 3 miles is only 0.04 degrees. If you pick your spots you can use that funky math to see the effect of the curve as I said.
@@aralornwolf3140 In my experience they don't bring up the slight inaccuracy. They use the approximation inappropriately and then declare it can't be a globe cause it doesn't match the stupid answer they calculated. Such as standing on a beach 10 feet above the water level and declaring the small island 20 miles away should be hidden by the curve according to 8"xMiles^2.
"8 inches per mile squared" is not the calculation for determining the Earth's curvature. Flat Earthers just say it is so when you use it and get an answer that makes no sense, they then claim that it proves there is no curvature. The formula "8 inches per mile" is correct. However, it is only correct for the first mile. If you figure for two miles, you have to take into account that the downward drop from observer's location is greater in the second mile than in the first because the second mile is further along the curve than the first mile was. In other words, as you continue around the circle, the arc of the circle described by that particular mile is pointing more downward (is more vertical), and therefore dropping a greater amount. If you are understandably having trouble visualizing this, then consider that at the top of the circle at the first mile, the 1-mile arc is nearly horizontal and drops very little, only about 8 inches over the 1-mile length of the arc. But an arc near that is near to 90 degrees (the equator) has a 1-mile length of arc is nearly vertical and so drops nearly a mile with respect to the observer's location. As you proceed around the circle from the first mile on, the drop increases for each new mile. So clearly the formula can't be 8 inches per mile. But the drop is also not exponential, so neither is it 8 inches per mile squared. Therefore, you have to use a more complex formula to account for that ever-increasing drop - the formula scientists actually use. The formula is as follows: y = sqrt(r^2 - x^2) - r Where y = the amount of curvature (or drop) r = radius of the Earth x = the distance for which you want to determine curvature (this is the only number that changes for each calculation) ^2 = squared (since I can't use exponential notation here) sqrt = square root And since the curvature is measured in inches, all the measurements must be in inches, so: r = 4000 miles, or 21,120,000 feet, or 253,440,000 inches 1 mile = 5280 feet, or 63360 inches So, for the drop for the first mile, the calculation is:
y = sqrt(253,440,000^2 - 63360^2) - 253,440,000 = -7.92 inches (negative indicates it's a drop, not a rise) For the curvature after two miles, the calculation is:
y = sqrt(253,440,000^2 - 126720^2) - 253,440,000 = -31.68 inches Continue this along and you get: Miles Inches of curvature (or drop from the observer's position) 3 -71.28 4 -126.71 5 -198.00 6 -285.12 7 -388.08 ...and so on.
Better yet, "common sense" tells me that the sun has to go somewhere at night, when I can no longer see it (even ancient Greeks were smart enough to think about it). So, what is below the horizon, how does it get to the other side? Their pizza-model with a local sun always above it doesn't make any sense at all. (I get it that very ancient tribes had only a very limited experience of how big earth is, as they couldn't travel that far, but nowadays?)
@@c.augustin Are you even being serious? We can't see the sun at night time because we are facing away from it. Common sense tells me that you are scientifically illiterate...
funny thing is that my Panasonic FZ82 can autofocus on planets at full zoom but much more expensive P900 and P1000 have difficult time in auto with that when i tested them
*whispers, "They way they go on with sextants and other stuff that *requires* the Earth to be spherical, I think they are already aware of that best argument."
How FEs wiggle around regarding celestial navigation (and the sextant in general) is funny. Navigation (no matter which means are used) and geolocation (using all angles N/S and W/E) as a whole completely destroys their narrative, but they still think that they can confuse their dumb followers enough so that those can't see it. Hilarious.
"I would like to see an argument that makes me think for a second" that is asking way to much from flat earthers. I mean, between all of them that there are, even all combined, they have never come close to thinking for a full second.
It should make him think for a second. Otherwise he just disregards their arguments based on their position. "I don't listen to your argument because I disagree with your conclusion."
@@1996Pinocchio No. It doesn't require thinking for even a second, because it is clearly and objectively wrong. It is easy to know and understand why. It doesn't require you to think about it. Because we already know for a fact they are wrong. Only an argument that is decent deserves being thought about. And it is impossible to have a decent argument for flat earth.
@@stefanfrankel8157 Oh my god, a single O was missing from a single word, such travesty. That is more of a typo or grammatical error. When typing fast you don't always hit the second O, and don't always go back and get it. Does change the point.
@@zogar8526 Well, I would say that if you've heard the argument several times, then you can disregard it within a second. But a new argument should make you think. As I said, I think it's wrong to disregard the argument, just because you don't agree with the conclusion. How would you ever change your mind about anything, if you disregard anything that gives the wrong conclusion. After all, that's exactly what most flat earthers would do if they saw this video.
When I was 5 or 6 my father flew from the east coast of the US to London for business. When he got back he took my globe and a ball of yarn and we did a fun experiment where he asked how I thought the plane would have flown from point A to point B. He took the yarn and showed how actually the shortest route took him over Greenland (Iceland? This was 30+ years ago) and he was so excited he got to fly over glaciers. If this can be demonstrated to a 6-yo I don’t get how flat earthers are so incapable of seeing it.
Simple. They've had years of practice denying reality and only seeing what they want to see. Children are innocent of self deceptions like those and soak up new amazing facts like a sponge. They prefer the amazing wonder called _REALITY._
I have taken one of those non existent flights from Melbourne, Australia to Santiago in Chile. The only land I crossed was Australia, New Zealand and Chile. It did take us hours longer to get back, so maybe the Earth is fl...... no wait we came back via Sydney and missed our connecting flight from Sydney to Melbourne.
@@robertcarroll5036 I think you've just given one reason why Flat Earth believers get it wrong even with all the facts available to them. They just can't make the connection! 🤔😄
+fishogynist, writes _"If this can be demonstrated to a 6-yo I don’t get how flat earthers are so incapable of seeing it."_ Your typical six-year old has a much higher level of cognitive ability than a flerf.
let me add a little bit more on number 1. Common sense it not science, common sense is not proof. Common sense, contrary to itself it's not common. Common sense it's relative to the region, country culture, continent, etc. Common sense is not an argument by itself.
One of the argument I hate the most from flat-earther is their "common sense" / "your sense tells you its flat" one. The world we live in goes beyond our senses, that is why we use measuring device to get a better idea of our universe. But when you do so, the earth is obviously flat. The only way to make the earth flat is to restrict our view of our world to even less than what our weak senses can feel
Yes, it's like they think their senses are infinitely accurate and cannot be fooled. I once asked one how he would even notice a 0.04 degree drop of the horizon at sea level without any reference point, but no sensible answer ever came, just multiple repeats of "8 inches per mile squared".
@@Angel-nl1hp ah, when flerfs are backed up to a corner, they'll recite their flerfs mantras and chants to feel safe. Still won't answer the question tho
Every time I hear flat-earthers talk, all I can think of is the Father Ted scene where Ted's teaching Dougal the difference between things being small vs far away.
"Flat Earthers really need to start thinking in 3D instead of 2D" they also need to start using actual *globes* instead of barely "spherical" balloons as their models of a "globe Earth." Dude, the thing was practically a cylinder!
It's always amusing hearing "nobody has seen the earth curve" when the average person taking an international long haul flight on a newer aircraft (they fly a bit higher which makes it slightly easier) can fairly easily see it from a window seat at just under 40,000ft. My last transatlantics were at around 37,000ft and it was very noticeable with the naked eye even though it's only a slight curve
They generally don't understand the mere concept of projection, even if you shine it in their face, let alone particular ones. Apropos: ruclips.net/video/i7X8ZnmLfM0/видео.html
I remember the first time I looked upon Venus from my own back yard with a shitty telescope. It was a brown out of focus round thing. As a 13 year old I didn't think that I had been lied to about the reality of planets, I just figured I had a shitty telescope that lacked focal ability. I was still 'over the moon' that I was looking at Venus with my own eyes! It was awesome! Later when I went to an observatory, I was blown away.
@@herzkine A "lit balloon" with a terminator that follows the sun's position and weather systems? That is found exactly where Keplers orbital laws state it will be when you set up a scope? COOL!
@@herzkine nah, NASA hacked that shitty telescope to put the image of Venus into the lens. What do you mean it was completely electricity free and had no computers attached? NASA used Satan magic, obviously.
I'm impressed with your dedication against the flat earth community, I get bored after a few weeks trolling them. But it's so much fun I keep going back to troll some more 😂🤣
When I learned pratt was one of the insurrectionist supporters/sympathizers and realized the overlap in the two groups, I couldn't stop calling them all out as I see 'em.
I've come to realize that, as much as it is impolite and such to laugh about and at Flat Earthers, the alternative would be to get angry, ranting and raging. Nope, that's the Nathan Oakley method, and I've seen how he turned out.
@@bobblum5973 , is really impolite to laugh at flerfers? If that's true, then I must be extremely rude! I just thought that what flerfers and their religion were created for. My mistake. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Go troll Eric Dubay on his channel here on youtube. I'm sure it will be as easy as it is to troll the ιdiot who eats rotten meat and stares at the sun, your boy Planarwalk knows how to pick the least intelligent and least sound minded individuals because he knows he can't do the same with people like Eric.
And there is the main problem with flat-earthers : Always coming with claims to deny or disprove the globe (and fail everytime), but NEVER come up with any proof of flat-earth. Flat-Earther : “Einstein, Newton, and every other scientist that has walked the Earth, and has done thousands of hours of research for hundreds of years are all wrong, and I am right…” This is always so entertaining watching flerfs making fools of themselves. It is like watching someone trying to PULL on a door for 3 hours when it clearly says “PUSH” right there on the door…
I love how flat earthers use the argument "horizon is at Eye level." They don't even understand the definition of the word Horizon properly, in that it is the imaginary line where the surface of the Earth meets the sky. By definition, because the surface of the Earth is below eye level (assuming the person is standing), then so too is the Horizon. For the Horizon to be at eye level, that would mean the Earth has to Curve... It would have to curve upwards, but it still has to curve... And when they say "Horizon maintains eye level as you go higher in altitude" or how ever it is they word it, that would mean, the higher you go, the greater the Earth Curves upwards to meet your eye level... If I recall correctly, while standing, the angle at which the horizon is below you, is half a degree, and that is not easily perceived by our eyes and brains, thus the brain interprets the information as "eye level."
a couple points you can build a simple cheap device that visually demonstrates that the horizon is always below the horizontal, and the effect increases when you climb a hill. eg. a simple hollow u-tube filled with water will do. second, many flat earth trolls say "horizon" means "horizontal", because the words have similar sections. it's numerolgy, with letters. and seriously, they seem to think that this is a "gotchs" argument and, of course, "the horizon is always at eye level" is a blatant lie, which anyone can immediately verify to be false. blatant lies are the bread an butter of the flat earth scammers
And add the fact that, unless using specific tools, there is no reference frame to tell where is "eye level" so it is very hard to tell if it's below or not...
@@SylouCool You don't need fancy tools to get a rough estimate of where eye level is. Understanding that eyes are on average 5-6 inches from the very top of the head, someone who is 6 feet tall (72 inches) will have a rough eye-level of 66-67 inches above the Earth's surface, if said person is standing. Granted the person would have to be standing barefoot for it to be completely accuract, as feetwear does add height. With the knowledge that the horizon is the imaginary line where the surface of the Earth meets the sky, and that the Earth's Surface is 66 inches below eye-level (using height of a 72 inch human from above paragraph), we can easily conclude that the Horizon is at minimum 66 inches below eye level. The Horizon for said person is roughly 3.1 miles away (assuming no obstructions and is standing at sea level). That's 16,368 feet from observer to horizon. The angle: 0.0228° which is 100% imperceptible by our eyes. No fancy tools needed, basic math knowledge, and knowing how to google that which I couldn't remember.
@@deathsheir2035 i'm not talking about the math, this is easy and yes brain is the only "tool" needed here. But can you tell where eye level is when looking at the horizon without any tool and without knowing at which altitude you stand?
I have no idea how people can debate against flatearthers, I couldnt do it as I would freak out or go insane with all their stupidity and they lack the ability to grasp even simple physics. Great video 👍🌍
MCToon debates them, and it really shows why Sci Man Dan doesn't. It takes a right kind of attitude to approach them as mental punching bags rather than intellectual opponents. Debunking them a thousand times over does nothing, so MCToon's debates are more about driving them into the undeniable pitfalls in their own theories and not letting them escape by changing the topic.
Glad you mentioned great circles. As a GIS programmer I can tell you that great circles are key to getting accurate coordinates on the globe. They are used to calculated shortest distance for ship travel, air travel, and terrestrial travel (car/bus/bicycle/etc). If the earth was flat you would use something called Manhattan distance to calculate the shortest distance between two points. If you were to use Manhattan distance for coordinate calculation and shortest distance calculation you would be wildly inaccurate beyond a very short range. I mention that on every single flat earther video, and I have yet had a single flat earther address it.
The Mercator projection argument is a good piece of evidence that most flerfers cannot be swayed by actual evidence. It's literally impossible to make a map that maintains both local angles and distances. That would be trivial if the Earth were flat. Instead they come up with maps that distort both distances and angles, then claim with zero evidence that we must be measuring angles and distances incorrectly.
I was dubious until he got to reason #1. That makes so much sense, I can't believe I never thought of it before. Count me firmly in the Flat Earth camp from now on, boys.
Every Flat Earth model I've seen shows the earth as a disc. So if one flew a camera into space, you would either see the curved edge of this disc, or the limited range on your camera would show an edge of vision that is a circular shape. So videos from space showing a "flat line" horizon wouldn't work on a flat earth either, if I'm not missing anything.
I really like your video. I have been spending literally years smashing flat earth trolls, and I gleefully use what many would consider to be horribly offensive language. Well, i have good reasons to do so. But here you are, and you have completely crushed the flat earth hoaxers with the brilliant use of language, and not one word would ever be considered rude. Well done !
it is. I mean, they keep pushing their bullsh!t with 0 evidence and with a lot of evidence to the contrary. It IS a religion. Just not a cunning one: religions are smart enough NOT to present any testable claim about magic. Flat Earth is being tested 24/7, and it keeps failing.
Well, I heard the first "point," and I'm stopping to post. This claim is easily disproved by the fact that the Sun and Mercury are each visible from half of the Earth's surface, but these two hemispheres do not perfectly overlap except when Mercury, Earth and the Sun are in a straight line. Therefore: most of the time there must be four parts to the earth's surface: (1) the part where the hemispheres overlap (Mercury visible and it is daytime); (2) the part where neither Mercury nor the Sun is visible; (3) the part where the Sun is visible but Mercury is not; and (4) the part where the Sun is not visible but Mercury is. If you are in part (4), the Sun has set but Mercury has not ("evening star"), or Mercury has risen ("morning star") but the Sun has not.
Yeah, these are the same kind of people who stay seated during the entire ride in a TGV, because they're afraid they will be hurled to the nearest wall at 300 km/h if they don't.
@@Apollorion "I think most flat earthers don't understand" This is a given for pretty much every argument on flat earth. Im currently explain why a pressure gradient has hi pressure next to lo without a container, and all the guy has done is repeat the question for 3 days.
@@Apollorion To those who find flat earthers foolish, those people are a never ceasing carousel of amusement to Flat-Earthers such as myself, who delight in observing the consternation of those with enough knowledge to know the earth is round, but not enough sophistication to understand which side of the fishbowl they are on. REPLY
Quick question: would a flat earth spin like a coin that has been flipped or would it spin like a tossed pizza dough. I think the coin option might be exciting! Thanks for another great video!
Like a coin would be much closer to the beliefs of the ancient civilizations. They had the Sun travel across the sky in a more or less straight path, then, travel under the Earth to rise on the opposite side in the morning.
@@Kualinar That's a sensible model when you haven't discovered a very large section of the planet yet. As it is refined, the surface is demonstrated to be convex, and extended to meet all around. Hello sphere.
Frank Vincent meh, like a coin (tumbling over itself) would leave too much of a difference in speed of rotation between places... and even a full line across that has zero speed of rotation. Although, even the pizza dough rotation isn't great either: it has way too much rotation near the edge as compared to the more central areas. In fact, i don't think there's ANY way to explain star trails at the equator... besides a spherical shape, that is. :-)
Instead of trying to convince others, why don't flat earthers just take the next step, treat their theory as established fact, and raise funds for a flat earth mapping project? I'm sure every logistics company would love to save money with more efficient routes. There's a huge market they leave on the table.
@@robertcarroll5036 No no, that was just another attempt at proving the rough shape of the Earth. I want to see them go "Okay, we are done debating. We know we're right, so let's get some geodetic survey equipment to create the most detailed world map ever made, down to the last square millimeter"
Likewise, I'd love to challenge a flat earther pilot to a long-distance fight contest. They should have a huge advantage over someone flying in an useless curve, right? Unfortunately none of these flat earth pilots seem to exist though.
10: Flat-earthers can't think in 3D? What a shock. 9: *_WHOOPS!!!_* 8: And their argument is all washed up. 7: Thanks, Bob! 6: The reason this argument is wrong goes over their heads... 5: Do flat-Earthers even know how to operate a camera properly? 4: I'll take that as a "no." 3: This argument is just plane stupid. 2: M.A.G.E. II says otherwise. 1: Is it, though?
It is always funny how flatlings panic and resort to babble their slogans like mantras when, after they claim "but I would have to feel the earth spinning, that I am moving with 1000 mph", you retort with "please tell me, when you drive in your car with 50 mph and fly in a plane with 500 mph, do you really feel a fundamental difference? A difference that you are TEN times as fast?". They have to deny the simplest of observations they experience THEMSELVES, that they HAVE experienced. You can see them desperately looking for a means how they can find a way to continue lying to themselves.
The example I always use is: You're inside a train, travelling at 80mph. You jump up. Do you immediately fly to the back of the train and break all your bones?
"That is not really a hard thing to work out" Come on, wolfie3010, you should know that these truth seekers can't even dump water out of a boot with instructions on the heel
@@jeremyblade7561 They DO know how to read. The problem is that, when reading, they latch on some words or expressions that could be misinterpreted in a way that could support their narrative, and don't look further. Also, being able to read do not mean being able to understand what they are reading.
If water didn’t curve then the Panama Canal wouldn’t need locks. But sea level differs on either side so locks are needed for ships to rise or fall to the needed level.
That's not true actually. Look at a map and contour map of the Panama canal, it rises through locks to the man made Gatun lake 85 feet above sea level then drops back down to sea level through another set of locks.
Interesting. I checked the Panama Canal info page and it says this. “ Not commonly known is the fact that the two oceans have different sea levels, and different levels of high tide. At the entrance to the Panama Canal, the Pacific Ocean can rise as much as 20 feet, but 45 miles away, the difference between high tide and low in the Atlantic is just three feet.” So sea levels are different. And the tide heights are different as well so locks are needed but maybe the land elevation changes require even more locks then. I’ll have to go check that now. And I’ll have to find what the sea level differences are. Is it inches or cm or yards/meters? Cool. I like having to check these things out. Regardless, water is still curving and not level though.
@@chrisconnors7418 The design is Clever in that by creating an artificial lake a massive, perhaps impossible amount, of excavation was avoided. The Suez canal also has a small sea level difference but needs no locks. "Studies conducted by the Suez Canal Company (1884, 1906, 1919, 1936) proved that the mean sea level of the Red Sea is higher than that of the Mediterranean Sea in winter. This difference reaches its maximum of c. 30 cm in January every year." The Suez canal doesn't have the huge tidal differences between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans at the Panama canal, but that's still only a maximum of about 20 feet in 40 miles, which is less drop than the Mississippi river.
I think that “trust your sense” can be one of the most idiotic arguments they use for a flat Earth. Hallucinations, are the things you are seeing actually real? Memory loss, if you forget something, does it really mean that it never happened in the first place? Object permanence, if I can’t see it, that doesn’t mean it phased out of existence. Odorless gasses, if I can’t smell it, does that really mean I’m not actually inhaling any chemicals? Do I really need to go on? The sense of touch, you think you are physically touching an object, but if you go down to the atomic level, the atoms aren’t actually making physical contact with each other. We use tools, machines, and science to observe things that we cannot accurately measure with our senses.
best argument i can come up with is: flat earther: that sphere picture of earth is CGI! globe earther: oh yeah? where is your "real" picture of flat earth?
This is common missunderstanding that people think fisheye lens(wide angle lens) curve things. What ever is on midle focus point dosnt curve at all. More side way your target goes,more it transforms.
Going back a number of years, a Dubey type said he believed the ground was expanding and contracting which gave the illusion of tides. A definite need for face palm protection on that one.
It is funny that he said the belief in a globe earth is a religious belief, but isn't that the whole reason flat earth exists? Because God said so in the bible.
To be fair I think they're just trying to say that "belief in a globe" is no different than "belief in flat earth" - except of course they must have the right belief cos it says so in the Bible. ( even tho it doesn't )
If an ant is in my car and I’m driving 60 miles an hour the Ant is not gonna be able to tell that he’s moving at all. To him he’s just simply climbing around a car. Hence why we don’t feel like we are spinning. On scale to earth, we are tiny.
Of course their #1 reason is "common sense". I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, these people's whole world view is dependent on the truth being self-evident. It has to be, because they want their personal feelings to dictate how politics and society operate. That's why they're so bad at proving anything, because the whole idea is antithetical to how they see the world (of course, the fact that what they're trying to prove isn't true doesn't help, but the problem goes beyond that).
I do like the definition used for religious belief: any belief without sufficient evidence. Soooo... every superstition is a religion and so is being antivaxx and so is being a flat earther. No worship or supernatural required, just a handful of thinking errors and fallacies to come to whatever conclusion that doesn't conform to actual evidence and to reality and we call it a religion. Brilliant. He should talk to Kent; he seems to have a similar definition. Kent even goes a step further and calls it dangerous and cultist.
It absolutely is a cult. Same progressive immersion in more and more advanced degrees of crazy, same preaching that the believers are a privileged few who stand above the herd and can see some upcoming apocalypse, same blind devotion to their leaders, same encouragement to shun "corrupt" outside sources of news and get all their info from cult-approved sources (usually Fox)
Since the flat earth community cannot draw a simple scale map of a flat earth then they have no idea about the true shape of their flat earth. They can only offer their personal opinions expressed from ignorance.
@@edhaynes4107 Indeed. Along with being terrible at maths and physics, they are also can't seem to grasp relative motion, spatial relationships, and scale. I think they are really bad at drawing as well. Effectively they just think in 2 dimensions and perceive everything as ultimately a binary construct. If they don't understand HOW something is TRUE, then it must be FALSE. And they all seem to have a desperate need to feel special, whether that means associating with "god' ( and being special because of that), or just being certain that they have discovered some cosmic secret missed by millions of others ( and of course feel righteously persecuted as 'prophets in a strange land'. They treat almost every problem in isolation, so of course they never actually prove anything...they spend all their time and energy trying to disprove this or that. If they don;t believe ( believe being the operative word) that something is 'A' then it must be 'NOT A'....and that's all there is to it: If the Earth isn't a sphere, it must be a 'not-sphere' which would be something flat. Why is it flat? How big is this flat Earth? What shape is it? What forces or influences causes it to be flat, what influence does its flatness have on other objects and systems? They are too stupid and lazy and fearful to attempt to address such concerns.
I have seen the odd flerf who thinks the earth actually is a rectangle like the Mercator map (because "bible mentions four corners of the earth"), but most of them seem to subscribe to some form of Gleason.
The only flat earth model presented as a square I know was that of the Maya, actually IS that of the Maya; when performing ancient rituals they build a square table representing the earth and the sky above it.
"Thanks Bob". It never gets old 🤣.
15° per hour drift. Way to go, Bob !☺️😂🤣
Interesting!
Nope! Never Ever!!!
🕛😅🤣😆🌏🌎🌍
It really does not get old.
I can't help but thanking Bob every single time, so insightful xD
Oh here it is: THANKS BOB! :D
"a....15 degree per hour drift"
"Thanks Bob"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He'll be hearing that until the day flat earth is finally dead and buried.
@@Angel-nl1hp Thought-provoking as i try to be,
may i ask my fellow atheists who dived-into the Atheist-Community-and-such if they ever considered Socialism? I was surprised myself how biased i was and how much Stigma was pushed into my mind when i watched 'Socialism for Beginners' by 'Second Thought'.
I always agreed that Capitalism is just outdated to the point of Harmfullness, as 'Some More News' explains very well
in his video 'Capitalism vs Corona' but i simply did not know how much Bias i did had.
@@loturzelrestaurant think about it like this... Should a doctor really be getting the same pay as someone who works as a janitor
@@TimeMasterOG Does Socialism say so?
No. Maybe watch the CITED CHANNEL Befoooore asking a question you think is a gotcha-question.
@@loturzelrestaurant its not a "gotcha question" just a general question
Bob's 15 degree howler never gets old and neither does thanking him, thanks Bob! 👍
Scimandan does it a lot its great!
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 Yes I watch him also 🥰😉
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 Also loving the name
Thought-provoking as i try to be,
may i ask my fellow atheists who dived-into the Atheist-Community-and-such if they ever considered Socialism? I was surprised myself how biased i was and how much Stigma was pushed into my mind when i watched 'Socialism for Beginners' by 'Second Thought'.
I always agreed that Capitalism is just outdated to the point of Harmfullness, as 'Some More News' explains very well
in his video 'Capitalism vs Corona' but i simply did not know how much Bias i did had.
Thanks Bob!
The earth isn’t flat because the oceans don’t curve. It’s flat because they are not carbonated.
now i really want to swim in a fizzy ocean
@@kamielzeegers8106 no you don't, you would sink as a brick, even Phelps would sink in a fizzy ocean or whatever body of water.
the fizzyness lowers the density of water. Ships are known to have sunk, when layers of carbonhydrate stored in the bottom of the sea suddenly desolves in the water, creating a boiling sea.
Come to think; when someone build a hottub as large as an average pool people would drown as soon as the bubbles are turned on.
I see what you did there.
@@kamion53 that sounds absolutely terrifying. Way to kill my newfound dreams with reality ..
@@kamion53 apparently this effect isnt as bad as you might think, you can swim in those bubble chambers that they use in sewage treatment centres, and they are crazy strong. Kyle hill did a video on it, worth a watch. I was suprised
5:29 It's also funny how flat earthers also only do experiments once and perform them very briefly. They always do the zoom in on ships and the sun to observe that they're not quite at or over the horizon, but don't continue the observation which shows them going over the horizon over time.
With all those „experiments“ of that kind, it’s practically impossible that they all got the timing right to get their desirable results just by accident. They have to plan for the timing, which means that they know what will happen if they don‘t. And that’s the reason why I am pretty much convinced that at least most of the flerf youtubers are in for the cash per click while knowing very well that their videos are trash.
@@christianosminroden7878 _"... impossible that they all got the timing right to get their desirable results just by accident."_
Could be and it is also likely. But it could also be that they discard all observations with show the opposite. Because they "know" in their deepest corners of their hearts that the earth is flat and all contradictory findings must be somehow wrong. They do their experiments as long as they get the desired results. This applies IMHO to the "hobby" FE "supervisors".
A good example who support this assumption are some christian scientists. Even geologists with PhD who are sure that earth is just a couple thousands years old because their scripture says so. And radiometric dating is a bunch of flaws. I am convinced they really believe what they say, even if they should know better.
But that does not mean that some full-time opinion leaders know that they are wrong and just do it for profit by taking advantage of some gullible.
@@christianosminroden7878 There's a line in a book I read as a child that's really stuck with me--to the effect that good liars can convince others, but great liars can also convince themselves. I think for at least some of them, they genuinely don't notice the mental swerves and editing they're doing to avoid experiencing even a moment of doubt.
It drives me nuts when they talk about ships over horizon. Just stay focused on it and you will see it going over the horizon
"No one has seen the curvature."
You know, except for when I looked across Lake Michigan. Oddly, I couldn't see the Chicago docks.
I live within walking distance of the Dutch west coast and am no stranger to the water horizon of the North Sea. Yet in all my life, I have never seen the UK coast at said horizon, not even with a telescope. When I asked flerfs about it, all I got was "haze" or some mambo-jumbo about perspective that made no sense.
I used to look out at Lake Michigan and estimate wave heights by how crinkly the horizon was. The horizon is the curve.
I spent a lot of time out in the middle of the ocean in my Navy days and was able to make out the curve on a regular basis.
@@goldenknight578 Such an indoctrined comment that is dumb.
@@vapenshred But he is actually right. If you travel accross the ocean regularly you will always see the top of the skyline of cities appear first. Or if you have a lighttower build on a cliff you will see the lighttower before the cliff.
So obviously if someone spends a lot of time on the ocean he knows that the earth is round... he also uses navigational tools that wouldn't even work on a flat earth. On a flat earth you could navigate using polaris everywhere on the planet, now try that on the actual earth.
Also… speaking as someone who actually photographed a *whole* sunset, I can guarrantee eventually you’ll get a half-gone sun. No matter how much you zoom…
Only for about two minutes, though.
yeah. And what would you comment, if you were a NASA-paid shill hoaxer? You would comment exactly what you did comment.
:- )
@@istvansipos9940 all you need is a clear sky, a camera, and a sunset…
This is such a common occurrence I can't believe flerfers even TRY to pretend it doesn't happen.
This is what baffles me the most - there is lots of footage out there showing everything nicely cut in half (not only the sun, ships too), and if you live at the coast, you can see it even with your own eyes (protecting your eyes with welding glass if you try to look at the sun), but they always pretend that it ain't so (and show abysmal footage that only proves that they have no clue about properly taking photos and videos).
Oh, the last one was DEFINITELY the most compelling! "It just IS flat, okay? Trust me bro." 🤦♀️
The argument that "It's just common sense", can also be described as "An argument from incredulity".
It is at least good that they are admitting to their logical fallacies.
with the "Proof the earth is spinning" thing I thought "Oh yeah the sun maybe?" then i realised that flat earthers don't pay attention in class.
I'm an American and lived in Wellington for a few years, and I was surprised how hard it was to shake the feeling that I was upside down, and could easily fall off the planet. You know, because if you live in the northern hemisphere, it's the southern hemisphere that's upside down. Weird how the moon looked different, too.
I love how flat Earthers always think “up” is north. Since Earth is tilted about 60 degrees to the Galactic Equator, relative to the Milky Way East would be more “up” than North.
And North wasn't even always up on maps. In fact, South was usually up on the first maps made.
Flat Earthers have habit of see think too literally, that is why they can just go and say "if the Earth is a spheres, the people on the underside of the Earth would fall out into space"
@@shikniwho7215 Yes. One of the worst "proofs" of a flat Earth was a guy using a model airplane and a model globe to "show" that the aeroplane was upright when it left the Northern hemisphere and upside down when it arrived in the Southern hemisphere.
How he could overlook that the wheels pointed down towards the Earth the whole "flight" is still beyond me.
All he could do to test (and dismiss) his own theory was to to go on a trans-equatorian flight, bring a plum bob and let it hang from his hand from time to time, demonstrating that it would always point towards the floor no matter the plane's geographical position during that flight.
@@sneakyfox4651 even more stupid is how they believe the freemasons and world government have been brainwash and hide the truth for decades, from made sky project to hide the true sun, build a fake moon's set to film the moon landing, project the ISSS in the sky....
yet "they" can't seem to able to control information floating on the internet. Like how flat earthers keep using the footage of Neil Armstrong and other as proof the moon landing is fake because "they clearly feel guilty to lied to so many people"
@@sneakyfox4651 I have seen a fly land upside down on the ceiling. I am surprised the flerfs haven't used this as an argument yet. Perhaps I shouldn't give them ideas.
It's cute how flerfs explain how "we cannot be seeing that" when it's visibly _right there._
""trust your senses" !!
It's amazing how Flerfs, who don't even understand map projections, can assert that they know more about the shape of the Earth than Wolfie6020--an international pilot. This is akin to the lager lurgy conspiracy theorist, who, despite the fact that he knew nothing about medical issues, told me that it was impossible to get a virus infection.
He never got his money, did he?
@@cy-one No. And, despite repeatedly showing Flat Earthers actual evidence, these people still insist that Wolfie6020 is a liar.
Flerfs are essentially a cult and for them any admission of fallibility is heretical.
@@clemstevenson Oakley actually wanted to get Wolfie fired.
@@maxwellshammer5283 Oakley's egocentrism is astonishing. Nathan Oakley makes entirely unsupported claims, and insists that they are the real facts. Wolfie can't even persuade idiots like Oakley that they are wrong, by showing them the genuine observable facts.
8:21 I love how he says the curve is a purely religious belief, when one of the biggest arguments flat earthers say is that the bible says the earth is flat.
Funny thing is, I have actually had Christian folk claim that ancient Christians didn't believe the earth was flat, apparently to avoid looking like a bunch of idiots.
Oh, it's sv3rige, the guy who eats rotten raw meat for a living. He must really know a lot about science and what shape the Earth really is 😅
I thought it sounded like him, I just know him as the guy who said that a man not being attracted to a 15 yo girl was mentally ill. He makes me ill, not just mentally
5:11 I hope this guy also tried zooming the Sun into focus after it set completely!
zooming into the sun at night? lol wtf
@@purefoldnz3070 Tell me what you don't understand about my point, Mr. Flerf :)
@@CarinaPrimaBallerina wait, I thought you were the flerther
@@purefoldnz3070 Lol, how on Earth did you arrive at that conclusion?
@@CarinaPrimaBallerina you can read your comment as pro flerther or against.
The debunk of curved water argument was brilliant
JMTruth once claimed that an SR-71 flying at Mach 3 would have to push with 4g to follow the curve of the earth.
I got suspicios and calculated the radius that is required for such g-forces. I found that the SR-71, flying in 20 miles height, would have to fly around a 20 mile radius globe to achieve such g-forces.
Such is the amount of strawmanning the globe, off by a factor of 300...
And I even forgot that I forgot that the first negative g is compensated by gravity, so it would be a 5g-turn, so the strawman globe is even smaller.
Let me add a for to debunk number 5.
Go to the beach around sun set and then lay down on the "floor" and wait until the sun is gone, then stand up and see the sun again. Even better exaggerate it. right after standing up climb a ladder and see that you still have like 4 more minutes of sun set, when it was already gone once.
The only mathematically geometrical figure that can make something like this happen is a sphere. This absolutely does not work on a flat plane, you could bring the sun back into picture with and IR camera if flat, but this does not happen and can not be done, because of curvature.
works best at a beach, over looking the sunset onthe water, and a tall building you can ride an elevator up on... but yea. somehow - it becomes visable again, the same size, and spot, just by changing altitude. Odd, on a flat earth, if it were just "going further away and getting smaller" this altitude change, wouldn't matter, but in reality.. it does.
And don't forget to take binoculars/camera with zoom to also confirm that zooming in does nothing to make the sun re-appear, but going up does.
@@ABaumstumpf Don't look directly into the sun, especially with binoculars or a camera.
@@M4RC90 I mean - would that really be a loss of a flatard did it? :D
But yes - i was thinking about using them AFTER the sun has set, just to see that you can not bring it back into view with magnification.
@Errickfoxy On a flat earth you should actually see less far if you are higher up. Since the only thing that makes you not see everything are athmospheric disturbances, so if you move up to see something at sea level you are farther away from it. So ships as an example would not have a mast for spotting, because moving up on a ship would actually make it less likely to see things (although the difference would be minimal).
It is said that the human brain is incapable of feeling pain.
After seeing these top 10 reasons, I beg to differ.
No flat Earth argument has ever made me question the shape of the Earth, even briefly. Plenty have made me question the Enlightenment Project, the quest to educate the populace and make them smarter. Fortunately, I remember flat Earthers are a tiny minority and the world can run without them.
To those who find flat earthers foolish, those people are a never ceasing carousel of amusement to Flat-Earthers such as myself, who delight in observing the consternation of those with enough knowledge to know the earth is round, but not enough sophistication to understand which side of the fishbowl they are on.
I always thought stuff weights less at the equator because the Earth is not a sphere but an ellipsoid. But thinking about it, the ellipsoid shape happens due to the rotation, which already boils down to centrifugal force.
Welp, may be obvious to others, but I learned something new today. Thank you!
Sir Bedevere knew the earth to be banana shaped, and he should know, because he proved a witch weighs as much as a duck.
@@simonwaugh5519
Cavendish also recognized the banana/gravity relationship.
Well Both - the earth is very slightly ellipsoidal due to the rotation, which means that the surface-level is slightly further away and thus slightly less gravity.
Correct. It's both.
When you measure the exact force of acceleration due to gravity at any given location, you apply corrections for latitude, or rotation, and for elevation or distance from the Earth's centre.
Once again, this is one that flerfs don't like hearing about, since there's no such thing as gravity 😉
@@ABaumstumpf But your weight is lower at the equator regardless. The sum of forces on you is mostly the sum of centrifugal and gravitational forces if you use newtonian mechanics. Due to the formula for the centrifugal force it is obviously 0 at the poles and not 0 at the equator. There is likely also an impact on the force of gravity due to earths imperfect shape (or you being not at sea level), but this likely isn't that impactful. Even the highest centrifugal forces reduce acceleration only by 0,03m/s2 or about 0,3%.
For any one wanting to find the globe: First off do some maths to see just how little difference 8" x Miles^2 makes when you take into account perspective. It looks flat because it is so close to actually being flat thanks to the Earth being almost 42,000,000 times as wide as a 1 foot ball. So to see the effects of the curve we need miles and miles of distance and something nice and large we can see at that distance. An off-shore wind farm would do quite nicely, and I get good results at about 11 miles from the wind farm.
.
If you can travel, then a visit to the Equator on the Equinox would be eye opening and nice and warm. Seeing the Sun go staright up from due East to overhead and then straight down to due West should pose the question where will the Sun go over the next 12 hours, and how is it overhead for people elsewhere on the flat Earth. Surely it should have headed around to the North to get to the other side of the flat Earth.
.
If you can travel and don't mind the cold, a trip to New Zealand and a December Antarctic Cruise would be a nice way to see some penguins and the 24 hour Sun, singular that is, not just a bright sky, or a strange smear bouncing off a supposed dome.
.
That should do for starters.
First, using the 8 inches x mile^2 results in some funky math after a few miles... (10 mile distance causes a 800 inch drop... 100 mile distance causes a 8,000 inch drop.... 1,000 mile distance causes 8,000,000 inch drop)
@@aralornwolf3140 On land you'll need a good vantage point to see more than a handful of miles. If you use the sea then it seems to end after a handful of miles. So in normal life a 6 foot drop at 3 miles is only 0.04 degrees. If you pick your spots you can use that funky math to see the effect of the curve as I said.
@@sthurston2 ,
If you use an inaccurate formula, you will get an inaccurate result, which they then use to say "Earth isn't Globe!"...
@@aralornwolf3140 In my experience they don't bring up the slight inaccuracy. They use the approximation inappropriately and then declare it can't be a globe cause it doesn't match the stupid answer they calculated. Such as standing on a beach 10 feet above the water level and declaring the small island 20 miles away should be hidden by the curve according to 8"xMiles^2.
"8 inches per mile squared" is not the calculation for determining the Earth's curvature. Flat Earthers just say it is so when you use it and get an answer that makes no sense, they then claim that it proves there is no curvature.
The formula "8 inches per mile" is correct. However, it is only correct for the first mile. If you figure for two miles, you have to take into account that the downward drop from observer's location is greater in the second mile than in the first because the second mile is further along the curve than the first mile was. In other words, as you continue around the circle, the arc of the circle described by that particular mile is pointing more downward (is more vertical), and therefore dropping a greater amount.
If you are understandably having trouble visualizing this, then consider that at the top of the circle at the first mile, the 1-mile arc is nearly horizontal and drops very little, only about 8 inches over the 1-mile length of the arc. But an arc near that is near to 90 degrees (the equator) has a 1-mile length of arc is nearly vertical and so drops nearly a mile with respect to the observer's location. As you proceed around the circle from the first mile on, the drop increases for each new mile. So clearly the formula can't be 8 inches per mile. But the drop is also not exponential, so neither is it 8 inches per mile squared. Therefore, you have to use a more complex formula to account for that ever-increasing drop - the formula scientists actually use.
The formula is as follows: y = sqrt(r^2 - x^2) - r
Where y = the amount of curvature (or drop)
r = radius of the Earth
x = the distance for which you want to determine curvature
(this is the only number that changes for each calculation)
^2 = squared (since I can't use exponential notation here)
sqrt = square root
And since the curvature is measured in inches, all the measurements must be in inches, so:
r = 4000 miles, or 21,120,000 feet, or 253,440,000 inches
1 mile = 5280 feet, or 63360 inches
So, for the drop for the first mile, the calculation is:
y = sqrt(253,440,000^2 - 63360^2) - 253,440,000
= -7.92 inches (negative indicates it's a drop, not a rise)
For the curvature after two miles, the calculation is:
y = sqrt(253,440,000^2 - 126720^2) - 253,440,000
= -31.68 inches
Continue this along and you get:
Miles Inches of curvature (or drop from the observer's position)
3 -71.28
4 -126.71
5 -198.00
6 -285.12
7 -388.08
...and so on.
"Common Sense" tells me to listen to the scientists, not the flerfers! Thank you, Planarwalk, for a good vid!
Better yet, "common sense" tells me that the sun has to go somewhere at night, when I can no longer see it (even ancient Greeks were smart enough to think about it). So, what is below the horizon, how does it get to the other side? Their pizza-model with a local sun always above it doesn't make any sense at all. (I get it that very ancient tribes had only a very limited experience of how big earth is, as they couldn't travel that far, but nowadays?)
@@c.augustin Are you even being serious? We can't see the sun at night time because we are facing away from it. Common sense tells me that you are scientifically illiterate...
funny thing is that my Panasonic FZ82 can autofocus on planets at full zoom but much more expensive P900 and P1000 have difficult time in auto with that when i tested them
remember this, a tool is only as effective as the fool who use it. :)
@@snapperjessen or the tool who uses it... 😉
@@dorkangel1076 cool
*whispers, "They way they go on with sextants and other stuff that *requires* the Earth to be spherical, I think they are already aware of that best argument."
How FEs wiggle around regarding celestial navigation (and the sextant in general) is funny. Navigation (no matter which means are used) and geolocation (using all angles N/S and W/E) as a whole completely destroys their narrative, but they still think that they can confuse their dumb followers enough so that those can't see it. Hilarious.
"I would like to see an argument that makes me think for a second" that is asking way to much from flat earthers. I mean, between all of them that there are, even all combined, they have never come close to thinking for a full second.
Too much. Is it asking too much for you to learn to spell?
It should make him think for a second. Otherwise he just disregards their arguments based on their position. "I don't listen to your argument because I disagree with your conclusion."
@@1996Pinocchio No. It doesn't require thinking for even a second, because it is clearly and objectively wrong. It is easy to know and understand why. It doesn't require you to think about it. Because we already know for a fact they are wrong. Only an argument that is decent deserves being thought about. And it is impossible to have a decent argument for flat earth.
@@stefanfrankel8157 Oh my god, a single O was missing from a single word, such travesty. That is more of a typo or grammatical error. When typing fast you don't always hit the second O, and don't always go back and get it. Does change the point.
@@zogar8526 Well, I would say that if you've heard the argument several times, then you can disregard it within a second. But a new argument should make you think. As I said, I think it's wrong to disregard the argument, just because you don't agree with the conclusion. How would you ever change your mind about anything, if you disregard anything that gives the wrong conclusion. After all, that's exactly what most flat earthers would do if they saw this video.
When I was 5 or 6 my father flew from the east coast of the US to London for business. When he got back he took my globe and a ball of yarn and we did a fun experiment where he asked how I thought the plane would have flown from point A to point B. He took the yarn and showed how actually the shortest route took him over Greenland (Iceland? This was 30+ years ago) and he was so excited he got to fly over glaciers. If this can be demonstrated to a 6-yo I don’t get how flat earthers are so incapable of seeing it.
Simple. They've had years of practice denying reality and only seeing what they want to see.
Children are innocent of self deceptions like those and soak up new amazing facts like a sponge. They prefer the amazing wonder called _REALITY._
I have taken one of those non existent flights from Melbourne, Australia to Santiago in Chile. The only land I crossed was Australia, New Zealand and Chile. It did take us hours longer to get back, so maybe the Earth is fl...... no wait we came back via Sydney and missed our connecting flight from Sydney to Melbourne.
@@robertcarroll5036 I think you've just given one reason why Flat Earth believers get it wrong even with all the facts available to them. They just can't make the connection! 🤔😄
+fishogynist, writes _"If this can be demonstrated to a 6-yo I don’t get how flat earthers are so incapable of seeing it."_
Your typical six-year old has a much higher level of cognitive ability than a flerf.
They are capable but unwilling. They need the t-shirt sales, I mean, who's going to give them a real job?
let me add a little bit more on number 1. Common sense it not science, common sense is not proof. Common sense, contrary to itself it's not common. Common sense it's relative to the region, country culture, continent, etc. Common sense is not an argument by itself.
I though that was all common sense.
@@simonwaugh5519 I see what you did there, have my like lol
Also remember that flerfs also think that north is up and south is down.
So when they say that common sense goes right out the window.
Great channel, Mike Clevenger’s son is so smart…jk found this through scimandan and I’m glad I did, love the content.
Me too! I’m a huge fan of SciManDan and so glad I found Planarwalk 🤗
One of the argument I hate the most from flat-earther is their "common sense" / "your sense tells you its flat" one. The world we live in goes beyond our senses, that is why we use measuring device to get a better idea of our universe. But when you do so, the earth is obviously flat. The only way to make the earth flat is to restrict our view of our world to even less than what our weak senses can feel
Yes, it's like they think their senses are infinitely accurate and cannot be fooled. I once asked one how he would even notice a 0.04 degree drop of the horizon at sea level without any reference point, but no sensible answer ever came, just multiple repeats of "8 inches per mile squared".
@@Angel-nl1hp yep, and if we ever use math like trigonometry, it's "tools invented by the devil to enslave humanity" or something 🤦
It's the very reason that our senses are so easily fooled that science even exists.
@@Angel-nl1hp ah, when flerfs are backed up to a corner, they'll recite their flerfs mantras and chants to feel safe. Still won't answer the question tho
"common sense" is unfortunately much less common as common sense would make you expect it was...
"Planes don't fly upside down". He'd have a real problem with "there is no 'UP' in space".
The expression, common sense, should NEVER be used in respect of phlat erfers.
Every time I hear flat-earthers talk, all I can think of is the Father Ted scene where Ted's teaching Dougal the difference between things being small vs far away.
That's a little advanced for them still.
"Flat Earthers really need to start thinking in 3D instead of 2D" they also need to start using actual *globes* instead of barely "spherical" balloons as their models of a "globe Earth." Dude, the thing was practically a cylinder!
I'd be happy, If they started thinking in any number of Ds. At all.
@@istvansipos9940 You beat me to it.... ;o) Thinking is certainly not their strong suit.
It's always amusing hearing "nobody has seen the earth curve" when the average person taking an international long haul flight on a newer aircraft (they fly a bit higher which makes it slightly easier) can fairly easily see it from a window seat at just under 40,000ft. My last transatlantics were at around 37,000ft and it was very noticeable with the naked eye even though it's only a slight curve
A P1000 can take quite good pictures of Saturn and it's rings.
If you know how to use and focus it, which rules out all the flerfs.
They can't even get the DISTANCE to MERCURY right . They don't seem to understand a MERCATOR Projection...
They generally don't understand the mere concept of projection, even if you shine it in their face, let alone particular ones.
Apropos: ruclips.net/video/i7X8ZnmLfM0/видео.html
To use "flat-earth" and "common sense" in the same sentence, is an oxymoron.
At 8:15… I don’t know if he was trying to debunk religion with this statement or….
“Nobody’s ever seen the curve therefore” 😳
The earth is not a sphere...
It's an oblate spheroid!
It's more a rather round dumbling
2:57 Is that a reference to Bill O'Reilly right? I love it!
I remember the first time I looked upon Venus from my own back yard with a shitty telescope. It was a brown out of focus round thing. As a 13 year old I didn't think that I had been lied to about the reality of planets, I just figured I had a shitty telescope that lacked focal ability. I was still 'over the moon' that I was looking at Venus with my own eyes! It was awesome! Later when I went to an observatory, I was blown away.
It's just so amazing that the FEs LIE openly for their belief and dont realise so many of us know it instantly.
What did you to when you found out it was NASA Shooting a guy to put a lit Ballon up there evetyday? ;-)
@@herzkine A "lit balloon" with a terminator that follows the sun's position and weather systems?
That is found exactly where Keplers orbital laws state it will be when you set up a scope? COOL!
@@herzkine nah, NASA hacked that shitty telescope to put the image of Venus into the lens. What do you mean it was completely electricity free and had no computers attached? NASA used Satan magic, obviously.
"Because the Earth is Flat" - Planarwalk 2:17 - watch this get taken out of context XD hahaha
Lol, I couldn't help thinking that too. 😂
I'm impressed with your dedication against the flat earth community, I get bored after a few weeks trolling them.
But it's so much fun I keep going back to troll some more 😂🤣
When I learned pratt was one of the insurrectionist supporters/sympathizers and realized the overlap in the two groups, I couldn't stop calling them all out as I see 'em.
I've come to realize that, as much as it is impolite and such to laugh about and at Flat Earthers, the alternative would be to get angry, ranting and raging. Nope, that's the Nathan Oakley method, and I've seen how he turned out.
@@bobblum5973 , is really impolite to laugh at flerfers? If that's true, then I must be extremely rude! I just thought that what flerfers and their religion were created for. My mistake. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@carolinusTG
Oh wow, is that true?
Of course.
It makes complete sense!
Go troll Eric Dubay on his channel here on youtube. I'm sure it will be as easy as it is to troll the ιdiot who eats rotten meat and stares at the sun, your boy Planarwalk knows how to pick the least intelligent and least sound minded individuals because he knows he can't do the same with people like Eric.
And there is the main problem with flat-earthers :
Always coming with claims to deny or disprove the globe (and fail everytime), but NEVER come up with any proof of flat-earth.
Flat-Earther : “Einstein, Newton, and every other scientist that has walked the Earth, and has done thousands of hours of research for hundreds of years are all wrong, and I am right…”
This is always so entertaining watching flerfs making fools of themselves.
It is like watching someone trying to PULL on a door for 3 hours when it clearly says “PUSH” right there on the door…
"Thanks Bob" will never get old
My favourite quote: Common sense is not as common as you think
I love how flat earthers use the argument "horizon is at Eye level." They don't even understand the definition of the word Horizon properly, in that it is the imaginary line where the surface of the Earth meets the sky. By definition, because the surface of the Earth is below eye level (assuming the person is standing), then so too is the Horizon. For the Horizon to be at eye level, that would mean the Earth has to Curve... It would have to curve upwards, but it still has to curve... And when they say "Horizon maintains eye level as you go higher in altitude" or how ever it is they word it, that would mean, the higher you go, the greater the Earth Curves upwards to meet your eye level...
If I recall correctly, while standing, the angle at which the horizon is below you, is half a degree, and that is not easily perceived by our eyes and brains, thus the brain interprets the information as "eye level."
a couple points
you can build a simple cheap device that visually demonstrates that the horizon is always below the horizontal, and the effect increases when you climb a hill. eg. a simple hollow u-tube filled with water will do.
second, many flat earth trolls say "horizon" means "horizontal", because the words have similar sections. it's numerolgy, with letters. and seriously, they seem to think that this is a "gotchs" argument
and, of course, "the horizon is always at eye level" is a blatant lie, which anyone can immediately verify to be false. blatant lies are the bread an butter of the flat earth scammers
And add the fact that, unless using specific tools, there is no reference frame to tell where is "eye level" so it is very hard to tell if it's below or not...
@@SylouCool You don't need fancy tools to get a rough estimate of where eye level is. Understanding that eyes are on average 5-6 inches from the very top of the head, someone who is 6 feet tall (72 inches) will have a rough eye-level of 66-67 inches above the Earth's surface, if said person is standing. Granted the person would have to be standing barefoot for it to be completely accuract, as feetwear does add height.
With the knowledge that the horizon is the imaginary line where the surface of the Earth meets the sky, and that the Earth's Surface is 66 inches below eye-level (using height of a 72 inch human from above paragraph), we can easily conclude that the Horizon is at minimum 66 inches below eye level. The Horizon for said person is roughly 3.1 miles away (assuming no obstructions and is standing at sea level). That's 16,368 feet from observer to horizon. The angle: 0.0228° which is 100% imperceptible by our eyes.
No fancy tools needed, basic math knowledge, and knowing how to google that which I couldn't remember.
@@deathsheir2035 i'm not talking about the math, this is easy and yes brain is the only "tool" needed here. But can you tell where eye level is when looking at the horizon without any tool and without knowing at which altitude you stand?
Horizon is a Greek word that means limiting, because it is the limit of what you can see.
Planarwalf 'you couldn't make this up!'
FLERFERS = Hold my beer!
I have no idea how people can debate against flatearthers, I couldnt do it as I would freak out or go insane with all their stupidity and they lack the ability to grasp even simple physics. Great video 👍🌍
They also:
Can't think logically
Can't understand scale
Can't think in 3D
Can't do math.
MCToon debates them, and it really shows why Sci Man Dan doesn't. It takes a right kind of attitude to approach them as mental punching bags rather than intellectual opponents. Debunking them a thousand times over does nothing, so MCToon's debates are more about driving them into the undeniable pitfalls in their own theories and not letting them escape by changing the topic.
@@TheRenofox that is so true
“Ride comes in, tide goes out, and we can’t explain that!”
Good reference
Radio propagation proves the earth is a globe
Glad you mentioned great circles. As a GIS programmer I can tell you that great circles are key to getting accurate coordinates on the globe. They are used to calculated shortest distance for ship travel, air travel, and terrestrial travel (car/bus/bicycle/etc). If the earth was flat you would use something called Manhattan distance to calculate the shortest distance between two points. If you were to use Manhattan distance for coordinate calculation and shortest distance calculation you would be wildly inaccurate beyond a very short range. I mention that on every single flat earther video, and I have yet had a single flat earther address it.
Wouldn't you use Euler distance? Manhattan doesn't make sense without any axis-aligned obstacles.
The Mercator projection argument is a good piece of evidence that most flerfers cannot be swayed by actual evidence. It's literally impossible to make a map that maintains both local angles and distances. That would be trivial if the Earth were flat. Instead they come up with maps that distort both distances and angles, then claim with zero evidence that we must be measuring angles and distances incorrectly.
When the even mention the Mercator, I tell them they just called God a liar...
I was dubious until he got to reason #1. That makes so much sense, I can't believe I never thought of it before. Count me firmly in the Flat Earth camp from now on, boys.
"We don't have an example of (water curving) in nature."
Ocean waves say hi.
Dew Drop also says hi, so does Rain Drop…
Tear drops are crying. 😥
As does every Elementary/Primary School science class observing water bending due to electromagnetic charge from a balloon or comb.
Every Flat Earth model I've seen shows the earth as a disc. So if one flew a camera into space, you would either see the curved edge of this disc, or the limited range on your camera would show an edge of vision that is a circular shape. So videos from space showing a "flat line" horizon wouldn't work on a flat earth either, if I'm not missing anything.
I wonder what sense they think allows us to determine the shape of a giant planet that you're on and why we would evolve that.
I really like your video. I have been spending literally years smashing flat earth trolls, and I gleefully use what many would consider to be horribly offensive language. Well, i have good reasons to do so.
But here you are, and you have completely crushed the flat earth hoaxers with the brilliant use of language, and not one word would ever be considered rude. Well done !
I thought the FLAT EARTH was RELIGIOUS VIEW...
it is. I mean, they keep pushing their bullsh!t with 0 evidence and with a lot of evidence to the contrary. It IS a religion. Just not a cunning one: religions are smart enough NOT to present any testable claim about magic.
Flat Earth is being tested 24/7, and it keeps failing.
0:48 - I photographed Mercury myself. I've seen it.
I've seen it too, just above the horizon. And it's only visible just after sunset or just before sunrise for a short time.
Well, I heard the first "point," and I'm stopping to post. This claim is easily disproved by the fact that the Sun and Mercury are each visible from half of the Earth's surface, but these two hemispheres do not perfectly overlap except when Mercury, Earth and the Sun are in a straight line.
Therefore: most of the time there must be four parts to the earth's surface: (1) the part where the hemispheres overlap (Mercury visible and it is daytime); (2) the part where neither Mercury nor the Sun is visible; (3) the part where the Sun is visible but Mercury is not; and (4) the part where the Sun is not visible but Mercury is. If you are in part (4), the Sun has set but Mercury has not ("evening star"), or Mercury has risen ("morning star") but the Sun has not.
Yeah, these are the same kind of people who stay seated during the entire ride in a TGV, because they're afraid they will be hurled to the nearest wall at 300 km/h if they don't.
Lmao, the argument about the oceans curving being obvious due to the tides is brilliant. I'd love to see a flat earther try and rebuke that one.
I think most flat earthers don't understand it, either because it's too difficult or because they just don't want to understand.
It’s already been called ” mother earth is breathing” i.e the ground is (at the coast?) heaving up and down. Without disturbing any plumb lines.
@@Apollorion "I think most flat earthers don't understand" This is a given for pretty much every argument on flat earth.
Im currently explain why a pressure gradient has hi pressure next to lo without a container, and all the guy has done is repeat the question for 3 days.
@@Apollorion To those who find flat earthers foolish, those people are a never ceasing carousel of amusement to Flat-Earthers such as myself, who delight in observing the consternation of those with enough knowledge to know the earth is round, but not enough sophistication to understand which side of the fishbowl they are on.
REPLY
@@grandrapids57 Which fishbowl?
I didnt realise that New Zealanders were paid actors as well. I thought us Australians were the only ones getting paid
Quick question: would a flat earth spin like a coin that has been flipped or would it spin like a tossed pizza dough. I think the coin option might be exciting! Thanks for another great video!
Like a coin would be much closer to the beliefs of the ancient civilizations. They had the Sun travel across the sky in a more or less straight path, then, travel under the Earth to rise on the opposite side in the morning.
Around which axis of rotation? Axis of rotation could be anywhere? I mean, hypothetically, if you ignore laws of physics.
I vote that it would spin like a hexaflexagon - toroidally. There's a hole in the middle they don't want you to know about! Conspiracy!!
@@Kualinar That's a sensible model when you haven't discovered a very large section of the planet yet. As it is refined, the surface is demonstrated to be convex, and extended to meet all around. Hello sphere.
Frank Vincent meh, like a coin (tumbling over itself) would leave too much of a difference in speed of rotation between places... and even a full line across that has zero speed of rotation.
Although, even the pizza dough rotation isn't great either: it has way too much rotation near the edge as compared to the more central areas.
In fact, i don't think there's ANY way to explain star trails at the equator... besides a spherical shape, that is. :-)
It's clear that the debate is over when you know the arguments of both sides better than they know their own alone.
Instead of trying to convince others, why don't flat earthers just take the next step, treat their theory as established fact, and raise funds for a flat earth mapping project? I'm sure every logistics company would love to save money with more efficient routes. There's a huge market they leave on the table.
They have done that. Remember the gyroscope and the 15 degree drift. That kit cost them $20,000 to only prove the the Earth is indeed spinning (oops).
@@robertcarroll5036 No no, that was just another attempt at proving the rough shape of the Earth. I want to see them go "Okay, we are done debating. We know we're right, so let's get some geodetic survey equipment to create the most detailed world map ever made, down to the last square millimeter"
Likewise, I'd love to challenge a flat earther pilot to a long-distance fight contest. They should have a huge advantage over someone flying in an useless curve, right?
Unfortunately none of these flat earth pilots seem to exist though.
My new favorite Kiwi expression is "a box of fluffy ducks". Will you work it into your next video?
Simple.....you gotta lie to flerf.
"We detected a 15 degrees per hour drift. Then we said, shit, we can't have that, that screws up our plan. Let's find ways to dispute this finding."
10: Flat-earthers can't think in 3D? What a shock.
9: *_WHOOPS!!!_*
8: And their argument is all washed up.
7: Thanks, Bob!
6: The reason this argument is wrong goes over their heads...
5: Do flat-Earthers even know how to operate a camera properly?
4: I'll take that as a "no."
3: This argument is just plane stupid.
2: M.A.G.E. II says otherwise.
1: Is it, though?
It is always funny how flatlings panic and resort to babble their slogans like mantras when, after they claim "but I would have to feel the earth spinning, that I am moving with 1000 mph", you retort with "please tell me, when you drive in your car with 50 mph and fly in a plane with 500 mph, do you really feel a fundamental difference? A difference that you are TEN times as fast?".
They have to deny the simplest of observations they experience THEMSELVES, that they HAVE experienced. You can see them desperately looking for a means how they can find a way to continue lying to themselves.
The example I always use is: You're inside a train, travelling at 80mph. You jump up. Do you immediately fly to the back of the train and break all your bones?
"That is not really a hard thing to work out"
Come on, wolfie3010, you should know that these truth seekers can't even dump water out of a boot with instructions on the heel
Give them some credit. If they could read they may have a chance.
Just tell them to prove the earth isn't spinning, they seem to get spill happy then.
@@jeremyblade7561 They DO know how to read. The problem is that, when reading, they latch on some words or expressions that could be misinterpreted in a way that could support their narrative, and don't look further. Also, being able to read do not mean being able to understand what they are reading.
@@jeremyblade7561 nah, i doubt they'll even understand visual instructions like those in airplanes. So reading won't change their chances that much
@@Kualinar Reading comprehension is a part of reading that eludes them. Spotting and maybe pronouncing a word isn't all there is.
Um, water dosent curve in nature eh? Well then, try filling a glass right to the top or google jumping spiders. They sometimes wear raindrops as hats.
Also, look at the top of a waterfall.
If water didn’t curve then the Panama Canal wouldn’t need locks. But sea level differs on either side so locks are needed for ships to rise or fall to the needed level.
That's not true actually.
Look at a map and contour map of the Panama canal, it rises through locks to the man made Gatun lake 85 feet above sea level then drops back down to sea level through another set of locks.
Interesting.
I checked the Panama Canal info page and it says this. “ Not commonly known is the fact that the two oceans have different sea levels, and different levels of high tide. At the entrance to the Panama Canal, the Pacific Ocean can rise as much as 20 feet, but 45 miles away, the difference between high tide and low in the Atlantic is just three feet.”
So sea levels are different. And the tide heights are different as well so locks are needed but maybe the land elevation changes require even more locks then. I’ll have to go check that now. And I’ll have to find what the sea level differences are. Is it inches or cm or yards/meters? Cool. I like having to check these things out. Regardless, water is still curving and not level though.
Don’t be silly. It needs locks otherwise some Scousers would steal it…
I thought they had to go up and down in elevation, using locks to make that possible. Wrong?
@@chrisconnors7418
The design is Clever in that by creating an artificial lake a massive, perhaps impossible amount, of excavation was avoided.
The Suez canal also has a small sea level difference but needs no locks.
"Studies conducted by the Suez Canal Company (1884, 1906, 1919, 1936) proved that the mean sea level of the Red Sea is higher than that of the Mediterranean Sea in winter. This difference reaches its maximum of c. 30 cm in January every year."
The Suez canal doesn't have the huge tidal differences between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans at the Panama canal, but that's still only a maximum of about 20 feet in 40 miles, which is less drop than the Mississippi river.
I think that “trust your sense” can be one of the most idiotic arguments they use for a flat Earth. Hallucinations, are the things you are seeing actually real? Memory loss, if you forget something, does it really mean that it never happened in the first place? Object permanence, if I can’t see it, that doesn’t mean it phased out of existence. Odorless gasses, if I can’t smell it, does that really mean I’m not actually inhaling any chemicals? Do I really need to go on? The sense of touch, you think you are physically touching an object, but if you go down to the atomic level, the atoms aren’t actually making physical contact with each other. We use tools, machines, and science to observe things that we cannot accurately measure with our senses.
#1 reason the earth is not a sphere: it's an oblate spheroid.
GOOD ONE!
5:50 I am quite nearsighted, and those misshapen blobs are very much like what I see without my glasses.
best argument i can come up with is:
flat earther: that sphere picture of earth is CGI!
globe earther: oh yeah? where is your "real" picture of flat earth?
Well, this dude's 10 points were actually quite weak. I don't get the impression that he's an intellectual giant, to put it mildly … 😁
This is common missunderstanding that people think fisheye lens(wide angle lens) curve things.
What ever is on midle focus point dosnt curve at all.
More side way your target goes,more it transforms.
P1000 is a decent camera used by bloody idiots however it's useless.
Oh and Thanks Bob👍
I have the p900 and the P1000.
Both seem to be faulty as, no matter how hard I hit the ground with them, the earth's curve simply won't go away :) .
I've just noticed, there are the cards Against the Humanity on the piano :D I remember lot's of drunk parties with those :D
"Thanks, Bob," has become a mantra.
Bob will go down in history.
I'd still love to hear any flat earther's response to that clip.
I never thought about tides on a flat earth... where do they think the water is going?
Going back a number of years, a Dubey type said he believed the ground was expanding and contracting which gave the illusion of tides.
A definite need for face palm protection on that one.
Dubay himself claimed tides were caused by the gentle rise and fall of the bosom of the great deep.
think? They don't think.
It is funny that he said the belief in a globe earth is a religious belief, but isn't that the whole reason flat earth exists? Because God said so in the bible.
Really? If you literally interpret the 'four corners' phrase, you could say it's a tetrahedron (aka a d4).
To be fair I think they're just trying to say that "belief in a globe" is no different than "belief in flat earth" - except of course they must have the right belief cos it says so in the Bible. ( even tho it doesn't )
@@tomkerruish2982 But it also says god stood above the circle of the earth. That damn book and its contradictions
How can they believe in a God they've never seen with their own eyes?
@@TheIrvy Do you believe in electrons, or neutron stars? Just saying that things aren't always as cut-and-dried as we like to think.
love the cross channel "thanks bob" meme
10 points for pronouncing the Eötvös effect correctly. :)
If an ant is in my car and I’m driving 60 miles an hour the Ant is not gonna be able to tell that he’s moving at all. To him he’s just simply climbing around a car. Hence why we don’t feel like we are spinning. On scale to earth, we are tiny.
Of course their #1 reason is "common sense". I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, these people's whole world view is dependent on the truth being self-evident. It has to be, because they want their personal feelings to dictate how politics and society operate. That's why they're so bad at proving anything, because the whole idea is antithetical to how they see the world (of course, the fact that what they're trying to prove isn't true doesn't help, but the problem goes beyond that).
I love your accent! I have a minnesota/Canadian accent and I lived in Germany, so no matter where I am people say I sound weird
If a ship disappears bottom first over the horizon, flatards obstruct their own view with their hands and chant "la la la, earth is flat".
Flerfers: Go to sea.
I do like the definition used for religious belief: any belief without sufficient evidence.
Soooo... every superstition is a religion and so is being antivaxx and so is being a flat earther. No worship or supernatural required, just a handful of thinking errors and fallacies to come to whatever conclusion that doesn't conform to actual evidence and to reality and we call it a religion. Brilliant. He should talk to Kent; he seems to have a similar definition. Kent even goes a step further and calls it dangerous and cultist.
It absolutely is a cult. Same progressive immersion in more and more advanced degrees of crazy, same preaching that the believers are a privileged few who stand above the herd and can see some upcoming apocalypse, same blind devotion to their leaders, same encouragement to shun "corrupt" outside sources of news and get all their info from cult-approved sources (usually Fox)
I wonder if those tiny spikes on his shoulder are a fashion statement or a loaded weapon?
I at least appreciate the flat earth guy saying these are reasons why he thínks the earth isn't a sphere
and his jacket has spikes.
I thought the same. At least he said it was his opinion rather than fact. The first hint of open mindedness I have ever seen from a flat earther lol
@@peteskyrunner4845 and his jacket has spikes
@@kamielzeegers8106 He wouldn't make a good pirate. Where would his parrot sit. Oh, I know, on his head, it isn't being used for much.
@@daveg2104 I like that you think in solutions instead of problems.
@@kamielzeegers8106 Probably to protect him against 5G, like lightning conductors.
BTW...ever notice that the flat-earth "model' is always presented as a disc? Why a disc? Why not a square, or some other polygon?
Since the flat earth community cannot draw a simple scale map of a flat earth then they have no idea about the true shape of their flat earth. They can only offer their personal opinions expressed from ignorance.
@@edhaynes4107 Indeed. Along with being terrible at maths and physics, they are also can't seem to grasp relative motion, spatial relationships, and scale. I think they are really bad at drawing as well. Effectively they just think in 2 dimensions and perceive everything as ultimately a binary construct. If they don't understand HOW something is TRUE, then it must be FALSE. And they all seem to have a desperate need to feel special, whether that means associating with "god' ( and being special because of that), or just being certain that they have discovered some cosmic secret missed by millions of others ( and of course feel righteously persecuted as 'prophets in a strange land'.
They treat almost every problem in isolation, so of course they never actually prove anything...they spend all their time and energy trying to disprove this or that. If they don;t believe ( believe being the operative word) that something is 'A' then it must be 'NOT A'....and that's all there is to it: If the Earth isn't a sphere, it must be a 'not-sphere' which would be something flat. Why is it flat? How big is this flat Earth? What shape is it? What forces or influences causes it to be flat, what influence does its flatness have on other objects and systems? They are too stupid and lazy and fearful to attempt to address such concerns.
I have seen the odd flerf who thinks the earth actually is a rectangle like the Mercator map (because "bible mentions four corners of the earth"), but most of them seem to subscribe to some form of Gleason.
The only flat earth model presented as a square I know was that of the Maya, actually IS that of the Maya; when performing ancient rituals they build a square table representing the earth and the sky above it.
because they are disc onnected from reality.
I think the sunset #5 video is a fake, glare or no glare. Most probably a "fast backward".